I have used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II since 2016 for all photos/videos of my Macaw family. I recently rented a Canon R3 and was so impressed with the eye tracking autofocus and the 4k video clarity, I decided to buy one. This amazing camera is perfect for my needs, and uses all of my EF lenses via an adapter. I love the weight and size of the Canon 1Dx body, but the R3 actually feels better. Great video, thanks for sharing!
For my uses the r5 is definitely better than the r3. 1) 30 fps is just too much when the only difference is mostly very slight changes. I’m not convinced at all that sorting through all of those images is the best way to get the best shot. 2) Cropping in is very important. I can’t shoot from a hide and I can’t get super close, and I’m not sure I think getting super close to most wildlife is good for wildlife. Too many photogs are crowding animals out leaving them less and less space to be wild as time goes on. I think having a long lens and high MP is the ethically superior choice to protect a resource that is quickly going away. 3) Sure, the r3 is Better against high ISO. The lack of rolling shutter is nice too, but in those times when I think I could suffer from rolling shutter on the r5, I just get off electronic shutter and that problem goes away. So that really just leaves high ISO. 4) With a grip, the r5 gives me incredible numbers of shots at the end of the day. 5) For $2000 more, the r3 should have the better build. If you need the superior build for what you do, you need it. Better to spend the money and get what the job requires. I don’t need it. 6) For $2000 more, the r3 had better have something extra to justify that price difference. Personally, I’d much rather have a 45 MP R1, than a 24 MP R3, so the real camera to wait for is the R1. That will be the superior wildlife camera.
You bring up a great point about people crowding animals and how having higher MPs to crop in can help reduce that issue. That’s definitely something I hope that the recent rise in higher MP cameras on the market will help alleviate, because this hobby is growing fast and the number of people shooting each animal is growing with it. Puts a lot of stress on the animals. And I agree on the price of the R3, it feels overpriced to me when you can get an R5 for so much less of a Sony A1 for just a bit more. I think $5K-5.5K would’ve been more reasonable. But yeah it looks like the R1 is gonna give us the best of both worlds and exceed both of these cameras when it eventually releases. Thanks for watching, I appreciate your comments 🙏
I agree with the R1, I just hopes it's priced competitive with the z9. Canon overprices everything. I would pay for a r1 up to $6k. If significantly comes out way over that, I'm finally jumping ship to the other 2. Proply the z9 with their famous 500 5.6 pf
I shoot BIF and have found the lower rez 24 megapixels are superior for fast moving subjects, you also get cleaner files. With high rez bodies your technique has to be perfect or you get a series of aberrations from shutter shock to motion blur that are much less problematic than with cameras designed for sports like the R3
Great review on the R5 and the R3. I know these two cameras are high end cameras and can get a little pricy. Have you had a chance to review/use the R7. I currently use an old 7D and was gifted an RP a few years ago as my entry into the mirrorless world. I am looking to upgrade and am considering the R7 (more affordable), but I am now looking at the R5 and maybe the R3. I mostly do landscape/wildlife and some indoor/outdoor studio photography. If you would consider reviewing and giving your opinion on the R7 I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you and keep up the great work.
I'm amazed by how much you can crop R3 files when the situation dictates. Good glass helps of course but this isn't you fathers 24MP; far from it. I shoot hummingbirds often where light can be in short supply and shutter speeds are non negotiable; the difference between my R5 and the R3 is huge. If you're willing to put in the work to understand the R3 focusing capabilities you won't be disappointed. If you're not, the R5 makes a great second choice.
An Excellent informative Video. I have the R5 and 100-500 RF and the cropping ability is important for me and on small birds it’s brilliant, would be interested to know how the R3 performs for cropping if anyone knows? Cheers. 👍
Thanks 🙏 from my short time with the R3, I found that you could definitely crop in on the files some, even up to 200% and still get great images if noise is minimal, but not nearly as much cropping as you get with R5. The resolution just isn’t there for super heavy crops with 24 MP.
Nice video, I just got the iFootage Gazelle TC6S Carbon Fiber Tripod and the Cobra 2 C180-II Carbon Fiber Monopod for my summer in Yellowstone. I figured that I would invest a little in some good gear, these have excellent build and should last a long time.
