The R3 is better than the 1dx Mark III, we own both. The 1dx is still a fantastic camera with that said I prefer the R3. I used the hoodman loupe to get the most out of the 1dx mirrorless features but it was a pain in the butt vs the R3 using the EVF, and the rolling shutter is much better on the R3. I huge thing for me also is the tilt screen also over the 1dx. I like the R5 but I like the R3 more in many areas. I would say any future mirrorless will get better and better, how long do you wait or which model who knows because we do not no what they will be. However if you want your 1dx full mirrorless with tilt screen, a little less weight, better AF and faster FPS then your wait is over, get the R3.
You can try contacting David, he just made the switch for the 1dx Mark III to the R3, he does pro sports. Nice guy and he seems to like the R3. We chatted a few times on POTN about both systems.
Even when R1 becomes reality, the R3 will still be the closest replacement to a 1DXIII because it is 20 odd MPs (okay maybe not having dual CFexpress could be argued against R3 replacing 1DXIII perfectly). No one knows for sure what R1 will be. I'd say the only reason to wait for R1 is if 24MPs is not sufficient and you want 40-60MPs (assumption that the R1 will land in that range). I think R1 will still hit 30FPS just to match A1. So I don't really think it will be "slower".
Yes, the AF system on the R3 is more advanced and also more fps, but personally I will say the difference between the R3 and R5 AF difference feels like 100% vs 98% kind of difference(I personally really don't like the eye controlled AF) and both are a lot better than 1DX3, but I've only shot them with normal range lenses not the 400L or 600L. Also 20fps is still more than the 1DX3's 14fps, I think at 45MP and 20fps(sounds like a Z9 ) R5 is a great place holder for the coming R1(I think you will want the R1 when it comes out)
The R3 price will drop a lot when R1(60MP+ and 30fps) come out, unless R1 is super expensive(but I doubt they can price it really high consider what the A1 and Z9 cost)
I personally would not going back to a 24MP camera after got used to 50MP.
Yes, totally agree, I think R1 will have to be 60MP+ and 30fps in the R3 body to be able to compete with A1 (which will be 2 years old at the time R1 come out) and they also need to keep A1II in mind at that time...
arbitrage wrote:
Even when R1 becomes reality, the R3 will still be the closest replacement to a 1DXIII because it is 20 odd MPs (okay maybe not having dual CFexpress could be argued against R3 replacing 1DXIII perfectly). No one knows for sure what R1 will be. I'd say the only reason to wait for R1 is if 24MPs is not sufficient and you want 40-60MPs (assumption that the R1 will land in that range). I think R1 will still hit 30FPS just to match A1. So I don't really think it will be "slower".
I had the 1Dx and was plenty for my needs, but the upcoming R1 will be no doubtful a somewhat wasted tool in my hands, as will not need all the features and specifications that been rumoured.
Only thing that I will miss on the R3 is the spot af- ael feature.
The longer lasting battery, ergonomics, weather sealed are to me key factors that made me decide to go with it vs the R5.
It's great to have so many choices these days - just sucks having to wait so long after release to get one
What I'm most interested in is an R5ii....I shoot a lot of wildlife so the resolution matters to me, but it would be nice to have some of the upgrades the R3 has in a smaller form factor. I like taking cameras on hikes and mtn bike rides where size/weight matters.
pinn wrote:
so am currently using the 1DX III but would like to go mirrorless - I was about ready to order the R3 and then i read that this will not be Canons flagship mirrorless and there will be an R1 released possibly Q4 this year. Some sites say this will be a slower camera but higher resolution ..... who knows. Anyone else in this position trying to decide on going with the R3 now or waiting for the R1....thoughts?
The Flagships are always released at the Summer Olympics . The next one is in 2024 you wont be able to get one before the Q3 of 2023 .
Most I know who've switched to mirrorless find they enjoy shooting them over their DSLRs by a wider margin than they'd expected. Add to this that the R1 isn't out, isn't announced, and no one has any idea when it'll be released and I'd be going a different route. As far as I can see it, if you really need the robustness of the 1Dxiii then the R3 is the best option. If you don't need the robustness then I think the R5 and even R6 are viable candidates if you want to invest less money. In particular, if the resolution of the 1Dxiii works then the R6 has a very similar (the same??) sensor and performs well. Another consideration is that your current equipment is going to be worth somewhat less every month from now on. If you make the switch the mirrorless you can likely sell both the camera and body for more now than you will be able to in a year or more.
