Thoughts from members that own the R3 but bought the R5 MkII

[MSH411]

I rely mainly on detecting eye AF. I wonder how that scales with pixel size? I would guess guess in reasonable light the higher resolution would have the usual advantage but direct comparison by those who have the R5ii and R3 would be informative.

Agreed, the comparison would be informative and useful. I will end up with either an R3 or the R5 MkII at some point in the future. The grip for the R5 II would definitely be an addition.

Adding either one would be a good purchase, it's more of inquiring minds want to know.

 

[koenkooi]

Is it possible for the R3 to receive a firmware to more closely match the R5 II AF capabilities? Is the R3 faster because of the bigger battery like the 1-series was?

I’m on the fence about maybe getting a used or new R3 instead of the R5 II, but AF is the biggest priority in a camera for me.

If it gets one, it would undercut the messaging that the R5II AF is so awesome due to using a second Digic chip.

 

[Viggo]

If it gets one, it would undercut the messaging that the R5II AF is so awesome due to using a second Digic chip.

Tough choice this, and one I didn’t expect to make.. the difference between a slightly used R3 and a new R5 II is quite significant. And while people have always claimed AF system in the 5d3 and 5d4 was basically the same as the 1dx and 1dx2/3 it really wasn’t. The 1-series is something else, but that is a bit different between the R5 II and R3.

 

[koenkooi]

Tough choice this, and one I didn’t expect to make.. the difference between a slightly used R3 and a new R5 II is quite significant. And while people have always claimed AF system in the 5d3 and 5d4 was basically the same as the 1dx and 1dx2/3 it really wasn’t. The 1-series is something else, but that is a bit different between the R5 II and R3.

Getting back to your question about AF and battery, the R3 can drive the focus motors in some lenses faster due to the much higher voltage in the battery, which is separate from being able to detect and track a subject at a distance.

I know the R5II +100-500L can’t properly track a banking dragonfly at 4 meters, I can imagine being able to drive the lens faster would help.

 

[Viggo]

Getting back to your question about AF and battery, the R3 can drive the focus motors in some lenses faster due to the much higher voltage in the battery, which is separate from being able to detect and track a subject at a distance.

I know the R5II +100-500L can’t properly track a banking dragonfly at 4 meters, I can imagine being able to drive the lens faster would help.

Interesting for sure… my lenses are RF 50 L and RF 135 L, so historically fast aperture lenses have slower focusing the 1-series could really boost. Canon used to state this somewhere, but haven’t looked into if that’s the case with the R3 and those two lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

The price points are so similar now that it would be good to hear if one body excels beyond the other.

Excels in what way?

Cameras are tools. Some tools are more appropriate for some tasks, other tools work better for other tasks.

I'm sure the R5 Mark II does better for some types of photos and the R3 performs better for other types of photos.

Which tool is better all depends on what you want to do with it.

 

[Michael Clark]

With the release of the R5 II has Canon potentially negatively impacted the sales of the R3? Is the functionality so similar that people will opt for the new tech (saving a couple hundred) and sales will drop on the R3? And while I know each body has to some degree a different market, is the R3 still functionally a better camera.

And lastly will the decades old pattern continue and shortly will we realize a price reduction on the R3 because retailers and Canon are holding excess inventory?

I'd like to hear more on the topic but in this instance it is what I thought, the R5 II is nudging the R3 into obsolescence. It was phrased a bit dramatically in my post but that is what I meant by "Canon basically shot themselves in the foot".

Time has already nudged the R3 into "obsolescence" from a marketing/sales standpoint. That doesn't mean it's not a perfectly capable camera for many use cases, though.

The R3 has been available since 2021. Sales numbers have likely already dropped to very low levels, otherwise Canon would not have dropped the price the way they have. I highly doubt they will drop it much further before all existing R3 inventory is liquidated. I also doubt any additional R3 bodies will be manufactured. Nor do I see an R3 Mark II in the future. But I could be wrong about one or all of these things.