I think one has to use the R3 for a while before fully understanding its capabilities. It simply has higher capabilities to get the pictures that you want, and in focus. In my subjective view, the colors are more natural and alive and on the R3, compared with the R5. Also technically, R3 has relatively higher color resolution with electronic shutter compared with R5. The large file sizes make you crazy on the R5 (unless you have a very fast expensive computer), but this is not too bad on R3. The R3 can do 192 fps bursts on hovering birds, for instance, at full color and pixel resolution. Very cool, but it has to be on still subjects, like birds hovering. R3 has built-in GPS, R5 not. R3 has 4k/120fps and 6k/60fps which makes it a superior action video camera. R3 communicates blazing fast with RF glass, adjusting autofocus literally frame by frame at 30 fps. Regardless of what tests and people say, my impression is that ISO performance is tremendously superior on R3 at 2000-5000 ISO, which is a range that one often ends up with. It is really hard to see any benefit with R5 except more megapixels and option to remove grip.
This is a very good video, you covered everything, and like you said this choice is just a personal choice, as you know since I got my R3 my R5 hardly gets used, but this is just me, oh and I shoot small birds with my R3 and F4 600mm 😀 but I do spend a lot of time in a nature reserve hide (blind) so can get close. And you are 100% right budget is a huge factor, and also the lenses you already have, if you don't have the long reach lens the extra pixels of the R5 will suit you better. To be honest they are both great cameras, and I don't think anybody will be unhappy with either, well done again.
Thanks Tony! Yes I agree, both are really great cameras, leagues ahead of what we were getting out of DLSRs a few years ago. Either way, one won’t be disappointed with what they get out of either camera. Glad you enjoyed and thanks for watching!
Excellent stuff, Watts! I made the mistake of using my M50 and kit lenses on safari in Kenya and Zimbabwe. I have since upgraded to the R5 and the EF 100-400 lens. A considerable difference. I’m still learning and your videos are very helpful.
Thank you! I’m glad my videos are helpful to you. The R5 with the 100-400 is a killer combo, really can get some great stuff out of those 2. And wow, Kenya and Zimbabwe sounds amazing! Definitely on my bucket list.
I think for a single body that does it all the R5 is a clear better choice. For a more specialized high action/high ISO tool the R3 is a great option, but as others have mentioned the R3 feels like a weird placeholder camera for the R1. The R3 seems too expensive for what it is, and the R5 seems to punch so much more above its price, I think the R3 is going to end up being a niche camera for sports journalists and some high action wildlife photographers. Nice review! Super happy with the R5 + 100-400 ii + 1.4x III tc!
I 100% agree with everything you said. The R3 very much feels like a placeholder, and while it is better for select things (sports and wildlife), the R5 is a better all around camera and has much better value given that it’s just a step behind the R3 in some ways, exceeds it in some ways, yet is 2/3 the price. Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching and for the comment!
R3 will be by the Sensor size for sure better in noise - High ISO - but as already mentioned in the comments downsizing helps to have a fair competition! And not only the ISO is relevant for comparing also the other parameters are super important - comparing 1/2000 vs 1/500 and f5,6 and f8 makes comparing really challenging ... and just by the pictures them self clearly much more light available at the elk picture ... anyhow nice and short video!
45 mpix what do you want with that print posters? Only reason for 45 mpix would be if you are a cropper. I never cropp why get a ff if you are gonna crop anyways. And those files are sick huge. No thanks. I have done pro work for years with a 1d mark4. I do not need 45 mpix to take postersize photographs it is just overkill. Would love an R3. Love the clean look and the pro style looks. Nice big battery.
R3 is suppose to be lighter than the R5 with a battery grip attached. So given the R5 doesn't have great battery life, it kinda defeats the advantage of being smaller.
Its amazing how many photographers don't understand how noise works. If you view a 24 mp camera image at 100% and compare that to a 45 mp image of exactly the same scene at 100%, you are looking at MUCH HIGHER MAGNIFICATION on the image with the higher megapixel count, which fools people into thinking the higher mp image has more noise. !!!!As pixel counts go up, the pixels get smaller, and as a result the noise grain size is smaller as well. But comparing the images the way you did shows you've fallen for the biggest misconception in photography.
Unfortunately I haven’t shot the R6 so I’m not sure. I’ve heard from others the R6 has similar noise levels to the R5 but again haven’t tested myself, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
@@wattswildlifephoto not sure where you heard that, as most have observed myself included the R6 definitely has less noise than the R5, at least a stop better, early indications show little to no difference between R6 and R3 high iso performance so approx the same noise levels. Shouldn’t come as a surprise as R6 has 1DX mark III sensor and R3 has slightly higher megapixel.
