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

Someone told me that Eye AF was possible inside a Zone with the R3, I think that was a lie.. it doesn’t detect eyes and the manual states «faces». Major bummer… other than that and without testing more than a little indoors, jeez what an amazing camera. I’ve missed the pro bodies way more than I thought.

EvilTed said:

Higher resolution, where absolute speed isn't the ultimate goal.
I shot the San Francisco Carnaval as an official photographer this year with 2x R3s and a 24-70 F2.8 / 70-200 F2.8 combo @ 30 FPS for 8 hours. Got some excellent shots but that was before I got the R5 II. If I had a pair of R5 II's I'd probably have shot them in preference because of the glamor and spectacle of the dancers, where high resolution pays off.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure I agree that the resolution makes much difference to the actual photo, unless you’re cropping quite extensively or printing extremely large.

EvilTed said:

If I had a lot of spare cash, I'd have a pair of R5 II's and and pair of R1's, but not this year

Click to expand...

Oh yes I hear you

mmmm said:

I’m not sure I agree that the resolution makes much difference to the actual photo, unless you’re cropping quite extensively or printing extremely large.

Oh yes I hear you

Click to expand...

I can show you shots of a Carnaval dancer taken with a Hasselblad MF camera next to the R3. The resolution makes a huge difference in the quality of the image. This is why people shoot Medium Format in the studio and not Micro 4/3
More pixels = more detail, which usually equates to more quality.
It's kinda strange how the narrative of higher MP = crop these days rather than higher MP = quality.

EvilTed said:

I can show you shots of a Carnaval dancer taken with a Hasselblad MF camera next to the R3. The resolution makes a huge difference in the quality of the image.

Click to expand...

Will I notice that difference if I'm viewing those pictures on my iPhone?

LOL, probably not, but then again that's not the main use case is it?

EvilTed said:

I traded one of my R3s and bought an R5 II.
but before you think the R5 II is a replacement for sports, it isn't.
It's really down to file size, buffer size and the need to crop (I don't do that).

I have an R1 on order and it will become my primary sports body with the R3 as secondary (I shoot 2 bodies on the job).
Continuity of file size and storage is very important if you shoot sports all day for 8 hours and have to store, cull and edit the best ones.

I have an R5 so the R5 II gets paired with it.
The R5 is used for landscapes and flash and all things mechanical.
The R5 II is used in electronic shutter only.
I pair them together for event work and portraits.

I can't see a reason to pair the R1 with the R5 II on a job because they are different tools for different workflows IMHO.

Click to expand...

In regards to does the R5ii replace the R3 - I think the buffer, battery and filesize of the R5ii are the 3 main reasons it shouldn't be used as a primary sports body. It is similar to using a Z8 as a primary sports body.

But I think in all other aspects and the features it comes with elevate it above the R3, and could be considered a worthy replacement. The sensor size (resolution can be reduced) and body size are the only limiting factors. So you would need 3-4 batteries to play it safe. I have gone through 2 batteries and needed a 3rd on some jobs.

Speaking of which, I hope Canon add pre-capture on the older batteries to the firmware.

I've been shooting on 20fps with the pre-capture on and it's been perfect - at 30fps the buffer couldn't keep up on JPEG (couldn't imagine RAW!).

But I have used R3 and R5 since they came out as primary/secondary bodies for sports. And will be replacing the R3 with an R1 soon, to go with the R5ii. Whilst I have had a lot of issues with the R5 tracking and being pretty much limited to mechanical shutter - now that the R5ii can be trusted in electronic shutter and tracking subjects, I take advantage of one body having the crop factor, with the other body having the large buffer is nice. For sports where more reach is needed (cricket for eg.), R5ii can be used (as alluded to above). For high volume shooting and most sports, R1 will be the main body.

The AF differences between R5ii and R1 are noticeable, but both are finally up to par with the competition and are a decent enough upgrade on the R3/R5 combo. I sold my R3 & R5 a few months ago.

That was my experience using the R5 for sport too. Pretty much useless using ES. Poor AF too.
I've kept one of my R3s to pair with the R1 as primary and one of the R5s to pair with the R5 II as primary and to use with flash / landscapes where mechanical shutter is preferable.

I've packed up my RF 24-70 F2.8, RF 70-200 F2.8 and RF 500 F4.5-7.1 and these will be sold and the money put against a 100-300 F2.8 which I think will be the dream lens on the R1. Excited!

EvilTed said:

I can show you shots of a Carnaval dancer taken with a Hasselblad MF camera next to the R3. The resolution makes a huge difference in the quality of the image. This is why people shoot Medium Format in the studio and not Micro 4/3
More pixels = more detail, which usually equates to more quality.
It's kinda strange how the narrative of higher MP = crop these days rather than higher MP = quality.

Click to expand...

There is a lot more going on, IQ wise between those two cameras than a simple megapixel resolution increase, as would be the basic difference between an r3 and an RIi - which is what we we’re talking about.

EvilTed said:

It's kinda strange how the narrative of higher MP = crop these days rather than higher MP = quality

Click to expand...

That's because only with certain other metrics involved does a higher megapixel count = higher quality. Higher MP do always equal better 'cropability' though.

EvilTed said:

LOL, probably not, but then again that's not the main use case is it?

Click to expand...

Isn't it? I would say that's rather a large use case, if not the main use case for many people viewing photos a lot of the time. Perhaps not the only one, but it's not something that can be disregarded as a mere side note. I guess it depends on what you're shooting and for whom. It's not quantifiable in the least. What would you determine the main use case of a photo? You may know the use case for your photos and how you view them. Maybe you know the exact use case of your clients too, if its for something specific. I cant see how anyone can judge the way one may view a photo further than that.

neuroanatomist said:

Will I notice that difference if I'm viewing those pictures on my iPhone?

Click to expand...

If you pinch to zoom probably. Which seems to be the first thing anyone does whenever I'm showing them a photo on my phone.