 

[Michael Clark]

I would agree with your theory regarding ROI but the bigger question is how many units were in inventory globally that could be impacted by the release of the R5 II? My interest in this is not to criticize Canon but to try and understand their model or strategy. If they have 10,000 units of the R3 globally (swag number) and the R5 II penetrates the R3 sales volume it could result in margin loss. The timing of the R5 II could have implications based on depreciated value on maintaining obsolete inventory. Is there a loss in overall margin?

You seem to be assuming if Canon had delayed releasing the R5 Mark II by a few months they could have sold those remaining "10,000" R3 bodies in short order. That's almost certainly a false assumption. They may have sold a few more of them, but they'll make a lot more on the R5 Mark II than the margin they might lose on a few remaining R3 in unsold inventory. Plus once the R1 is available, the used market will have plenty of used R3 bodies, so the number of new R3 bodies sold after the R1 is available would decrease anyway, even without the R5 Mark II.

Canon had a lot more to lose by not introducing an R5 Mark II as soon as it was ready. The R5 Mark II will almost certainly sell several order of magnitudes more bodies than the R3 did, just as the 5D Mark IV sold many more bodies than the 1D X Mark II, and the R5 sold many more units than the 1D X Mark III.

Plus, any remaining inventory will be sent back to the Canon regional service centers as parts sources for sold R3s that need repair. The sum of the parts value is much more than the current price of the body.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Interesting for sure… my lenses are RF 50 L and RF 135 L, so historically fast aperture lenses have slower focusing the 1-series could really boost. Canon used to state this somewhere, but haven’t looked into if that’s the case with the R3 and those two lenses.

AFAIK, the faster focusing with the larger battery is not universal, it applies only to select lenses, specifically the great whites. The Canon EU website mentions (or at least used to, I haven’t checked lately) in the descriptions of the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 that the lenses have Dual Motor AF, which allows faster focusing with cameras like the R3 that use a larger battery.

Bottom line, I don’t believe you will see any benefit in terms of the speed at which AF motors are driven with your lenses. Doesn’t mean they won’t focus faster on higher and bodies, but that would be down to a better system not a bigger battery.

 

[MSH411]

You seem to be assuming if Canon had delayed releasing the R5 Mark II by a few months they could have sold those remaining "10,000" R3 bodies in short order. That's almost certainly a false assumption.

You should reread the post, I made no assumptions, hence the statement "swag number". Reading and it's context are important Michael.

 

[Viggo]

AFAIK, the faster focusing with the larger battery is not universal, it applies only to select lenses, specifically the great whites. The Canon EU website mentions (or at least used to, I haven’t checked lately) in the descriptions of the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 that the lenses have Dual Motor AF, which allows faster focusing with cameras like the R3 that use a larger battery.

Bottom line, I don’t believe you will see any benefit in terms of the speed at which AF motors are driven with your lenses. Doesn’t mean they won’t focus faster on higher and bodies, but that would be down to a better system not a bigger battery.

I know the EF 85 L II focused faster with a 1-series body.

 

[Speedfinder]

AFAIK, the faster focusing with the larger battery is not universal, it applies only to select lenses, specifically the great whites. The Canon EU website mentions (or at least used to, I haven’t checked lately) in the descriptions of the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 that the lenses have Dual Motor AF, which allows faster focusing with cameras like the R3 that use a larger battery.

Where do you find this information on Dual motors ?
I looked on Canon eu. What I did find was EF 800mm have Ring USM1 for Af , Canon 600 mm f4.00 MK 2 had Ring Usm 2 , Canon EF 600mm f4 mk 3 had Ring USM 3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Where do you find this information on Dual motors ?
I looked on Canon eu. What I did find was EF 800mm have Ring USM1 for Af , Canon 600 mm f4.00 MK 2 had Ring Usm 2 , Canon EF 600mm f4 mk 3 had Ring USM 3.

Apologies, Canon actually calls it 'dual power AF', not dual motor AF.

