Thoughts from members that own the R3 but bought the R5 MkII

MSH411

MSH411

Born to Wander
Canon Rumors Premium
Feb 23, 2024
343
1,454
Windy City
commonhangout.com
#1
I haven't seen/heard much in the way of comparison from owners of the R3 that bought the new R5 II.

I'm interested to know if the new R5 II has basically retired your R3 or if you still grab the R3 as your preferred body.

The price points are so similar now that it would be good to hear if one body excels beyond the other.

And if you had to do it again would you sit on the R3 and pass on the R5 II or do you think the R5 II was a good buy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
#2
I sold my R3 and R5 a while ago, and was really impressed with a recent trial of the R5ii. Shooting sports using an R5 as a second body was always a liability, but the focus is much better now, streets ahead of the mk I in terms of AF.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#3
dpockett said:
I sold my R3 and R5 a while ago, and was really impressed with a recent trial of the R5ii. Shooting sports using an R5 as a second body was always a liability, but the focus is much better now, streets ahead of the mk I in terms of AF.
Click to expand...
The op asked for comparison with the r3, not the r5. Since you had both an r3 and an r5ii, what's your opinion on the difference between those two?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#4
mmmm said:
The op asked for comparison with the r3, not the r5. Since you had both an r3 and an r5ii, what's your opinion on the difference between those two?
Click to expand...
Exactly!

The R5 II is currently selling at $4300 and the R3 @ $4500. I'm interested in knowing if the owners believe the R3 is still superior to the R5 II or if Canon basically shot themselves in the foot because the R5 offers very similar functionality to the R3 with 45MP sensor and a savings of $200.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#6
I'm passing on the R5 Mark II for the R1. As a former owner of the EOS R5 and current EOS R3 owner, the ergonomics of the 5 series just don't work for me. I have a big nose and big hands and I find it very cramped and I dislike battery grips. So for me, the full size body is a must. I also use the front of camera buttons a lot, so those are a must too.

One of the biggest things I'm looking forward to with the R1 outside of the AF is the 0.9x EVF with double the resolution of the R3. That's one of the subtle changes that is going to be huge for my aging eyes.

I do know a couple of future R1 owners that got an R52 to learn the AF, but both plan to sell them once the R1 hits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#7
MSH411 said:
So YuengLinger your laughing, do you not think the question is valid?
Click to expand...
I'm laughing at the way you phrase your question. No, I don't think Canon "shot themselves in the foot" by following their decades-old pattern of setting a premium price for early adopters of new gear. And Canon apparently believed releasing a quasi-One-series body three years ago made sense. It satisfied users who, in their transition to mirrorless, wanted a larger form-factor body more aimed at sports, and it allowed Canon to put eye-controlled AF out in the real world.

Would you do better helming a multi-national camera company trying to navigate a baffling economy in a world full of fairly decent camera-phones in every hand?

Your initial post seemed engaging enough but seemed to trend quickly towards thoughtless b'ing and moaning. That's just my perception, and I thought it was funny. You asked for me to explain my laughter. Perhaps I should have just left it as was, but nobody has ever said I'm not blunt enough.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#8
dpockett said:
I sold my R3 and R5 a while ago, and was really impressed with a recent trial of the R5ii. Shooting sports using an R5 as a second body was always a liability, but the focus is much better now, streets ahead of the mk I in terms of AF.
Click to expand...
And if you, dpockett, wonder why I chuckled, it was because I do use the R5 for sports, albeit junior-league soccer matches, and I have never thought of it as a "liability." Compared to my wonderful, former 5DIV, it is a huge improvement in AF. And don't get me started on the humbler EOS R, which was wonderful for portraits and landscapes, but not action, in my opinion.

I chuckle when the bombast outweighs the point somebody is trying to make.

And, mmmm, if you are reading this, I chuckled at your comment because you seemed to be scolding another poster for not sticking to your idea of what on-topic should be. I thought dpockett's comment, despite being a bit extreme regarding the R5's performance, fit into the flow. But you apparently beleive ONLY owners of both cameras should be participating. Just scan past!

Ok, I'm done. Time to get some sunshine, fresh-air, and exercise.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#9
I'm sure the R5 is fine for some with sports, I know some that use it, but I have missed moments due to the slow focus. I used it as a 2nd body and just couldn't depend on it when needed. Thus my extreme criticism of it. For everything apart from fast action it is a lovely camera imo.

R5ii is on par with R3 for AF, in some ways better (pre capture, action priority etc). The rolling shutter is worse than R3 though, if that bothers you. I never used the R5 electronic shutter as the rolling shutter was too extreme, it is better in the mk ii but still not as good as R3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#10
YuengLinger said:
I'm laughing at the way you phrase your question. No, I don't think Canon "shot themselves in the foot" by following their decades-old pattern of setting a premium price for early adopters of new gear. And Canon apparently believed releasing a quasi-One-series body three years ago made sense. It satisfied users who, in their transition to mirrorless, wanted a larger form-factor body more aimed at sports, and it allowed Canon to put eye-controlled AF out in the real world.

