Hi Ron ... great video thank you for taking the time to make it... I now have my R3.... what a piece of kit... so fast and 24 mega pix is brilliant ... beautiful images and colours ... loving it ! :-))
The R3 may have a slight advantage but not enough to give up 21MP! So very close and surprisingly fast with a 2X. I am convinced that the last firmware update on the R5 helped a lot...
Yep, it is fast to cycle. I was really surprised. I was a bit bummed by the sharpness of the images coming from the R5 versus the R3. Resolution matters, but so does the resolving power of the lens on a particular body and it seems my copy of the RF600 and 2x TC mated better with the R3 than R5.
Thank you Ron, I really appreciate the hands on in the field demo and comparation. It's seems to be a very close race with minor performance or response differences. Great stuff. I always look forward to you video's.
Thanks for doing this video Ron. I just got my RF 600 f/4 and the 2x last week. Looks to me like both the R3 and R5 are very close with the R3 being just a little snapier and doesn't have the little "hunt" cycle the R5 had on a couple of your examples. I think the upgrade from the EF 600 II to the RF is where the true advantage lies. The R3 and R5 seem quite close on the RF with both cameras significantly better focusing than they did on the on the EF 600 II.
Hi, I’m new to the channel. I think it’s fantastic that you take the time to reply and and comment. Made me impressed not just by the videos alone but to your commitment and humble responses also.
Thank you so much! Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I am retiring from my State avian research position in a month and I am overwhelmed with wrapping things up. Once I am retired from my other job I will have more time to dedicate to my channel.
Thanks for all the videos. They are super helpful and I've learned a great deal. When using the 600mm f4, or any lens for that matter, on a tripod are you turning off image stabilization on the lens? I know what the manual says, turn it off, and have tried turning it off, leaving it on, and haven't seen a noticeable difference. I'm shooting with a R5M2. Thanks.
I got the R3 and RF 600 f4 (with rf 2xTC) WOW!!!!!!! i was capturing planes (heavy) landing 7 miles away through the atmosphere and making out the Airliner insignia landing gears down and Catalina Island 50 miles away as the back drop..... R3 is crazy awesome in low light ... our world has changed; my first Canon was the 20D...
Great Video and stunning pictures, love the in the field stuff, very inspiring, I now know what I need to aim for, your pictures are fantastic. Regards Chris
Hi Ron. Can we say that EF500 f4II + 2Xii + R3 gets better images than R5 + 2xii + 500 f4II or equal at max ?? I think the 2X moltiplier limits the resolving power to sensors over 25mp .... do you agree ?? I really appreciate your video and help me with a possible purchase .Sorry for my translation . Thz
hey your videos are informative. Thank you for sharing. i use RF600 as well but slightly struggling to get sharp and crisp image. may i know the sweet spot of this lens?
Thanks for the comparison videos. I recently sold my R6 + EF 600 mk2 + 2X mk3. I used this combo all the time hand held but it gets heavy. Canon sent me the R5 for a month and I loved the resolution. The R3 does look faster to AF but the R5 in your video looks fast enough. I like getting super close detailed shots of the face and eyes. If you could only have one body, the R5 or R3 which would you have ? thanks
The R5 is a great all around body. Make sure the firmware it up to date and you will have a monster of a camera in the R5. Only one body = R5 for me. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
Thanks Ron, I would have to win the lottery to afford that lens! However, I have been very pleased with the auto focus on my R5 since firmware 1.5, locks onto birds in flight much better in my opinion.
I think the R3 is a little faster as expected with the larger more powerful battery but not to much. I picked up the RF600 and extenders last month but only tried the 2x a couple of times. I did use it hand held at 1200mm on the R5 and got good images with it, the 2lbs weight reduction over my old EF600 II really does make a difference. Do you ever log the banded birds you photograph? I forget the website but I did once and it was amazing to see it's travel history and the age of the bird because it was banded at birth.
I do turn in the band numbers. The weight is a huge factor, but so is the improved IS/IBIS IMO. The stabilization of the RF600 on the R3 and R5 is just mind-blowing to me.
While the speed at acquiring focus is great, I think the more important question is how’s the tracking and amount of images that are in focus on a moving subject with the 2x TC? Also how would that compare to the 600mm V2? Thanks 😊
The RF 600 with the 2x TC is super at tracking and providing tack sharp images. It is much better than the 600 Mk. II. This is why I switched. Thanks for the comment.
Hi Ron, Thank you very much for your help and guidance with the Canon R5, R3, and the RF lenses. I was lost when I first got my R5 and 100-500 but your videos helped me tremendously for all of the settings, etc. I have had the RF 400MM 2.8 for about 4 months now and I use it with the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. With the 2.0 I set my f stop at 8 and sometimes 11. The results are clearly better at those settings. BTW, where did you get the lens skin for your 600mm. I have not been able to find one. Thank you again for the great work !
I use the 2x converter on my RF-100-500 and am super happy with it's performance. As long as there is enough light it produces great photos. If the auto focus is taking to long because the sun going down I just pop off the 2x converter and back to shooting.
I have been messing around with IS/IBIS mode 2 and I have having great luck. I like not having to think about turning things on and off while shooting and being about to leave it on mode 2 all the time is awesome for me.
Thanks Ron, another great video. I currently have the EF 600 f4 L Mk iii which is incredible and was a noticeable step up from the MKii especially with converters. I have the 1DX Mk iii which is superb. I have. Recently started the switch to mirrorless, swapping in my second body (1DX MK ii) for an R5. I like the R5 - haven’t installed the latest firmware update yet and hoping that will improve it further. The RF 600 f4 is the same weight as the EF MK iii and I can’t see much difference in the graphs on optical specs. What I don’t know is if there is a noticeable performance difference in the field between the RF and EF MK iii - do you have a view?
I have worked with both the Mk. III and RF and the RF is a bit better with IS/IBIS stabilization and with AF speed. Whether it is enough of a difference to make the switch depends, I think, on what type of photography you do most. For BIF I think the difference gets me more shots.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks Ron, I have since acquired the R3 - so now I am shooting with the R3. The R5 and the 1DXiii I can see that if I ever decide I can do without my trust 1DX iii it might be worth exchanging the EF 600 MK iii for the RF but whilst I am still using the 1DX iii as well - I will keep with the EF 600 MK iii - it’s an amazing combination. I have really enjoyed your video on setting up the R3 and found it really helpful. I am still getting used to the R3 (liking it so far) but am not quite ready to let go of the 1DX iii - when I just have to get that shot, I know I. An pick it up and it just works every time
Hi Ron, I think the bottleneck of acquiring focus is the power the body can deliver to the motor in the lens. And I believe that should be nearly equal for both the R5 and the R3. The big advantage of the R5 is the pixel count, i.e. you could shoot with the 1.4x on the R5 and crop to the same image as the R3 with the 2x. Can you do a comparison that way and see who is winning image-quality wise?
I will take a look. At this point, I am super impressed with the image quality of the R3 with and without TCs. The R5 is very good also, but I like the R5 best without TCs. The extra cropping the 45mp allows seems to be best without TCs.
Unfortunately, I no longer have my EF 600 II, so I cannot make a direct comparison video. But believe me, the difference is substantial even without the TC on the EF 600 it is much slower to cycle.
I think the Canon R3 had a slight edge over the R5 but would be happy with either. I do know using the R5 on the 600mm V2 dose have some difficulty acquiring and holding focus depending of the color contrast of the bird and the background being very similar. Do you find this an issue with the new lenses and is there any difference between the EF and RF 600mm V3 in your opinion? Thanks 😊
Overall, the R3 AF is better than the R5's, but the R5's is still really good. The RF 600 is faster and has better IS/IBIS performance than the EF Mk. III. The EF Mk. III is a bit better than the EF Mk. II. But, if you are going to spend the money on an EF III then I would suggest going for the RF.
Thank you Ron, great comparison and demonstration. I can’t afford the 600/4, but I am interested in getting the western tanager for practice. Can you tell me where can I buy one? Appreciated and keep up the excellent work.
I have to say that the RF is better. If you really want to get the maximum number of great action shots, then I would go for the RF. If you do mostly slow stuff or static stuff then the EF Mk. II would be fine IMO.