Why are all 3 brands so paradoxical... as a Nikon shooter I'm pissed of waiting Nikon deliveries and currently I'm deep diving into Sony and Canon as A1 and R3/R5 are currently available in my stores but as much as I'm learning on these I'm getting tired of the nonsense both Canon & Sony are doing hence might be better to wait the delivery of the so mythical z800/z9, whenever that will be...
R5 is so much better then the R3. I'm so pissed that i traded my R5 for a R3. R5 take better photos which is the only reason to buy a professional level camera.
Can you expand on that a bit? From what perspective do you find the R5 superior? I’m guessing it’s due to the ability to crop the larger files but I don’t want to make any assumptions.
@@ronrotunno2901 the cropabity, the ease of use, and the ergonomics of the R5 is by far superior to r3. In my opinion. If I was just shooting sports, in the studio only. Then hands down I would go with the R3. In my daily workflow there isn't enough versatility with the r3.
Makes sense, thanks for the reply. I currently use an R5 but I’m also a 1DX user so I guess our needs and what we’re used to are sort of opposite of one another. I shoot mainly hummingbirds at close distances in low light and in my situation the R3 works better for me. I also don’t crop a ton but even with a significant crop I find the R3 files hold up pretty well.
I have used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II since 2016 for all photos/videos of my Macaw family. I recently rented a Canon R3 and was so impressed with the eye tracking autofocus and the 4k video clarity, I decided to buy one. This amazing camera is perfect for my needs, and uses all of my EF lenses via an adapter. I love the weight and size of the Canon 1Dx body, but the R3 actually feels better. Great video, thanks for sharing!
For my uses the r5 is definitely better than the r3. 1) 30 fps is just too much when the only difference is mostly very slight changes. I’m not convinced at all that sorting through all of those images is the best way to get the best shot. 2) Cropping in is very important. I can’t shoot from a hide and I can’t get super close, and I’m not sure I think getting super close to most wildlife is good for wildlife. Too many photogs are crowding animals out leaving them less and less space to be wild as time goes on. I think having a long lens and high MP is the ethically superior choice to protect a resource that is quickly going away. 3) Sure, the r3 is Better against high ISO. The lack of rolling shutter is nice too, but in those times when I think I could suffer from rolling shutter on the r5, I just get off electronic shutter and that problem goes away. So that really just leaves high ISO. 4) With a grip, the r5 gives me incredible numbers of shots at the end of the day. 5) For $2000 more, the r3 should have the better build. If you need the superior build for what you do, you need it. Better to spend the money and get what the job requires. I don’t need it. 6) For $2000 more, the r3 had better have something extra to justify that price difference.
Personally, I’d much rather have a 45 MP R1, than a 24 MP R3, so the real camera to wait for is the R1. That will be the superior wildlife camera.
You bring up a great point about people crowding animals and how having higher MPs to crop in can help reduce that issue. That’s definitely something I hope that the recent rise in higher MP cameras on the market will help alleviate, because this hobby is growing fast and the number of people shooting each animal is growing with it. Puts a lot of stress on the animals. And I agree on the price of the R3, it feels overpriced to me when you can get an R5 for so much less of a Sony A1 for just a bit more. I think $5K-5.5K would’ve been more reasonable. But yeah it looks like the R1 is gonna give us the best of both worlds and exceed both of these cameras when it eventually releases. Thanks for watching, I appreciate your comments 🙏
I agree with the R1, I just hopes it's priced competitive with the z9. Canon overprices everything. I would pay for a r1 up to $6k. If significantly comes out way over that, I'm finally jumping ship to the other 2. Proply the z9 with their famous 500 5.6 pf
I shoot BIF and have found the lower rez 24 megapixels are superior for fast moving subjects, you also get cleaner files. With high rez bodies your technique has to be perfect or you get a series of aberrations from shutter shock to motion blur that are much less problematic than with cameras designed for sports like the R3
What about cropping? Do you use teleconverters with your lenses?
@@ahmedbebars6844 With R3 and Proper Zoom lens. You do not need to crop. You may need to crop if you are using higher megapixel camera.
Great review on the R5 and the R3. I know these two cameras are high end cameras and can get a little pricy. Have you had a chance to review/use the R7. I currently use an old 7D and was gifted an RP a few years ago as my entry into the mirrorless world. I am looking to upgrade and am considering the R7 (more affordable), but I am now looking at the R5 and maybe the R3. I mostly do landscape/wildlife and some indoor/outdoor studio photography. If you would consider reviewing and giving your opinion on the R7 I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you and keep up the great work.
I'm amazed by how much you can crop R3 files when the situation dictates. Good glass helps of course but this isn't you fathers 24MP; far from it. I shoot hummingbirds often where light can be in short supply and shutter speeds are non negotiable; the difference between my R5 and the R3 is huge. If you're willing to put in the work to understand the R3 focusing capabilities you won't be disappointed. If you're not, the R5 makes a great second choice.
An Excellent informative Video. I have the R5 and 100-500 RF and the cropping ability is important for me and on small birds it’s brilliant, would be interested to know how the R3 performs for cropping if anyone knows? Cheers. 👍
Thanks 🙏 from my short time with the R3, I found that you could definitely crop in on the files some, even up to 200% and still get great images if noise is minimal, but not nearly as much cropping as you get with R5. The resolution just isn’t there for super heavy crops with 24 MP.
@@wattswildlifephoto ….Thanks for the feedback. 👍
Nice video, I just got the iFootage Gazelle TC6S Carbon Fiber Tripod and the Cobra 2 C180-II Carbon Fiber Monopod for my summer in Yellowstone. I figured that I would invest a little in some good gear, these have excellent build and should last a long time.
Thank you! Sounds like you made some nice upgrades! Not too much longer till we’re both out in the park shooting… can’t wait.
I think one has to use the R3 for a while before fully understanding its capabilities. It simply has higher capabilities to get the pictures that you want, and in focus. In my subjective view, the colors are more natural and alive and on the R3, compared with the R5. Also technically, R3 has relatively higher color resolution with electronic shutter compared with R5. The large file sizes make you crazy on the R5 (unless you have a very fast expensive computer), but this is not too bad on R3. The R3 can do 192 fps bursts on hovering birds, for instance, at full color and pixel resolution. Very cool, but it has to be on still subjects, like birds hovering. R3 has built-in GPS, R5 not. R3 has 4k/120fps and 6k/60fps which makes it a superior action video camera. R3 communicates blazing fast with RF glass, adjusting autofocus literally frame by frame at 30 fps. Regardless of what tests and people say, my impression is that ISO performance is tremendously superior on R3 at 2000-5000 ISO, which is a range that one often ends up with. It is really hard to see any benefit with R5 except more megapixels and option to remove grip.
You're getting a lot more comfortable on camera. Kudos, man! I'm terrible at it myself.
Thanks man! It takes time to get used to for sure. Hope you enjoyed, thanks for watching!
This is a very good video, you covered everything, and like you said this choice is just a personal choice, as you know since I got my R3 my R5 hardly gets used, but this is just me, oh and I shoot small birds with my R3 and F4 600mm 😀 but I do spend a lot of time in a nature reserve hide (blind) so can get close.
And you are 100% right budget is a huge factor, and also the lenses you already have, if you don't have the long reach lens the extra pixels of the R5 will suit you better.
To be honest they are both great cameras, and I don't think anybody will be unhappy with either, well done again.
Thanks Tony! Yes I agree, both are really great cameras, leagues ahead of what we were getting out of DLSRs a few years ago. Either way, one won’t be disappointed with what they get out of either camera. Glad you enjoyed and thanks for watching!
Excellent stuff, Watts! I made the mistake of using my M50 and kit lenses on safari in Kenya and Zimbabwe. I have since upgraded to the R5 and the EF 100-400 lens. A considerable difference. I’m still learning and your videos are very helpful.
Thank you! I’m glad my videos are helpful to you. The R5 with the 100-400 is a killer combo, really can get some great stuff out of those 2. And wow, Kenya and Zimbabwe sounds amazing! Definitely on my bucket list.
I think for a single body that does it all the R5 is a clear better choice. For a more specialized high action/high ISO tool the R3 is a great option, but as others have mentioned the R3 feels like a weird placeholder camera for the R1. The R3 seems too expensive for what it is, and the R5 seems to punch so much more above its price, I think the R3 is going to end up being a niche camera for sports journalists and some high action wildlife photographers. Nice review! Super happy with the R5 + 100-400 ii + 1.4x III tc!