Would you do better helming a multi-national camera company trying to navigate a baffling economy in a world full of fairly decent camera-phones in every hand?

Your initial post seemed engaging enough but seemed to trend quickly towards thoughtless b'ing and moaning. That's just my perception, and I thought it was funny. You asked for me to explain my laughter. Perhaps I should have just left it as was, but nobody has ever said I'm not blunt enough.
Click to expand...
Not at all, I asked for clarity and that's what you provided, the response is appreciated.

I should have been more focused in my statement as it wasn't intended to be b'ing and moaning. With the release of the R5 II has Canon potentially negatively impacted the sales of the R3? Is the functionality so similar that people will opt for the new tech (saving a couple hundred) and sales will drop on the R3? And while I know each body has to some degree a different market, is the R3 still functionally a better camera.

And lastly will the decades old pattern continue and shortly will we realize a price reduction on the R3 because retailers and Canon are holding excess inventory?

Again, I know it's early, people have only had the R5 II in their hands for a couple weeks but I have not read many comments or reviews comparing the two bodies. I was simply interested in the people thoughts that currently own both bodies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
dpockett said:
I'm sure the R5 is fine for some with sports, I know some that use it, but I have missed moments due to the slow focus. I used it as a 2nd body and just couldn't depend on it when needed. Thus my extreme criticism of it. For everything apart from fast action it is a lovely camera imo.

R5ii is on par with R3 for AF, in some ways better (pre capture, action priority etc). The rolling shutter is worse than R3 though, if that bothers you. I never used the R5 electronic shutter as the rolling shutter was too extreme, it is better in the mk ii but still not as good as R3.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a picture with the R5 mkII where rolling shutter ruined your shot that would’ve been perfect with the R3?
 
Upvote 0
#12
Viggo said:
Can you provide a picture with the R5 mkII where rolling shutter ruined your shot that would’ve been perfect with the R3?
Click to expand...

Golf swings have looked good with the R52 (not perfect), however there was no mention of what kind of shafts were on the club.

I've always noticed it the most with American football.. the ball shape whipped out fast. I haven't found any NFL shots yet from preseason.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Golf swings have looked good with the R52 (not perfect), however there was no mention of what kind of shafts were on the club.

I've always noticed it the most with American football.. the ball shape whipped out fast. I haven't found any NFL shots yet from preseason.
Click to expand...
Golf clubs do bend naturally so might not be a conclusive test.

The American football is oval :LOL: «Always» noticed? Have you had the R5 mkII that long? I saw baseball swings with bat and ball that looked perfect with the old R5 though. So the mileage may vary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#15
Thanks for the link Doc, that was good information.

Interesting that he said he thinks he would pick up a second R5 II body and get rid of the R3. With that being said he didn't have any savings due to the added grip, the expense was more then the R3. I'd like to hear more on the topic but in this instance it is what I thought, the R5 II is nudging the R3 into obsolescence. It was phrased a bit dramatically in my post but that is what I meant by "Canon basically shot themselves in the foot".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#16
MSH411 said:
Thanks for the link Doc, that was good information.

Interesting that he said he thinks he would pick up a second R5 II body and get rid of the R3. With that being said he didn't have any savings due to the added grip, the expense was more then the R3. I'd like to hear more on the topic but in this instance it is what I thought, the R5 II is nudging the R3 into obsolescence. It was phrased a bit dramatically in my post but that is what I meant by "Canon basically shot themselves in the foot".
Click to expand...
I, like many, am a big fan of Bryan's work over on TDP. One item he has added toward the end of his reviews is a discussion regarding alternatives to that product. If you go toward the end of the R5 II's review page, you can see that he considered the R3 as an alternative to the R5 II.

But, to quote, advantages of the R3 over the R5 II include:
  • "Supports high-speed continuous shooting for 150 RAW images vs. 93
  • Custom high-speed continuous shooting supports higher frame rates
  • Up to 1/64000 shutter speed vs. 1/32000 (crazy fast vs. extremely fast)
  • Smart Controllers (powerful controls after some acclimation)
  • 4.15 million dot LCD vs. 2.1 million
  • Integrated vertical grip, LAN port, and GPS (outstanding grip ergonomics, the grip, port, and GPS are available accessories for the R5 II)
  • Superior dust and weather resistance (with both bodies significantly sealed, will we notice the difference?)
  • More controls and buttons (these make the camera faster and easier to use. And, more complicated?)
  • More powerful 2750 mAh LP-E19 battery pack vs. 2130 mAh (but the R5 II holds 4260 mAh in the vertical grip)"
I think the integrated grip alone will make the R3 appealing to some people at the same price point. But, birders will always want more MPs. I suspect Ron from WWP ends up with two R5 IIs. Bryan at TDP, who shoots a lot of wildlife, is going with two R5 IIs.

In terms of the R3, between the R6 II/III, R1, and R5 I/II, there really is not much of a market, IMO. If they come out with a R3 II, I expect something will have to be significantly different and while many will point to higher MP as the obvious differentiator, I suspect the gripped R5 II is Canon's answer to a larger body 45 MP camera. Pushing higher MP runs into an issue of bandwidth at higher frame rates.