When you see 2 people listed to trade their R3 for R5+cash in 12 hours you know you should really try them side by side before getting the R3...
I'm really not saying R3 is not a great camera, it's just that R5 is better rounded and 24MP in 2022 feels bit... 50MP A1 and 45MP Z9 already made that number look bad, and when the 60MP(maybe?) R1 come out the R3 will feel outdated...
24MP is only enough when everyone else also have around that number, not when everyone else already have double of that.
Reason from the 2nd seller nmerc_photos
"I think I'm just not the correct audience for the camera.
I believed everyone that said 20MP was enough, and it ended up not being the case for me. Not enough cropability and images are not nearly as sharp as they were with my R5.
If you're a sports shooter, or someone who has only been used to an R6 or 1DMKIV or something, of course it'll be an upgrade and you'll be blown away.
I mainly got it because of the improved AF and the 30 FPS. Well I figured out that neither one matters if the images I get end up being subpar compared to what I'm used to."
pinn wrote:
thanks - whilst the R5 is higher res, the AF system on the R3 is more advanced and also more frames per sec
I am pretty sure two people out of many that ordered and have received the cameras make up that part of statistical outliers that exist in any metric. 1D style cameras aren’t for everyone regardless of resolution differences.
Also maybe finances are strained but sometimes that won’t be listed as the main reason of the sale.
Finally you fix some of the cropping issues by framing tighter, either with longer lenses or closer shooting. It’s hard to tell what is what on the second listing. Cropping is never a good substitute for optical zoom.
I do, however, feel that the R3 price is too steep for today’s expectation’s vs what it delivers and what is already out.
One just needs to look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the R3 to learn that 24mp is indeed "enough", even for birds. Many of them have the R5 as well. The work is indistinguishable.
Some folks just can't get over the MP thing though. I suppose with so much of digital photography history being the MP wars, its just stuck in people's minds. Its their money of course, so they should spend it as they see fit. But spec sheet warriors saying things like 'in 2022, 24mp isn't enough' is a less than fully educated opinion stated as a fact. I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular, but there are lots of folks out there sharing that sentiment, while others are out there doing great work with their 1DXs etc. and not giving MP a second thought.
Price should always be cheaper! That's a separate argument. And things look really wonky with that Z9 out there. Hopefully Nikon trying to buy back some market share will work out for all of us with lower prices on new gear!
jedibrain wrote:
One just needs to look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the R3 to learn that 24mp is indeed "enough", even for birds. Many of them have the R5 as well. The work is indistinguishable.
Although I'm not a top guy, I can make the point that I suck equally with both the R5 and R3, and that creates a level playing field. The thing is that you can't see a difference _here_, or on Flickr. My D60 photos look pretty good on this web site. Some people shoot for consumption on the web, others for Instagram, and as we all know too well, the likes of G Dan Mitchell for 20x30 prints. All those output media will give you pretty good results with both. But if your output media is a 6K or 8K screen, viewed at a typical screen distance (~2ft is it?), then there is a clear difference, even before I do just a mild crop, I assure you - let alone after I crop a bit.
It all depends on what your output media is, and while G Dan has seemingly unlimited wall space, I certainly don't, so the next best thing are high rez screens.
Some guys can get very close to birds, while others can't.
I am shooting with a 600mm f4 lens that is almost useless for bird photography in my neck of the woods.
Sure, IF your subject fills the frame, than 24mpx are more than enough, but if your subjects don't, then there is a HUGE difference between 24mpx and 45mpx.
stanj wrote:
Although I'm not a top guy, I can make the point that I suck equally with both the R5 and R3, and that creates a level playing field. The thing is that you can't see a difference _here_, or on Flickr. My D60 photos look pretty good on this web site. Some people shoot for consumption on the web, others for Instagram, and as we all know too well, the likes of G Dan Mitchell for 20x30 prints. All those output media will give you pretty good results with both. But if your output media is a 6K or 8K screen, viewed at a typical screen distance (~2ft is it?), then there is a clear difference, even before I do just a mild crop, I assure you - let alone after I crop a bit.
It all depends on what your output media is, and while G Dan has seemingly unlimited wall space, I certainly don't, so the next best thing are high rez screens....Show more →
I'll go out on a limb and guess that less than 1% of the people complaining about MP counts are regularly using or producing work for 6k or 8k displays. Even large prints, very large, have been successfully done with well less than 45mp for decades. Its just about workflow.