Mike Burnhill, Professional Imaging Product Specialist at Canon Europe, explains that the enhanced autofocus speed with the Canon EOS R3 is down to Dual Power AF. "These two super-telephoto lenses are the first to need the dual power supply," he says. "The optical groups in these lenses are much larger than those used in other lenses, so we drive them with large, high-torque, ring-type USM motors. There are actually two power inputs into these motors. The more power you feed into the motor, the faster it turns, and therefore the faster the autofocus speed can be."

The Canon EOS R3 is the first EOS R System camera that can take full advantage of lenses with Dual Power AF, thanks to its more powerful LP-E19 battery pack. "You need more voltage to drive the motor, which would have had too much impact on the battery life of earlier EOS R System bodies," explains Mike.

From:

EOS R3 and super-telephoto RF lenses

Vladimir Rys tested the Canon EOS R3 and the Canon RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm F4L IS USM super-telephoto lenses on a fast-moving rally car shoot.

www.canon-europe.com

 

[Michael Clark]

Tough choice this, and one I didn’t expect to make.. the difference between a slightly used R3 and a new R5 II is quite significant. And while people have always claimed AF system in the 5d3 and 5d4 was basically the same as the 1dx and 1dx2/3 it really wasn’t. The 1-series is something else, but that is a bit different between the R5 II and R3.

According to Chuck Westfall, the 1D X and 5D Mark III had the same part number for the PDAF array. The difference, which was noticeable, was all in the software/firmware. The same thing happened with the 5D Mark IV and 1D X mark II. They shared the same PDAF array but not the same software/firmware.

It's not much different from how the R6 got the same sensor that the 1D X Mark III has, but a different low-pass filter and JPEG engine.

 

[Michael Clark]

You should reread the post, I made no assumptions, hence the statement "swag number". Reading and it's context are important Michael.

Maybe you should check out what the word "seem" means before you start criticizing my reading ability?

 

[Viggo]

According to Chuck Westfall, the 1D X and 5D Mark III had the same part number for the PDAF array. The difference, which was noticeable, was all in the software/firmware. The same thing happened with the 5D Mark IV and 1D X mark II. They shared the same PDAF array but not the same software/firmware.

It's not much different from how the R6 got the same sensor that the 1D X Mark III has, but a different low-pass filter and JPEG engine.

And this is is why I’m not just ruling the R3 out, I also really miss how the «full size» body handles and just how fast, easy to use they are compare to a 5-series. But, now the R5 is old 1-series money so the R1 is sadly out of reach…

 

[P-visie]

Apologies, Canon actually calls it 'dual power AF', not dual motor AF.



From:

EOS R3 and super-telephoto RF lenses

Vladimir Rys tested the Canon EOS R3 and the Canon RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm F4L IS USM super-telephoto lenses on a fast-moving rally car shoot.

www.canon-europe.com

You are right: the RF 400 f2.8 and RF 400 f4 have 'dual power drive': "The RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm F4L IS USM super-telephoto lenses are the first in the RF lineup to feature a double power drive method, enabling cameras to focus faster than ever before."

See: https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/ under "Faster focusing".

 

[MSH411]

Maybe you should check out what the word "seem" means before you start criticizing my reading ability?

Maybe you should stop putting a single word under a microscope to make your point and look at the context of the thread.

 

[MSH411]

And this is is why I’m not just ruling the R3 out, I also really miss how the «full size» body handles and just how fast, easy to use they are compare to a 5-series. But, now the R5 is old 1-series money so the R1 is sadly out of reach…

I am in the same boat and leaning more towards the R3 but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

 

[Viggo]

I am in the same boat and leaning more towards the R3 but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

I can’t decide if I want to downgrade the resolution and carry the weight of a larger body again. And I’m not even sure the rest of the R3 is that much of an upgrade either if so many people had such issues with the eye control that was one of the bigger selling points. Is the AF that much better on an R3 than the R5? Really tough choice, especially since the R3 is significantly cheaper…