The review concentrates more on 1dx3 and r5 versus the r3.
I owned both at the same time and sold my r3 for a 2nd r5 due to my need for the resolution - mostly for cropping with wildlife shots. If I shot sports, it would have depended on the sport and how reach-limited I was.
I tried to talk myself in to an R3 about a year ago, but failed. Rented it for a week and just found that the R5 was a better fit. I did notice the AF was a little quicker and a little more consistent but I didn't think the files looked as good as the R5's. The R3's noise handling difference was significant at very high ISO, but only slight under 6400.
Oddly, there were times when the R5 focused better, but in general the R3 was the better focuser. Battery life on the R3 was great, especially for the weight of the camera (which was also amazing). But ultimately, this decision is very much based on how much resolution you want. If you want a lot, there's really no question which camera you go with. If you don't want or need a lot, the R3 is a stand out.
Additionally, not sure I'd buy a second R5 right now. With the drop in price and the release of the R6 II, the R5 II can't be too far behind. And the new AF setting options on all the new bodies are all big improvements on what the R5 offered (even if Canon is oddly manipulating how they can be setup). That alone would be worth waiting for me.
I know it sounds like a "fanboy" comment (and I welcome others to explain or dispute what I see here) but I find the jpeg files a lot more editable, more malleable than jpeg files from previous cameras. R3 files seem more elastic, able to be adjusted more easily for Exposure, White Balance, etc. I have no experience with R5 files.
bipock wrote:
Are you saying there's a big difference in the higher ISO images from the R3 vs the R5? I live in the ISO 12600-25200 range, so this matters to me.
Yeah, I would say its significant, at least at elevated ISOs.
Here are a couple of examples with ACR default sharpening (luminance noise reduction zeroed, default color noise reduction).
R5, about a stop lower ISO, (both files are pushed and pulled fairly similarly).
Canon EOS R3
EF500mm f/4L IS II USM +2x
ƒ/8.0
1000.0 mm
1/400
ISO 10000
Personally, I feel like they are very similar, but the R3 has a stop more light added through ISO and was shot an hour later.
As for cropping, this comparison basically ended that debate for me. Both shot from the same distance on two different days. I think it was a deep crop that ended up around 3MP and 2MP on each camera. Now, I prefer to gauge resolution needs on best shot output (note, this comparison doesn't show the file quality difference).
Canon EOS R5
EF500mm f/4L IS II USM
ƒ/4.0
500.0 mm
1/640
ISO 1250
Again the R3 file looks a bit cleaner even at low ISO needing less denoising, note both of these last two files have been processed through Topaz unlike the first examples.
Mike, in the first 2 shots, isn't that more than a 1 stop difference? I see the ISO difference, but the shutter speed changed too.
I'm not as worried about cropping in as I only need it for certain lanes (swimming) and shooting in crop mode on the R5 with a 120-300 (normally around 250mm) frames up like 400mm. I'll be shooting 400 on the R3, so I may have to trim it a little, but not too much.
My biggest interest is the ISO performance. At 2.8, I live at 12800. Moving to a 4.0, means shifting that to 25600. Shooting jpegs with in-camera NR, they turn out pretty good printed 16*20 at 12800. 25600 on the R5 begins to show a little more noise.
Yes, the exposure is more than a stop apart, but the ISO performance is showing the difference in one stop of ISO. I made a mistake, when I said it was shot a hour later. The daylight saving time was set incorrectly, so the difference should be just under 10 mins not the hour I first thought. But that 10 mins is after sunset so its significant.
Like you mention, its not a apples to apples comparison because the R3 had better light to test its 10,000 ISO setting, but I did find the R3 better in the noise department by a decent amount. Honestly, it wasn't too close in practice. It was noticeable.
I agree the R5 really doesn't like going up to 25,600 ISO in low light levels (not too bad in good light though). But I felt like the R3 handled that level a little better, but honestly, didn't spend much time at those levels.
Also note, the shots above are ALL from a RAW file with very little software noise reduction (just the default in ACR). If those were in JPEG with any in camera NR, the noise would be almost stamped out (at the cost of a little detail). I started to remove all noise reduction from ACR but the difference was negligible so I left it alone.
bipock wrote:
Are you saying there's a big difference in the higher ISO images from the R3 vs the R5? I live in the ISO 12600-25200 range, so this matters to me.
raw from DPreview while not ideal - are better equalized than samples from Mike
Generally I agree with most of that. However. Two wiggles. R5 does in fact have more resolution. And I think people need to examine much, much more via A/B comparison on what camera renders skin tones to their liking.
The near neutrals, pretty much the bane of all digital acquisition, reveals some aspects worth inspecting. This will go one of three ways for most shooters:
- Once you see it, you go towards the other camera
- Perhaps something that is corrected for in post or not
- No big deal
That's the response range generally. For those who profile their cameras differently from what is shipped, less of a topic.
Don’t remember if anyone mentioned it but the R3 is significantly more user friendly than the R5 if shooting in the portrait position. I use a grip on the R5 but the control wheel is in an awkward location and it’s just not as ergonomic as I’d like, especially since most of my sports shooting has been volleyball and basketball, which I prefer vertically to emphasize the height. Even field sports if shot vertically are easier with the R3.
I found myself just keeping the R5 in the horizontal position and cropping the 45mp down to get the vertical photo I wanted. The R3 handles well in the vertical position and I didn’t need to crop as much, if at all.
Same philosophy when I’m out photographing birds and such. I use the portrait position for larger perched birds, hawks and such. Find it easier on the R3
PhilH wrote:
Generally I agree with most of that. However. Two wiggles. R5 does in fact have more resolution. And I think people need to examine much, much more via A/B comparison on what camera renders skin tones to their liking.
The near neutrals, pretty much the bane of all digital acquisition, reveals some aspects worth inspecting. This will go one of three ways for most shooters:
- Once you see it, you go towards the other camera
- Perhaps something that is corrected for in post or not
- No big deal
That's the response range generally. For those who profile their cameras differently from what is shipped, less of a topic....Show more →
It's in the context of sports, which the OP was referencing. In that context, the R3 is better than that R5 in every aspect.