More can be better, but isn't necessary. The way these forums read sometimes, is that the images from anything less than R5 resolution look like they were taken in the stone ages. Which is not true. It just seems to me like the 'need' to crop a bird from the center 10% of your frame and print it 4' wide is getting too much weight in the discussion.
Oh look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the R3 to learn that 24mp is indeed "enough"... Yeah Right...
I will answer you with: look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the D3 15 years ago to learn that 12mp is also "enough"...
Top guys has made amazing work since the 4MP Canon 1D and film before that... But that's not a reason to say we never need more than 4MP...
I said in 2022, 24mp isn't enough because there is a 50MP A1 and a 45MP Z9 as competition for about the same price.. and soon to come 60MP(maybe) R1, 24MP will be amazing in 2018 before the A1 and Z9 are around. If Canon think 24MP is enough there won't be a R1 coming... I think the big 3 camera companies are more than fully educated on this professional camera topics.
You know what? Canon themselves can't get over the MP thing too, that's why R1 is coming...
BTW its never about what's enough, it's always about keep up with the competition, things will be perfectly fine if both Sony and Nikon flagship are sub 30MP but they are not...
jedibrain wrote:
One just needs to look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the R3 to learn that 24mp is indeed "enough", even for birds. Many of them have the R5 as well. The work is indistinguishable.
Some folks just can't get over the MP thing though. I suppose with so much of digital photography history being the MP wars, its just stuck in people's minds. Its their money of course, so they should spend it as they see fit. But spec sheet warriors saying things like 'in 2022, 24mp isn't enough' is a less than fully educated opinion stated as a fact. I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular, but there are lots of folks out there sharing that sentiment, while others are out there doing great work with their 1DXs etc. and not giving MP a second thought.
Price should always be cheaper! That's a separate argument. And things look really wonky with that Z9 out there. Hopefully Nikon trying to buy back some market share will work out for all of us with lower prices on new gear!
thanks - whilst the R5 is higher res, the AF system on the R3 is more advanced and also more frames per sec
More fps = more editing. Better AF = 3 shots in better focus out of a hundred taken compared to other camera. I would not waste money on an R3 if I had the 1DXIII. Wait until you see what the R1 has to offer. Yes, your 1DXIII will decline further in value, but then so will an R3 and you will not be paying twice to get an R1 if you end up thinking you need one. If you don't, then you can pick up an R5 or R3 at a lesser price s/h when the R1 comes out.
More resolution only comes into play in 3 different types of situations. Many folks may never hit these.
- You need to print or deliver goods to a customer for large output (> 20" on the long end)
- You need to crop and then print or deliver goods to a customer for large-ish output (> 14" on the long end)
- You shoot at high ISOs
Anything beyond this, and it is marketing hype. These things above would be related to more of the professional shooter in most cases (ie. they are being paid in one form or another for goods), and those shooters would likely have multiple bodies. Nothing says they won't also have an R5.
As a pro sports shooter, I would have loved the R3 being a 30Mpx, as that has been a sweet spot for my needs, but 24 vs 30 isn't too terribly far off. I would encounter issues just a few shots a game where I would crop pretty deeply, but most of the time 24 would be sufficient.
However, I am just going to wait until I see what else Canon is bringing to the table. I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)
I would suspect those buying the R3 would already know if the resolution works for them or not. If they jump right in and buy it, and then realize later that 24Mpx isn't enough, I would have to question the purchase to begin with. I know specifically what resolutions I need and when, and I think any photographer that has moved through the Canon FF model line also do. The R6 was a hard decision for me, but the R5 wasn't worth the investment for me specifically so I went with the R6 to accompany my 5D4. I shoot both during paid events, and use whichever makes sense for the moment at hand.
Finally, I missed where Canon exposed their hand that they know the resolution is too low and that is why they announced an upcoming R1? Could you point me to ANY Canon sponsored material where they mentioned they are coming out with the R1?
EdwardDye wrote:
Oh look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the R3 to learn that 24mp is indeed "enough"... Yeah Right...
I will answer you with: look at the amazing work that the top guys around here are putting out with the D3 15 years ago to learn that 12mp is also "enough"...
Top guys has made amazing work since the 4MP Canon 1D and film before that... But that's not a reason to say we never need more than 4MP...
