After watching far too much YouTube this AM, I came to the conclusion that Gordon Laing's first reviews of Canon's newest gear should give you all you need to know about the EOS R3, RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, and RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM.
These reviews are the first of what will likely be a few more in the future from Gordon.
Canon EOS R3 Part 1
Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Preorder all of the new Canon Gear
- Canon EOS R3 $5999 \ €6099 \ £5879
- Canon Eyecup ER-HE $48 \ £69
- Canon AD-E1 Multi-Function Shoe Adapter $39 \ £59
- Canon ST-E10 Speedlite Transmitter $119 \ £159
- Canon DM-E1D Stereo Microphone $299 \ £399
- Canon AD-P1 Android Smartphone Link Adapter $69
Canon RF Lenses
- Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM $299 \ €339 \ £319
- Canon EW-65C Lens Hood $29
- Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM $649 \ €729 \ £699
Vanessa Joy R3 review
Canon R3 : 4.2mpx LCD.
Sony A1: 9.44M dot EVF
Canon R3: 5.76 dot EVF
Sony A1: .9x magnification EVF
Canon R3: 0.76x magnification EVF
Sony A1: 240 FPS EVF
Canon R3: 120 FPS EVF
Personally, I use the EVF about 10x as much as the LCD. If given a choice, I would have preferred to see an improvement in the EVF over an improvement in the LCD as compared with my R5. I do thing the EVF on the R5 is already quite good, though extra magnification and a less pixelated look would have been nice.
Unless Sony addressed the weird lack of touch screen functionality on their rear LCD, I would think that that would be a bigger annoyance than the 1.4mpx display.
We all take photos a little differently. Personally I don't think the LCD is a big differentiator here.
But I agree that a higher resolution EVF would have been nicer, especially considering the price of the camera. I'm not sure what is the point of having a high res LCD, as the eyes will be a few inches away from it and unable to detect the difference. I suppose it could have some value when reviewing at high magnification, but personally I do my chimping through the EVF, not on the LCD.
I also try to find reviews by appropriate specialists e.g. BIF and sports photographers, because they can reveal particular advantages/disadvantages, and approaches to technique that are relevant to particular cameras.
Gordon doesn't spend much time with the equipment, operates under embargo (mutual agreements with a manufacturer about when, where, and what he can say, in exchange for early access to the product) and 90% of what he says in any given video is just rephrasing the manufacturer's marketing copy. Most of the time he's also not using production units and draws conclusions without so much as glancing at a consumer-facing result. (For example, talking about image quality before raw processing software has been updated to actually support the camera or lens.)
A "first-class review" of a camera or lens isn't—ever—something that comes out in the first few days after announcement or release. The reviewer needs to have enough time with it to test it in a variety of scenarios, software needs to receive updates to actually handle the files or lens profiles, and they need to explain their experience beyond just rewording the spec sheet and PR-penned taglines. The same goes for any other type of product you can name. "Sticking to the facts", regurgitating specifications, is not a review. A good reviewer is not one who tells you what you've already decided you want to hear or takes 20 minutes to ponderously repeat what you could read for yourself in 5; a good reviewer is someone who tells you their thorough experience, regardless of if that lines up with your expectations or the manufacturer's claims or not.