R5ii or R3 for Wildlife Photography?

[FrenchFry]

I have the R3 and R6ii, as well as an RF 100-300 F2.8. I previously had the R5.
While I really enjoy the colors and lots light performance of the R3, its 24MP have often limited cropping.
For those of you with the R3 and R5ii and a wildlife photography focus, how do you find the two compare? Is one far better in terms of autofocus/tracking? Do you notice a big low light performance difference? I do a fair amount of shooting in forest cover and dawn/dusk. Battery life?
I prefer smaller body size for travel, even when paired with heavy lenses.
I have longer lenses in the Z system so not looking to get more reach via longer Canon RF lenses.
I only shoot stills, so video is not a factor in my decision.

 

[Maximilian]

Disclaimer: I don't have R3 or R5mk2. But I'll let data speak.
If low light performance is the main factor I'd refer to photonstophotos.net.
R3vs. R5mk2:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

So in pure sensor performances it seems that above ISO 1000 you will lose about 1/2 EV with the R5mk2 sensor.
Therefore, you'll gain +87% amount of pixels. With R5mk2 you have the advantage of either more cropping possibilities or downsampling the pixels to get better DR. (edit and corrected: I meant.... s/n level. Therefore, you gain DR over the noise level.
As you have experience with the R5 (mk1) consider the sensor as almost equal to the R5mk2. Did you like it?
R5 vs. R5mk2:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

If you have the money and if you did like the R5, it could be a good idea to get the R5mk2.
Do you also have RF extenders (1.4x, 2x) in your kit?

 

[FrenchFry]

Thank you for the reply!
I sold the R5 after getting the R3, I miss the extra megapixels but low light R3 performance is better in terms of noise.
Mostly I felt the R5 tracking was not as good and did not feel as sticky to the subject eyes when the subject was moving.
The extra MP can be unforgiving if there is very slight miss in the AF. If the R5 ii is a lot better at sticking to animal eyes in real life it would be worth adding to the kit. I would keep the R6 ii (eventually R6 iii) for low light.
I do have the 1.4x extender.

 

[Maximilian]

First, I'll have to correct myself (I did edit my post).
The R5mk2 offers 187% of the R3 pixels. But you gain +87%.
About AF and tracking: I guess that the mk2 has improved a lot over the R5, getting also a lot from the R3.
So IMO it'll be only about the noise in low light vs. more pixels.

I hope for a lot of fun during your next trip

 

[P-visie]

If available near you, you can rent the R5 Mk II and see how it performs versus the R3.

 

[docsmith]

You may be best off watching some Whisting Wings Photography review videos. He has compared the R1 and R5II.

The quick synapse: R1 does better At higher ISO settings. Somewhere around ISO 8000 and above and you may actually get more detail with the R1.

Autofocus is a darn near push.

R1, R3, R5 I/II are all great cameras capable of taking amazing photos.

 

[AlanF]

You may be best off watching some Whisting Wings Photography review videos. He has compared the R1 and R5II.

The quick synapse: R1 does better At higher ISO settings. Somewhere around ISO 8000 abd above and you may actually get more detail with the R1.

Autofocus is a darn near push.

R1, R3, R5 I/II are all great cameras capable of taking amazing photos.

How does he process the RAWs?

 

[Omn]

With R5mk2 you have the advantage of either more cropping possibilities or downsampling the pixels to get better DR.

Downsampling pixels doesn't give better DR. Internet spread delusion.

 

[EricN]

darn near push

what does that mean?

 

[neuroanatomist]

what does that mean?

Tied.

 

[docsmith]

How does he process the RAWs?

Yes.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Has comparisons throughout, but ISO 8000 is around the 6 min mark.

 

[AlanF]

Yes.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Has comparisons throughout, but ISO 8000 is around the 6 min mark.

Thanks. I looked at the 6 minutes. He says he is showing RAW images - but they can't be RAW, they are already processed to jpegs, and he then denoises by Topaz. I don't use Topaz for denoising as it loses detail relative to DxO PL, which works particularly well on high resolution sensors. So, I'd like to know what he uses for the initial RAW conversions of the jpegs he shows and whether the choice of RAW converter makes a difference to the outcomes.

 

[AlanF]

Downsampling pixels doesn't give better DR. Internet spread delusion.

There is no need to be rude to people and accuse them of being deluded. @Maximilian is a typical forum member who wishes to pass on what he knows and also learn from others. If something is incorrect, just explain why - a simple statement that something is wrong without explanation is a waste of time, especially when written disparagingly.
For those interested, DR is measured on photons to photos at a fixed physical size of output at a fixed distance (not on a per pixel size basis)- typically an 8" wide print at arm's length. So, a high resolution print/image is automatically "downsized" to the same physical size as one from a low resolution sensor. If you downsize the high resolution one in advance by merging pixels, you then have to enlarge it more to be 8" wide and the effects of pixel merging cancel out.

 

[Sporgon]

Downsampling pixels doesn't give better DR. Internet spread delusion.

It does actually. The issue is the internet spread delusion of DR in the first place.

 

[Omn]

There is no need to be rude to people and accuse them of being deluded.

I did not accuse anyone of being deluded, I wrote the notion spread online is delusion.

It is socially responsible to point this out so folks do not get deluded. If they wish to nurture a delusion in their mind anyway that is none of my business nor I have any interest or benefit in insulting people.

If something is incorrect, just explain why -

Very simple test - Take a camera, shoot over and under tests and you can find out in 15 mins whether something new appeared in the highlights or shadows after the capture when you downscaled the image on your computer.

After that revisit the notion of enlarging DR after the capture by shrinking the canvas.

For those interested, DR is measured on photons to photos

That's not dynamic range.

Dynamic range is the range of signal intensity between camera's clipping point and sensitivity threshold. The latter being the lowest level of captured information, not the noise floor which covers last few stops of DR.

 

[AlanF]

I did not accuse anyone of being deluded, I wrote the notion spread online is delusion.

It is socially responsible to point this out so folks do not get deluded. If they wish to nurture a delusion in their mind anyway that is none of my business nor I have any interest or benefit in insulting people.



Very simple test - Take a camera, shoot over and under tests and you can find out in 15 mins whether something new appeared in the highlights or shadows after the capture when you downscaled the image on your computer.

After that revisit the notion of enlarging DR after the capture by shrinking the canvas.



That's not dynamic range.

Dynamic range is the range of signal intensity between camera's clipping point and sensitivity threshold. The latter being the lowest level of captured information, not the noise floor which covers last few stops of DR.

You just don’t take it in that you write in a manner that comes over as offensive, as has been pointed out to you:

What have you presented, other than assertions and rudeness? Are you here merely to demonstrate (to yourself, and seemingly nobody else) your intellectual superiority? Or at least your sense of it.

 

[dolina]

Either is OK but it boils down to how much you're willing to spend or how much weight you're willing to carry.

 

[Sporgon]

Dynamic range is the range of signal intensity between camera's clipping point and sensitivity threshold. The latter being the lowest level of captured information, not the noise floor which covers last few stops of DR.

And the “lowest level of captured information” is completely arbitrary - my threshold of what is acceptable might be completely different to yours.

 

[Maximilian]

Downsampling pixels doesn't give better DR. Internet spread delusion.

I wasn't precise enough.
I meant s/n level. Therefore, you gain DR over the noise level by downsampling multiple pixel information into one pixel.
That was, what I wanted to say. And what the OP was worrying about.
Thank you, @AlanF, for keeping the tone on a cultivated level.