The A7SIII is a primary video camera above stills.
I was also impressed on how well he was able to focus through the net with the AF.Side note. I shoot a lot of volleyball (regular, not beach) and I'm loving the way he could shoot through the net with the R3. I've had pretty good luck with the 1DxIII (better than the 1DxII) shooting through the net, but it looks like the R3 is even better. "Canon, I just can't quit you."
The R3 battery, LP-E19, has nearly twice the mWh the R5 battery has.
I'm not disappointed about the R3 but I am hovering on the fence, waiting for full specs, so I can then make an informed decision about buying it, or not. We all want to see what its capabilities are and shortcomings, as well, if any. It may very well play out that I'll purchase and R5 instead. On the other hand, I might just buy the R3 regardless, knowing in the short run that if I determine its not the camera for me, it wouldn't be too difficult to sell it and get good market value for it, at least in the short term.
Even so, 16,000+ shots is way higher than I have gotten with a gripped R5, very impressive!
There is a thread dedicated to guessing the price of the R3 here, if you'd like to see the estimates of others:
www.canonrumors.com
Because I want to be in full control of my ISO and I want to adjust my exposure compensation without pressing a secondary button first. I've employed many talented shooters that use auto ISO that do not use exposure compensation effectively for this very reason.
I get that. My point being there are reasons to release lower MP cameras opposed to the person who insinuated Canon was living in 2015 or some such year with the R3 due to 24mp. It seems only Sony is allowed to have specialized cameras.
Good point. When I got the first 5DS I was surprised how it ate through battery power compared with the 5DII
Canon absolutely can have specialised cameras too, the issue for many though is that the A1 is already here, 50mp at 30fps (with compressed RAW) 20fps uncompressed RAW. Nikon have the Z9 coming soon with 45mp at 20pfs or more. A perception is being created that Canon should match those specs in another body that should be coming out at the same time as the R3. The R5 as good as it is, isn't the answer due to its slower sensor read out speed and rolling shutter.
It's more complicated than that. My 30 Mpx 5DIV burns through batteries compared with my 50 Mpx 5DSR, and the CIPA ratings for the 5DIV are 700 shots compared with 900 for the 5DSR. Power consumption by the processor etc is important. With my R5 when I am using EFCS and not taking bursts I get from a few hundred to 600 shots per charge. At 20 fps in ES I can easily get a couple of thousand, but very many identical. The guy with the R3 would have been firing away at 30 fps for only 9 minutes to chalk up his 16000. I am not going to actuate the R5 continuously to see how many I can get!
I half-press the shutter the instant I begin to bring the camera up to my eye and the camera is fully active by the time it gets there. Get into the habit of doing that and you won't hit the black wall! It's your technique not the camera that is the problem.
AlanF this is great advice. It took me a couple of weeks to adjust from a 1Dx MkIi to a R5 and this is exactly what I do when photographing wildlife with the R5. As long as one half pressed the shutter as one brings the camera to one's eye one will rarely miss a shot due to the slower response. Maybe Canon has removed this bottleneck in the R3 or at the very least reduced the lag time.