So, I agree, I think the R3 is a one-off. It served its purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#17
Viggo said:
Can you provide a picture with the R5 mkII where rolling shutter ruined your shot that would’ve been perfect with the R3?
Click to expand...
No, because I've had plenty on the R3 over the years that I have had to adjust with free transform in photoshop, I didn't really find any that needed it on the R5ii (I only had it for a week) but in a simple pan and spray test it was more noticeable than the R3. So to answer your question, I can't recall too many (if any) panning shots that were perfect with the R3 and probably even less with the R5ii. When you use the A1, A9iii and Z9 for a while you soon realise that Canon haven't got it right yet, until I think the R1 which looks to be RS free.
 
Upvote 0
#18
docsmith said:
I, like many, am a big fan of Bryan's work over on TDP. One item he has added toward the end of his reviews is a discussion regarding alternatives to that product. If you go toward the end of the R5 II's review page, you can see that he considered the R3 as an alternative to the R5 II.

But, to quote, advantages of the R3 over the R5 II include:
  • "Supports high-speed continuous shooting for 150 RAW images vs. 93
  • Custom high-speed continuous shooting supports higher frame rates
  • Up to 1/64000 shutter speed vs. 1/32000 (crazy fast vs. extremely fast)
  • Smart Controllers (powerful controls after some acclimation)
  • 4.15 million dot LCD vs. 2.1 million
  • Integrated vertical grip, LAN port, and GPS (outstanding grip ergonomics, the grip, port, and GPS are available accessories for the R5 II)
  • Superior dust and weather resistance (with both bodies significantly sealed, will we notice the difference?)
  • More controls and buttons (these make the camera faster and easier to use. And, more complicated?)
  • More powerful 2750 mAh LP-E19 battery pack vs. 2130 mAh (but the R5 II holds 4260 mAh in the vertical grip)"
I think the integrated grip alone will make the R3 appealing to some people at the same price point. But, birders will always want more MPs. I suspect Ron from WWP ends up with two R5 IIs. Bryan at TDP, who shoots a lot of wildlife, is going with two R5 IIs.

In terms of the R3, between the R6 II/III, R1, and R5 I/II, there really is not much of a market, IMO. If they come out with a R3 II, I expect something will have to be significantly different and while many will point to higher MP as the obvious differentiator, I suspect the gripped R5 II is Canon's answer to a larger body 45 MP camera. Pushing higher MP runs into an issue of bandwidth at higher frame rates.

So, I agree, I think the R3 is a one-off. It served its purpose.
Click to expand...
That's good feedback doc, my perspective is similar. It just makes me contemplate the Canon strategy as it relates to the release of new bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 1
#19
MSH411 said:
That's good feedback doc, my perspective is similar. It just makes me contemplate the Canon strategy as it relates to the release of new bodies.
Click to expand...
If you want to talk strategy...from my perspective....AF...AF...AF. Canon is doing amazing things with subject/eye AF as well as eye-controlled AF. As we are seeing a lot of parity in IQ between the brands, I suspect Canon sees all the ancillary aspects of photography that help people "get the shot" as how to differentiate themselves. This is not new, Canon has always excelled at little things that make the experience better (menus, ergonomics, service, and...AF).

Talk about the R3...all the debate is if the "R3 was really the R1 Mk 0" or that the "R1 is really the R3 II" :)rolleyes:....)

The R3 will be known as the first camera to have this modern version of eye-controlled AF. It is a historically relevant camera....that filled a market niche for a period of time.

But, it was a beta-test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#20
"R3 was really the R1 Mk 0" seems more accurate at this point.

It would be difficult to dispute that Canon isn't setting the industry trend for AF. I fought it for a while, moving away from my DSLR's. I rented an R5 and was amazed at the leap in AF tech from my 5D Mk IV. Now the majority of my EF glass has been traded and soon my DSLR bodies will follow the same path. I can say now that I waited to long to pick up the R6, R5 and RF glass. You know....old dog new tricks!

I was considering the R3 for several reasons, mostly the ergonomics and functionality but with the rollout of the R5 MkII I applied the breaks. The R5 Mk II with a grip appears to meet or surpass the R3.

docsmith said:
The R3 will be known as the first camera to have this modern version of eye-controlled AF. It is a historically relevant camera....that filled a market niche for a period of time.

But, it was a beta-test.
Click to expand...

That was the my thought and what drove my question in the original post. My hope was that someone owned both and would give a somewhat comprhensive comparision.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
I waited a long time for the R5 MkII, bought the R5 instead
Replies
1
Views
556
OldDudePhotog
O
C
Canon USA Refurb Black Fri deal on R5 and R3 Bodies
Replies
0
Views
1K
canonmike
C
docsmith
  • Poll
Upgrading from an R5 Mk 1 to .....
Replies
9
Views
718
docsmith
docsmith
M
Buying a R3 or R5 in May 2023?
Replies
9
Views
7K
Beastiedawg
B
MSH411
R5 or wait for the R5 MkII - Stills only
Replies
8
Views
589
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu