Canon R3 or Canon R5 for bird photography? (1 Viewer)

[mikenott]

Been looking at the evolution of the Canon R3 specifications and considering whether the R3 would be better for me for general walkaround/hide photography. The question I ask myself is "Why do you need the R3, what's wrong with the R5?" and I find myself answering "not much" and indeed there are only two real issues for me with the R5 : difficulty in getting focus on small birds in shrubbery and battery life. The latter I have overcome by buying three Canon LP-E6NH batteries (£200 versus £1500+ for upgrade to R3) plus some cheaper emergency-use third party batteries. The focus issue I find irritating ( the focus area on the R5 seems to be a larger blob than on (say) the 1Dxii) but I can change to manual focus and use the magnifier to get focus and it may be overcome with a future firmware update.

Other advantages of the R3 would be build quality/ruggedness and better low light performance, but that is balanced by the R3 being heavier and having fewer/better(?) pixels. Don't want to start a pixel war in this thread!

I do very limited video - mostly stills

Just wondered what others are thinking, but my thinking at the moment is to wait and see and hopefully try one when the launch hullabaloo has died down. I think it would take quite a bit of improvement in the real world for me to make a switch.

Thoughts?

Michael

 

[stevo]

Also ,what lenses are you using IE RF lenses or old older EF lenses?

 

[mikenott]

Also ,what lenses are you using IE RF lenses or old older EF lenses?

RF 100-500 (for birds) RF 100 macro and EF MPE-65.

 

[stevo]

I would stick with your R5.

 

[mav12]

does the bird eye af not focus on the bitd in shrubbery , just been watching a vid on the new sony a74 and this very topic was mentioned saying it was good for this

 

[Gronk08]

Would depend if you have the need for the 30 FPS that the R3 offers, some reviews state the focusing is great and very quick on the R3 and is held very well through all 30 frames with maybe just one or two that are slightly off.
But for cropping I do wonder if the R5 wins due to the higher mega pixels.

Not seen any real life reviews yet just the ones on pre production bodies so might be worth waiting to see what real world reviews state or go with the R5 and probably save a few quid.

Tim

 

[Bafty]

Battery life can/is an issue with the R5 focusing on small birds in shrubbery isn't, just assign spot metering to one of the back buttons

 

[mikenott]

Battery life can/is an issue with the R5 focusing on small birds in shrubbery isn't, just assign spot metering to one of the back buttons

I have spot metering enabled on a back button. No problems when the bird is big in the frame, but when it gets down to being small in the frame, it struggles - which is a pity as I often want a reasonable shot to identify the bird using the R5's cropping properties.

 

[njlarsen]

I have spot metering enabled on a back button. No problems when the bird is big in the frame, but when it gets down to being small in the frame, it struggles - which is a pity as I often want a reasonable shot to identify the bird using the R5's cropping properties.

I hope you guys are actually talking about spot-AF. Spot metering means evaluating the spot for exposure, not for AF (unless canon has completely changed the language of photography).

Niels

 

[mikenott]

I hope you guys are actually talking about spot-AF. Spot metering means evaluating the spot for exposure, not for AF (unless canon has completely changed the language of photography).

Niels

Good spot. Spot Focus.

 

[Dave Williams]

I agree with all your points Mike including the frustration of trying to achieve focus using single AF point where the subject is in a mixed background like a bird in a bush! You omit to mention my other frustration though...start up time! From sleep mode to taking a shot is long enough to miss the opportunity on occasion. Frustrating to say the least! You could stop it from sleeping but the battery drain then becomes an issue.
I have kept my 5D4 which overcomes both those issues but sold the 1DX2 and I regret not doing it the other way around now. I don't need 30fps and I like having all those pixels to crop with that the R5 offers. However, a slightly larger body, bigger battery, more robust build, much better high ISO performance as well as having my two gripes overcome would certainly have me interested but will I buy an R3? I don't think so, and certainly not until the price drops which it will in time.

 

[jlacasci]

I'll add my .02 worth. First, I am not a professional photographer, although years ago I owned a successful sports photography company shooting games in an official capacity for Pop Warner football, Cooper's town tournaments, and others. I recently traded in my older Mark 1ds Mark III and Mark IIN and all of my EF lenses. I was deciding on the R3 or R5 with my primary subjects being nature, birds, landscapes, and occasional events like weddings. Thus far I have the 100-500, 1.4x, and 24-70 2.8L, all in the RF variety. The new sensor on the R3 should be better in low light which would be helpful with the 100-500. I can mitigate this with Topaz labs products which I own. If I were still shooting sports, I might spring for the R3 for the frame rate, better weather sealing and perhaps the new look at what you want to focus on feature. The processor is the same in both cameras, as is the IBIS, and viewfinder. A big issue for me is the megapixel capture, this is great when shooting small birds, even with a 700mm lens (100+500 with 1.4) this allows a good amount of in-camera or post-camera cropping. Even shooting at 1.6 crop you still have 17 megapixels with the R5 (although I just shoot full-frame and post-crop). The view screen on the R3 is much better, but I prefer to evaluate images on a color-calibrated monitor and the difference in pixels on the viewing screen didn't matter that much to me. If you do care about video, the R5 is the better option. As to focusing, I have my back button programmed to zone, the * programmed to eye-tracking for animals, and the AF point selection set to the smaller AF point selection. I find this setup lets the zone find the bird and once found the * lets me quickly switch to eye tracking. If that is los, the smallest spot focus is helpful all easily reached with my thumb.

Hope this is helpful. I'd love to own both, but the cost is a huge factor.

 

[rpg51]

I'll add my .02 worth. First, I am not a professional photographer, although years ago I owned a successful sports photography company shooting games in an official capacity for Pop Warner football, Cooper's town tournaments, and others. I recently traded in my older Mark 1ds Mark III and Mark IIN and all of my EF lenses. I was deciding on the R3 or R5 with my primary subjects being nature, birds, landscapes, and occasional events like weddings. Thus far I have the 100-500, 1.4x, and 24-70 2.8L, all in the RF variety. The new sensor on the R3 should be better in low light which would be helpful with the 100-500. I can mitigate this with Topaz labs products which I own. If I were still shooting sports, I might spring for the R3 for the frame rate, better weather sealing and perhaps the new look at what you want to focus on feature. The processor is the same in both cameras, as is the IBIS, and viewfinder. A big issue for me is the megapixel capture, this is great when shooting small birds, even with a 700mm lens (100+500 with 1.4) this allows a good amount of in-camera or post-camera cropping. Even shooting at 1.6 crop you still have 17 megapixels with the R5 (although I just shoot full-frame and post-crop). The view screen on the R3 is much better, but I prefer to evaluate images on a color-calibrated monitor and the difference in pixels on the viewing screen didn't matter that much to me. If you do care about video, the R5 is the better option. As to focusing, I have my back button programmed to zone, the * programmed to eye-tracking for animals, and the AF point selection set to the smaller AF point selection. I find this setup lets the zone find the bird and once found the * lets me quickly switch to eye tracking. If that is los, the smallest spot focus is helpful all easily reached with my thumb.

Hope this is helpful. I'd love to own both, but the cost is a huge factor.

I've got an R6, RF 24-70 2.8, RF 15-35 2.8 and RF 100-500. I'll probably end up with an R5 down the road a way after I have earned some chops with the R6. I have my focus set up a lot like you do, not exactly, but similar. I am back to photography after 25 years or more away from it. These cameras are wonderful but there is a learning curve for a guy like me. I'm a 35 mm SLR film guy. I've never used auto focus like this. Never been able to change ISO on the fly. That is a huge change for me.

 

[WildPhotographer]

I am late to this thread, and at risk of being controversial, I am going to ask this: if people are thinking of buying an EOS R3, do they have the skills to use it?

Harsh, but very, very honest.

Looking at the galleries, some here certainly do, but for others, spending money does not guarantee results. Years of practice in the field does.

These cameras are incredibly complex and even professional sports photographers, using cameras day in and day out struggle with R3. It is no longer a matter of going onto YouTube and watching someone setting up five different buttons to focus, but understanding how they really work and having the core photographic skills to use them - as a part of what I do, I have been training photographers on using Canon cameras and many other brands for 20 years and I am regularly surprised by people who don't appreciate the basic skills needed when they spend large amounts of money on cameras.

 

[rpg51]

Those who have the resources, and who are serious about photography as an avocation or hobby, sometimes want to have equipment a bit over their heads so they can grow into it overtime. Coming back to photography after an extended period away, I agree the modern cameras are complex. They are enormously feature rich and customizable. Many folks, new to photography, do not yet have the knowledge and skills to make use of the high end modern cameras effectively. And, there is some danger that they will become preoccupied with the technology of their camera, and that their preoccupation could slow the development of fundamental photographic skills. Still, it is their money, and their time, and they will chose how to spend it in the best way for them.

I doubt the R3 will ever be the camera body for me. The R5/R6 bodies will likely give me more then I will ever want or need given my skill level, or lack thereof, and given the years I have remaining to develop my skills. In my opinion the R6 I have now is a very powerful and enjoyable tool. I might add an R5 someday, mostly for the additional cropping ability. But, the R3? Probably not. If I grow out of the R6/R5 there will always be other bodies out there to grab my money. Everyone has to sort this stuff out for themselves.

 

[jlacasci]

I am late to this thread, and at risk of being controversial, I am going to ask this: if people are thinking of buying an EOS R3, do they have the skills to use it?

Harsh, but very, very honest.

Looking at the galleries, some here certainly do, but for others, spending money does not guarantee results. Years of practice in the field does.

These cameras are incredibly complex and even professional sports photographers, using cameras day in and day out struggle with R3. It is no longer a matter of going onto YouTube and watching someone setting up five different buttons to focus, but understanding how they really work and having the core photographic skills to use them - as a part of what I do, I have been training photographers on using Canon cameras and many other brands for 20 years and I am regularly surprised by people who don't appreciate the basic skills needed when they spend large amounts of money on cameras.

WildPhotographer, you are spot on with your assessment. I have found the same to be very true going back decades. rpg51 also makes a valid point. Some of my own experiences and background: I began my photography journey with my first real camera around 1980 with a Pentax K1000. I won't mention the prior camera's because they were not SLRs and weren't the right systems to build fundamental skills. I spent years educating myself including college courses on photography, studio lighting, developing, and printing b&w and color. I also spent some time as a photojournalist for the Army Reserves. Over the years I acquired more and less advanced cameras including medium format (Hasselblad 500cm). I shot weddings, portraits, and even a few models relying on the old Gossen Luna pro manual light meter . Decades later, having settled on Canon as my system of choice I was paid well to cover for Pop Warner Football, state and regional baseball, hockey, basketball, and college-level athletic programs using professional bodies and lenses that you see at any NFL game. This is where I can make both of your points. At this one regional tournament, a spectator complained that he could get the same quality images I was getting if he had my equipment (EOS 1d Mark III and 400 f/2.8 and another Mark III with 70-200 f/2.8) if he wasnt using a consumer-grade camera and an inexpensive zoom lens. After chatting for a few plays I offered to switch equipment for a couple of plays (body with the 400 and monopod). Of course, his camera was in a program mode, mine was in manual. His camera was not using the correct shutter, aperture, and the conditions required you to modify exposure on the fly based upon sun/cloud conditions and the action. Needless to say, even with my quality gear in his hands he was not capturing good images and he was impressed with what I was able to do with his system. It was a fun experiment and we stayed in touch for the season I suggested books and sites for him to learn more about the craft. I'm fond of saying that you don't hire a plumber just because he or she has tools that you don't have, you are really paying for their knowledge. So I agree with WildPhotograher and I see this all the time I am also surprised with how little people know about the fundamentals but also surprised at what they don't know about the technology in their hands. I could go on a lot more about this, but I think you get the point. I see rpg51's point often too. I've recently got into photographing birds in flight and see many folks with 600mm f/5.6 lenses that cost them 12 to $15,000 dollars. After speaking with some, they can clearly afford the expensive glass but are disappointed with their results either due to a lack of fundamentals or understanding of what is required to capture different types of birds in different conditions. They don't even think about atmospheric challenges, lighting conditions, speed of the wings or bird, panning skills, to name just a few things. Just because you have a big lens and a $4,000 camera body doesn't mean you will obtain great results if you don't have the underlying knowledge of the subject and foundational skills. Of course, if you have the fundamentals, and knowledge of the subject, then the tech in the R5 or R3 will absolutely improve your keep rate. My full-time job is as an information technology executive. In my early career, I was a database administrator back in the days when you had to spend years learning how to manage an Oracle database. I now see database administrators relying on tools to do this same type of work and they do NOT have the underlying knowledge to understand the changes they are making to a database and are just relying on what a tool tells them to do and thus they have little in the way of troubleshooting skills. I work at a College and have been asked to offer a short class for staff development (just two or three hours) on photography but I have declined to do this. Where would I start? I would want to start with the fundamentals for weeks before I ever got into what some of the technology can do. I've had brief photography conversations on fundamentals with many, MANY people over the years. Too many are looking for a shortcut that replaces skill and experience.

 

[rpg51]

It's true that you can't buy a high end camera with no photography skills and get great results. But, if you have some skills and a commitment and desire to learn, a high end camera and some good lenses - within reason - can keep you energized and enthusiastic about the art form. It can help you learn faster.

This same theory applies in other areas. If you are an amateur musician and you have a low end instrument it will hold you back and frustrate you. If you get a high quality instrument it will be easier to play and it will inspire you, and you will progress faster. Of course, its also true that a skilled musician can make any instrument sound great, and the beginner will struggle to great good music with the best instrument.

 

[Dave Williams]

It's true that you can't buy a high end camera with no photography skills and get great results. But, if you have some skills and a commitment and desire to learn, a high end camera and some good lenses - within reason - can keep you energized and enthusiastic about the art form. It can help you learn faster.

This same theory applies in other areas. If you are an amateur musician and you have a low end instrument it will hold you back and frustrate you. If you get a high quality instrument it will be easier to play and it will inspire you, and you will progress faster. Of course, its also true that a skilled musician can make any instrument sound great, and the beginner will struggle to great good music with the best instrument.

That's an apt analogy, you may well find that those who like to blow their own trumpet don't know any other tunes.

 

[stevo]

I've got to admit that even after doing photography for 40yrs,from film to digital.Learning the R6 is taking a bit of getting used to.

 

[rpg51]

I've got to admit that even after doing photography for 40yrs,from film to digital.Learning the R6 is taking a bit of getting used to.

Ain't that the truth.