@@whistlingwingsphotography That's true. I have a question for you. I'm a new TH-camer and I'm trying to figure out what category to list my videos under when uploading them. I've been using the pets/animals category for them which to me makes the most sense but wondered if you have any other recommendations to list them under if it makes a big difference or not?
Thanks for inspiring me to try the 2x on the 600 RF, have to say I hated the hell out of the EF but this is great, been using 1200 on barn owls in the UK and its exceptional.
Fantastic work love the series of BIF. I was originally going for an R5 then the R3 appeared was disappointing in the MP and the price. In the UK the Nikon Z9 is reasonably priced and the new 800mm also coming up means I've lost that original excitement for Canon. It's not just the main tele lenses all the other lenses in the RF range are way off crazy pricing in UK. I can imagine when Canon finally competes with the Z9 the R1 is going to be another 50% or more when it appears. I'm still keeping my EF Canon stuff but Nikon have really impressed me. I may still get a grey R5 for my EF lenses or pick one up while travelling.
Hey Ron. As always, great video. Also thanks for acting on my previous comment asking for specs in your R3 video. Really appreciate that! Thinking aloud... you're at a constant F8 by way of the tele-multiplier. I'm wondering what effect on sharpness a stopped down sweet spot might achieve and whether you would trade off higher ISO and shutter speed? Or perhaps it's just not worth it? Thanks again.
Yep, I stuck with f/8 to keep all the images comparable. But, there may be an aperture that does better than f/8. I will be testing that, because I was not really happy with the tackiness of the R5 images at f/8.
Thanks for this video. R3 as I mentioned before is a bit better in acquiring focus than the R5. But not by much. I wish the R3 had 45 mp. Now is the waiting game for the R1. I also use R5 with 2X and the results are quite good. I used to use 1DX and EF 2X and the results were not very good at all. Canon had done a good job.
Thanks for sharing. The results are quite good, but I am wondering if the sharpness could be better by stopping down a bit from f/8. I shot all images at f/8 for consistency, but there may be a better aperture for sharpness.
Hi Ron, Since you are so lucky to own both the R5 and the R3, which has become your go-to camera and why? Put another way, if you could only own one, which camera would you choose to keep for bird/wildlife photography? Really enjoy your videos. Thanks!
I would go with the R3. The AF is so fast, accurate and flexible. The resolution is more like 30mp when you get down to it. I do a lot of fast subject shooting so the R3 is my choice.
Hi Ron, the R3 has an edge in acquiring focus but I had another look at your previous video with the R3 and I thought the R5 images were noticeably softer than the R3 ones and the overall look of the R3 images was more pleasing. Personally if I could afford it I'd get the R3 and the RF600 f/4 (or perhaps the RF400 f/2.8 as it's more versatile ) and I wouldn't miss the R5's extra MP Thanks Noel
Noel, I agree. I was wondering if people would notice the difference. This difference is not a big with using the 1.4x or the RF600 naked. But with the 2x, the R5 images are not as good IMO.
@@whistlingwingsphotography It's interesting that many people think (without having even tried it out) the R3 isn't that great for wildlife because of the lesser mp but really when paired with Great Whites especially the RF400 f/2.8 and RF600 f/4 it's pretty hard to beat and I'd rather have it's superior low light and autofocus performance than high mp. How's it working for you under low light conditions?
@@noelchignell1048 It is great for low light, and not just the ISO performance, but the IS/IBIS is so good you can shoot at much lower shutter speeds on perched birds and thus also much lower ISOs. I love the R3.
hi Ron the differences between the R3 and the R5 are minimal. the difference between the man/woman behind the camera will make more of a difference. thanks for the nice and clear videos.
From the video, the R3 sure looked snappier, and the IQ and sharpness a little better as well !!?? But would I want to give up those many megapixels? No way!
Hi Ron. Can You provide US with more comparison shots? I have the same feeling as one of commentators. The shots from R3 seems to be more crisper, sharper. It strange because R5 has more resolution. When playing with R3 I didnt notice a big improvement In AF speed compared to R5 but for sure the R3 has more settings that can help to get sharper image and combined with 30 frames per second without rolling shutter, better response time from the sleeping mode, more output voltage on the battery it can change the situation.
Your work is great, as usual, but the disturbing element are those ghastly markers and trackers all over the feet of those beautiful birds. That's what they are in the process of doing to us.
Those leg bands are critical to learning about how these endangered birds move and survive. The information gathered allows conservationists to determine the most important wetland areas to protect and improve. It is a small price to pay to keep these awesome birds flying in N.A.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you. What will the reasons be for tracking us? I’m sure they’ll come up with some good ones. Either way, it’s an imposition of privacy.
Hi Ron ... great video thank you for taking the time to make it...
I now have my R3.... what a piece of kit... so fast and 24 mega pix is brilliant ... beautiful images and colours ... loving it ! :-))
Awesome. Share some images when you can.
The R3 may have a slight advantage but not enough to give up 21MP! So very close and surprisingly fast with a 2X. I am convinced that the last firmware update on the R5 helped a lot...
Yep, it is fast to cycle. I was really surprised. I was a bit bummed by the sharpness of the images coming from the R5 versus the R3. Resolution matters, but so does the resolving power of the lens on a particular body and it seems my copy of the RF600 and 2x TC mated better with the R3 than R5.
Why my R5 doesn’t have a circle (gray) in the center?
Thank you Ron, I really appreciate the hands on in the field demo and comparation. It's seems to be a very close race with minor performance or response differences. Great stuff. I always look forward to you video's.
I agree with your assessment JL. Thanks for stopping by,
Thanks for doing this video Ron. I just got my RF 600 f/4 and the 2x last week. Looks to me like both the R3 and R5 are very close with the R3 being just a little snapier and doesn't have the little "hunt" cycle the R5 had on a couple of your examples. I think the upgrade from the EF 600 II to the RF is where the true advantage lies. The R3 and R5 seem quite close on the RF with both cameras significantly better focusing than they did on the on the EF 600 II.
I def agree. It is the overall image quality that suffers a bit with the R5 with the 2x TC. But the RF lens is just awesome on both these bodies.
Hi, I’m new to the channel. I think it’s fantastic that you take the time to reply and and comment. Made me impressed not just by the videos alone but to your commitment and humble responses also.
Thank you so much! Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I am retiring from my State avian research position in a month and I am overwhelmed with wrapping things up. Once I am retired from my other job I will have more time to dedicate to my channel.
Thanks for all the videos. They are super helpful and I've learned a great deal. When using the 600mm f4, or any lens for that matter, on a tripod are you turning off image stabilization on the lens? I know what the manual says, turn it off, and have tried turning it off, leaving it on, and haven't seen a noticeable difference. I'm shooting with a R5M2. Thanks.
I got the R3 and RF 600 f4 (with rf 2xTC) WOW!!!!!!! i was capturing planes (heavy) landing 7 miles away through the atmosphere and making out the Airliner insignia landing gears down and Catalina Island 50 miles away as the back drop..... R3 is crazy awesome in low light ... our world has changed; my first Canon was the 20D...
Yes, the world of photography has come so far is such a short amount of time.
Great Video and stunning pictures, love the in the field stuff, very inspiring, I now know what I need to aim for, your pictures are fantastic. Regards Chris
Thanks 👍I greatly appreciate you watching and commenting.
Hi Ron. Can we say that EF500 f4II + 2Xii + R3 gets better images than R5 + 2xii + 500 f4II or equal at max ?? I think the 2X moltiplier limits the resolving power to sensors over 25mp .... do you agree ?? I really appreciate your video and help me with a possible purchase .Sorry for my translation . Thz
Great shots, Ron! Do you notice any atmospheric distortion when shooting at 1200mm?
hey your videos are informative. Thank you for sharing. i use RF600 as well but slightly struggling to get sharp and crisp image. may i know the sweet spot of this lens?
Thanks for the comparison videos. I recently sold my R6 + EF 600 mk2 + 2X mk3. I used this combo all the time hand held but it gets heavy. Canon sent me the R5 for a month and I loved the resolution. The R3 does look faster to AF but the R5 in your video looks fast enough. I like getting super close detailed shots of the face and eyes. If you could only have one body, the R5 or R3 which would you have ? thanks
The R5 is a great all around body. Make sure the firmware it up to date and you will have a monster of a camera in the R5. Only one body = R5 for me. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks for the reply, really nice channel 😀
Thanks Ron, I would have to win the lottery to afford that lens! However, I have been very pleased with the auto focus on my R5 since firmware 1.5, locks onto birds in flight much better in my opinion.
Thanks for the feedback. Always appreciated.
I think the R3 is a little faster as expected with the larger more powerful battery but not to much. I picked up the RF600 and extenders last month but only tried the 2x a couple of times. I did use it hand held at 1200mm on the R5 and got good images with it, the 2lbs weight reduction over my old EF600 II really does make a difference.
Do you ever log the banded birds you photograph? I forget the website but I did once and it was amazing to see it's travel history and the age of the bird because it was banded at birth.
I do turn in the band numbers. The weight is a huge factor, but so is the improved IS/IBIS IMO. The stabilization of the RF600 on the R3 and R5 is just mind-blowing to me.
While the speed at acquiring focus is great, I think the more important question is how’s the tracking and amount of images that are in focus on a moving subject with the 2x TC? Also how would that compare to the 600mm V2? Thanks 😊
The RF 600 with the 2x TC is super at tracking and providing tack sharp images. It is much better than the 600 Mk. II. This is why I switched. Thanks for the comment.
Hi Ron, Thank you very much for your help and guidance with the Canon R5, R3, and the RF lenses. I was lost when I first got my R5 and 100-500 but your videos helped me tremendously for all of the settings, etc. I have had the RF 400MM 2.8 for about 4 months now and I use it with the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. With the 2.0 I set my f stop at 8 and sometimes 11. The results are clearly better at those settings. BTW, where did you get the lens skin for your 600mm. I have not been able to find one. Thank you again for the great work !
Thanks so much for watching and commenting. The skin is Mossy Oaks Graphics. You can get it here. amzn.to/3KQzOSY
You have to cut it to size.
I use the 2x converter on my RF-100-500 and am super happy with it's performance. As long as there is enough light it produces great photos. If the auto focus is taking to long because the sun going down I just pop off the 2x converter and back to shooting.
Hey, thanks for the comment. Much appreciated
Hi Ron do you still leave IS turned off with flight shots ? with R3
I have been messing around with IS/IBIS mode 2 and I have having great luck. I like not having to think about turning things on and off while shooting and being about to leave it on mode 2 all the time is awesome for me.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks, makes sense.
A smorgasbord of really nice images. Were they taken in one location? The variety is amazing.
Nope. they were taken at various locations around peninsular Florida. Thanks for watching.
Thanks Ron, another great video. I currently have the EF 600 f4 L Mk iii which is incredible and was a noticeable step up from the MKii especially with converters. I have the 1DX Mk iii which is superb. I have. Recently started the switch to mirrorless, swapping in my second body (1DX MK ii) for an R5. I like the R5 - haven’t installed the latest firmware update yet and hoping that will improve it further.
The RF 600 f4 is the same weight as the EF MK iii and I can’t see much difference in the graphs on optical specs. What I don’t know is if there is a noticeable performance difference in the field between the RF and EF MK iii - do you have a view?
I have worked with both the Mk. III and RF and the RF is a bit better with IS/IBIS stabilization and with AF speed. Whether it is enough of a difference to make the switch depends, I think, on what type of photography you do most. For BIF I think the difference gets me more shots.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks Ron,
I have since acquired the R3 - so now I am shooting with the R3. The R5 and the 1DXiii
I can see that if I ever decide I can do without my trust 1DX iii it might be worth exchanging the EF 600 MK iii for the RF but whilst I am still using the 1DX iii as well - I will keep with the EF 600 MK iii - it’s an amazing combination.
I have really enjoyed your video on setting up the R3 and found it really helpful. I am still getting used to the R3 (liking it so far) but am not quite ready to let go of the 1DX iii - when I just have to get that shot, I know I. An pick it up and it just works every time
Hi Ron, I think the bottleneck of acquiring focus is the power the body can deliver to the motor in the lens. And I believe that should be nearly equal for both the R5 and the R3. The big advantage of the R5 is the pixel count, i.e. you could shoot with the 1.4x on the R5 and crop to the same image as the R3 with the 2x. Can you do a comparison that way and see who is winning image-quality wise?
I will take a look. At this point, I am super impressed with the image quality of the R3 with and without TCs. The R5 is very good also, but I like the R5 best without TCs. The extra cropping the 45mp allows seems to be best without TCs.
hi Ron
I would like to see the differences between the canon 600mm f/4 II and the canon RF 600mm f/4. can you show us pictures of this?
Unfortunately, I no longer have my EF 600 II, so I cannot make a direct comparison video. But believe me, the difference is substantial even without the TC on the EF 600 it is much slower to cycle.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Hi Ron
how is the sharpness of the RF version compared to the EF version . or is there no difference?
I think the Canon R3 had a slight edge over the R5 but would be happy with either. I do know using the R5 on the 600mm V2 dose have some difficulty acquiring and holding focus depending of the color contrast of the bird and the background being very similar. Do you find this an issue with the new lenses and is there any difference between the EF and RF 600mm V3 in your opinion? Thanks 😊
Overall, the R3 AF is better than the R5's, but the R5's is still really good. The RF 600 is faster and has better IS/IBIS performance than the EF Mk. III. The EF Mk. III is a bit better than the EF Mk. II. But, if you are going to spend the money on an EF III then I would suggest going for the RF.
Thank you Ron, great comparison and demonstration. I can’t afford the 600/4, but I am interested in getting the western tanager for practice. Can you tell me where can I buy one? Appreciated and keep up the excellent work.
Thanks so much. The Western Tanager is hand carved so not available in stores. Sorry.
Be interested in your opinions on the EF 600 II vs RF600 ? On the R5, Same quality? Speed? Etc. Was it worth the upgrade?
I have to say that the RF is better. If you really want to get the maximum number of great action shots, then I would go for the RF. If you do mostly slow stuff or static stuff then the EF Mk. II would be fine IMO.
I'd love to try out this combo someday but as of right now I am using an older but still worthy Canon 7D Mk Ii and a tamron 150-600mm g2 lens.
Hey, we all use the tools at our disposal. The main thing is to have fun with whatever you have. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@whistlingwingsphotography That's true. I have a question for you. I'm a new TH-camer and I'm trying to figure out what category to list my videos under when uploading them. I've been using the pets/animals category for them which to me makes the most sense but wondered if you have any other recommendations to list them under if it makes a big difference or not?
Thanks for inspiring me to try the 2x on the 600 RF, have to say I hated the hell out of the EF but this is great, been using 1200 on barn owls in the UK and its exceptional.
Awesome, Vince. Thanks for the feedback.
Fantastic work love the series of BIF. I was originally going for an R5 then the R3 appeared was disappointing in the MP and the price. In the UK the Nikon Z9 is reasonably priced and the new 800mm also coming up means I've lost that original excitement for Canon. It's not just the main tele lenses all the other lenses in the RF range are way off crazy pricing in UK. I can imagine when Canon finally competes with the Z9 the R1 is going to be another 50% or more when it appears. I'm still keeping my EF Canon stuff but Nikon have really impressed me. I may still get a grey R5 for my EF lenses or pick one up while travelling.
It is really to early to say how good the combo of Z9 and 800 will be, but given the price it sure looks nice.
Hey Ron. As always, great video. Also thanks for acting on my previous comment asking for specs in your R3 video. Really appreciate that! Thinking aloud... you're at a constant F8 by way of the tele-multiplier. I'm wondering what effect on sharpness a stopped down sweet spot might achieve and whether you would trade off higher ISO and shutter speed? Or perhaps it's just not worth it? Thanks again.
Yep, I stuck with f/8 to keep all the images comparable. But, there may be an aperture that does better than f/8. I will be testing that, because I was not really happy with the tackiness of the R5 images at f/8.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thank you. Looking forward to that review.
Thanks for this video. R3 as I mentioned before is a bit better in acquiring focus than the R5. But not by much. I wish the R3 had 45 mp. Now is the waiting game for the R1. I also use R5 with 2X and the results are quite good. I used to use 1DX and EF 2X and the results were not very good at all. Canon had done a good job.
Thanks for sharing. The results are quite good, but I am wondering if the sharpness could be better by stopping down a bit from f/8. I shot all images at f/8 for consistency, but there may be a better aperture for sharpness.
@@whistlingwingsphotography I do think f10 is better than f8 with the 2X. I only use 2X when the lighting is good. For overcast days, I use 1.4X
Hi Ron, Since you are so lucky to own both the R5 and the R3, which has become your go-to camera and why? Put another way, if you could only own one, which camera would you choose to keep for bird/wildlife photography? Really enjoy your videos. Thanks!
I would go with the R3. The AF is so fast, accurate and flexible. The resolution is more like 30mp when you get down to it. I do a lot of fast subject shooting so the R3 is my choice.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks. for the reply. I think it may be time to sell some EF lenses along with my 1DX2 and get on the R3 waiting list!
Ouuuu.... Thanks...
Hi Ron,
the R3 has an edge in acquiring focus but I had another look at your previous video with the R3 and I thought the R5 images were noticeably softer than the R3 ones and the overall look of the R3 images was more pleasing.
Personally if I could afford it I'd get the R3 and the RF600 f/4 (or perhaps the RF400 f/2.8 as it's more versatile ) and I wouldn't miss the R5's extra MP
Thanks
Noel
Noel, I agree. I was wondering if people would notice the difference. This difference is not a big with using the 1.4x or the RF600 naked. But with the 2x, the R5 images are not as good IMO.
@@whistlingwingsphotography It's interesting that many people think (without having even tried it out) the R3 isn't that great for wildlife because of the lesser mp but really when paired with Great Whites especially the RF400 f/2.8 and RF600 f/4 it's pretty hard to beat and I'd rather have it's superior low light and autofocus performance than high mp.
How's it working for you under low light conditions?
@@noelchignell1048 It is great for low light, and not just the ISO performance, but the IS/IBIS is so good you can shoot at much lower shutter speeds on perched birds and thus also much lower ISOs. I love the R3.
hi Ron
the differences between the R3 and the R5 are minimal. the difference between the man/woman behind the camera will make more of a difference. thanks for the nice and clear videos.
Good point! Thanks for watching and commenting.
Only a very slight change and not worth going to R3 considering loss of megapixels
I agree. The R5 drives the RF600 very well even with the 2x on it.
From the video, the R3 sure looked snappier, and the IQ and sharpness a little better as well !!??
But would I want to give up those many megapixels? No way!
Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment.
Pictures dont seems sharp with 2x. lacking details. May be its just me. Otherwise thanks for your comparison
Hi Ron. Can You provide US with more comparison shots? I have the same feeling as one of commentators. The shots from R3 seems to be more crisper, sharper. It strange because R5 has more resolution. When playing with R3 I didnt notice a big improvement In AF speed compared to R5 but for sure the R3 has more settings that can help to get sharper image and combined with 30 frames per second without rolling shutter, better response time from the sleeping mode, more output voltage on the battery it can change the situation.
I will see what I can do. I would agree, however, that with the 2x TC the R3 seems to produce sharper images in the end.
Its pretty darn fast!
Yes, it is.
Your work is great, as usual, but the disturbing element are those ghastly markers and trackers all over the feet of those beautiful birds. That's what they are in the process of doing to us.
Those leg bands are critical to learning about how these endangered birds move and survive. The information gathered allows conservationists to determine the most important wetland areas to protect and improve. It is a small price to pay to keep these awesome birds flying in N.A.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you. What will the reasons be for tracking us? I’m sure they’ll come up with some good ones. Either way, it’s an imposition of privacy.
I often shoot birds on the move and frankly the focus timing in your video doesn’t impress me.
Hey, we all have our own style and needs. Shoot what works for you. For me, this setup works well on some pretty fast birds in flight.