I 100% agree with everything you said. The R3 very much feels like a placeholder, and while it is better for select things (sports and wildlife), the R5 is a better all around camera and has much better value given that it’s just a step behind the R3 in some ways, exceeds it in some ways, yet is 2/3 the price. Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching and for the comment!
Nice comparison, and well done on the photos!😊
Thank you! 🙏
R3 will be by the Sensor size for sure better in noise - High ISO - but as already mentioned in the comments downsizing helps to have a fair competition! And not only the ISO is relevant for comparing also the other parameters are super important - comparing 1/2000 vs 1/500 and f5,6 and f8 makes comparing really challenging ... and just by the pictures them self clearly much more light available at the elk picture ... anyhow nice and short video!
45 mpix what do you want with that print posters? Only reason for 45 mpix would be if you are a cropper. I never cropp why get a ff if you are gonna crop anyways. And those files are sick huge. No thanks.
I have done pro work for years with a 1d mark4. I do not need 45 mpix to take postersize photographs it is just overkill. Would love an R3. Love the clean look and the pro style looks. Nice big battery.
R3 is suppose to be lighter than the R5 with a battery grip attached. So given the R5 doesn't have great battery life, it kinda defeats the advantage of being smaller.
for me it is one category ISO at 2K iso the r5 turns to crap the r6 and r3 can take 6400 with no issue
You look like max verstapn
I love that you have a Steve Irwin Funko Pop :D
I think the Canon r5 in full burst mode shoots in a compressed raw and the Canon r3 shoots in full raw.
Execelent capture
Thank you 🙏
Its amazing how many photographers don't understand how noise works. If you view a 24 mp camera image at 100% and compare that to a 45 mp image of exactly the same scene at 100%, you are looking at MUCH HIGHER MAGNIFICATION on the image with the higher megapixel count, which fools people into thinking the higher mp image has more noise. !!!!As pixel counts go up, the pixels get smaller, and as a result the noise grain size is smaller as well. But comparing the images the way you did shows you've fallen for the biggest misconception in photography.
Fewer pixels always means less noise, so how does the R6 compare to the R3 in that respect?
Unfortunately I haven’t shot the R6 so I’m not sure. I’ve heard from others the R6 has similar noise levels to the R5 but again haven’t tested myself, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
@@wattswildlifephoto not sure where you heard that, as most have observed myself included the R6 definitely has less noise than the R5, at least a stop better, early indications show little to no difference between R6 and R3 high iso performance so approx the same noise levels. Shouldn’t come as a surprise as R6 has 1DX mark III sensor and R3 has slightly higher megapixel.
At first I thought he was max verstappen.
Why are all 3 brands so paradoxical... as a Nikon shooter I'm pissed of waiting Nikon deliveries and currently I'm deep diving into Sony and Canon as A1 and R3/R5 are currently available in my stores but as much as I'm learning on these I'm getting tired of the nonsense both Canon & Sony are doing hence might be better to wait the delivery of the so mythical z800/z9, whenever that will be...
📸
Where’s the overheating mate? Think you missed the most important part.
I’ve never experienced any overheating issues, so I didn’t feel the need to discuss it 🤷♂️
@@wattswildlifephoto looks like you’ve got the one that doesn’t overheat, have heard most say it overheats. One big dealbreaker for R5.
I have an R5 and I`ve been out all day shooting with it and never experienced any overheating issues . I think its more to do with video .
@@Mr48374837 i think it depends on where you live and the general temperatures of the places youre taking photos at
R5 is so much better then the R3. I'm so pissed that i traded my R5 for a R3. R5 take better photos which is the only reason to buy a professional level camera.
Can you expand on that a bit? From what perspective do you find the R5 superior? I’m guessing it’s due to the ability to crop the larger files but I don’t want to make any assumptions.
@@ronrotunno2901 the cropabity, the ease of use, and the ergonomics of the R5 is by far superior to r3. In my opinion. If I was just shooting sports, in the studio only. Then hands down I would go with the R3. In my daily workflow there isn't enough versatility with the r3.
Makes sense, thanks for the reply. I currently use an R5 but I’m also a 1DX user so I guess our needs and what we’re used to are sort of opposite of one another. I shoot mainly hummingbirds at close distances in low light and in my situation the R3 works better for me. I also don’t crop a ton but even with a significant crop I find the R3 files hold up pretty well.
couldnt watch to the end. You talk far too fast for me.
apologises to us for underexposing A FREAKING BEAR that is walking towards him. You're forgiven mate.