I said in 2022, 24mp isn't enough because there is a 50MP A1 and a 45MP Z9 as competition for about the same price.. and soon to come 60MP(maybe) R1, 24MP will be amazing in 2018 before the A1 and Z9 are around. If Canon think 24MP is enough there won't be a R1 coming... I think the big 3 camera companies are more than fully educated on this professional camera topics.
You know what? Canon themselves can't get over the MP thing too, that's why R1 is coming...
BTW its never about what's enough, it's always about keep up with the competition, things will be perfectly fine if both Sony and Nikon flagship are sub 30MP but they are not...
That's a rather over simplistic take to suggest resolution is the sole criterion when considering what body to buy. I do remember the early days of digital when the argument was "no camera needs more than x MPs" back when the "MegaPixel Wars" were hot and 3MP in a consumer camera was considered overkill. It was nonsense and I think we all recognize that today.
But that was a world ago. For a long time now we have considered what body to buy based on what it will be used for. Resolution is a factor, but so is usable ISO, sharpness, FPS, and intertwined with all of that is the quality, not just the size of the sensor.
Also considered by any thoughtful photographer is workflow. Some have the luxury of taking a week or weeks to process, others have to upload to their client hours or even during an event, where what is considered a mid-resolution camera in 2022, would not be an advantage, but a burden.
That is why every major manufacturer makes different models and why one's with lower MPs are not necessarily the least expensive. I'm am just a hobbyist. Until I bought the R5 I never owned a camera with more than 24MP -- by choice. I also never had a camera that could shoot 20FPS. I love my R5, but I must say I wasn't really prepared for the added storage requirement or stress of the larger files on my computer.
So, while future bodies may have 50+ MPs, even closer to 100, that will be a niche feature to me. I certainly have zero desire for more than 45ish. The average photographer doesn't need more MP to bog down their computer. Now, sensors that are sharper, hold true color better, more tolerant in low light, absolutely. But, for sure, eye-popping # of MPs are not the be-all, end-all spec of what a pro camera should be. A lower res body can be a better camera than the higher res body sitting below it.
The R3 is a great camera for those that need a nearly bullet-proof and weather sealed fast, low rolling shutter, low light performing Canon R. It's not for everyone, no. What camera really is? Stop poo pooing bodies just because they don't meet your needs.
I'm not saying 24MP is not enough for good photos, but like I said there are better options out there, its never about what's enough, it's always about keep up with the competition(A1 and Z9)
I think the big 3 camera companies know what professionals want, so there is A1 Z9 and upcoming R1, this is what today's market demand and the reason all 3 of them are going this way.
Hairy Heron wrote:
That's a rather over simplistic take to suggest resolution is the sole criterion when considering what body to buy. I do remember the early days of digital when the argument was "no camera needs more than x MPs" back when the "MegaPixel Wars" were hot and 3MP in a consumer camera was considered overkill. It was nonsense and I think we all recognize that today.
But that was a world ago. For a long time now we have considered what body to buy based on what it will be used for. Resolution is a factor, but so is usable ISO, sharpness, FPS, and intertwined with all of that is the quality, not just the size of the sensor.
Also considered by any thoughtful photographer is workflow. Some have the luxury of taking a week or weeks to process, others have to upload to their client hours or even during an event, where what is considered a mid-resolution camera in 2022, would not be an advantage, but a burden.
That is why every major manufacturer makes different models and why one's with lower MPs are not necessarily the least expensive. I'm am just a hobbyist. Until I bought the R5 I never owned a camera with more than 24MP -- by choice. I also never had a camera that could shoot 20FPS. I love my R5, but I must say I wasn't really prepared for the added storage requirement or stress of the larger files on my computer.
So, while future bodies may have 50+ MPs, even closer to 100, that will be a niche feature to me. I certainly have zero desire for more than 45ish. The average photographer doesn't need more MP to bog down their computer. Now, sensors that are sharper, hold true color better, more tolerant in low light, absolutely. But, for sure, eye-popping # of MPs are not the be-all, end-all spec of what a pro camera should be. A lower res body can be a better camera than the higher res body sitting below it.
The R3 is a great camera for those that need a nearly bullet-proof and weather sealed fast, low rolling shutter, low light performing Canon R. It's not for everyone, no. What camera really is? Stop poo pooing bodies just because they don't meet your needs....Show more →
) R5 is a great place holder for the coming R1(I think you will want the R1 when it comes out)
I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)