Well, you could just substitute hidef displays instead of prints, it doesn't matter. The output medium requires high resolution either way. It doesn't matter if we talk prints, or digital displays. Prints can be high definition too, even more than an 8K display even, so the two are interchangeable, just change my 20" and 14" parameters to be something else.
That being said, you glossed over the most important point I made.
If you know you need this kind of resolution, you already know you cannot utilize the R3. You wouldn't be in threads discussing whether the R3 is for you, you already know that it is resolution-bound and it may not work for you. You also would not be these types of folks that have purchased an R3, then later try to sell them plus cash to go to an R5, you would either already have a 5DS or R5 or some Canon competition.
If you don't meet any of those 3 points I made (again substitute print for display even), then the R3 could very well be the right camera for you, barring any budgetary issues.
Well, you could just substitute hidef displays instead of prints, it doesn't matter. The output medium requires high resolution either way. It doesn't matter if we talk prints, or digital displays.
That being said, you glossed over the most important point I made.
If you know you need this kind of resolution, you already know you cannot utilize the R3. You wouldn't be in threads discussing whether the R3 is for you, you already know that it is resolution-bound and it may not work for you. You also would not be these types of folks that have purchased an R3, then later try to sell them plus cash to go to an R5, you would either already have a 5DS or R5 or some Canon competition.
If you don't meet any of those 3 points I made (again substitute print for display even), then the R3 could very well be the right camera for you, barring any budgetary issues.
Jan 10, 2022 at 01:34 PM
Previous versions of TeamSpeed's message #15824570 « Canon R1 or R3 »
