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

[Canon Rumors]

Golf clubs do bend naturally so might not be a conclusive test.

The American football is oval «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.

That's why I mentioned the shaft type not being disclosed.

I don't have an R52, just looking for NFL shots with it, haven't found any on Getty... Maybe in a couple of weeks when the season starts. A football with the R5 could look really bad depending on the speed of the throw.

 

[neuroanatomist]

"R3 was really the R1 Mk 0" seems more accurate at this point.

I'd agree with that. Canon has been on a 4-year cycle for the 1-series since they consolidated the two flavors into one with the 1D X. The 1D X III came out in 2020, so the R1 was on track for 2024. But there were people who were typical 1-series users but wanted to access RF lenses without EF counterparts, e.g. the 28-70/2 and the much-improved 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, and also access the features of MILCs (AF across the whole frame, subject-detection AF and much faster frame rates looking through the VF, etc.).

I appreciated that Canon was up front in saying they felt the technology was not sufficiently advanced at the time of the R3 for them to launch a 1-series MILC. Certainly I have run into situations where my R3 cannot lock focus and I know my 1D X would have had no problem doing so (they're not frequent, but they happen). I'm hoping the R1 solves those issues.

 

[mmmm]

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!

To be frank, I neither noticed nor care who likes or laughs at a forum post. But as you brought it up, I wasn't scolding anyone. The op asked specifically for an r5ii v r3 comparison. I'm also interested in this very comparison. I was merely asking the poster to provide any insight into the question that was asked, as they had experience with that as well as the other cameras they noted in their post.

 

[YuengLinger]

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".

Not trying to be argumentative, but if the R3 was, partially, a stop-gap body, what is wrong with it being phased out? True, the R5 II with grip is pricey, but how long before the body's price drops?

Or are you suggesting Canon produce an R3 II? If they did one with a higher-res sensor, I would be interested. But then you are back to how it competes with the rest of the line up.

 

[SvO2]

Not trying to be argumentative, but if the R3 was, partially, a stop-gap body, what is wrong with it being phased out? True, the R5 II with grip is pricey, but how long before the body's price drops?

Or are you suggesting Canon produce an R3 II? If they did one with a higher-res sensor, I would be interested. But then you are back to how it competes with the rest of the line up.

What amounts to a gripped r5ii with some of the pro stuff added on (larger buffer, smart af controller, dual cfexpeess cards) would appeal to a fair number I think. It would probably cannibalize the R1 to a degree, but I’m not sure canon would really care as long as they’re able to move product? If Sony could have two $6500 bodies which target different niches, why not Canon?

 

[neuroanatomist]

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".

Let's see...Canon sold the R3 for some time at $6K, and I'm sure they priced it to fully realize ROI in a reasonable time frame. Now they're still selling it, at a lower price that's similar to the R5II and giving people a choice on how to drive Canon's profit. Seems like the exact opposite of shooting themselves in the foot.

Fundamentally, the R3 and R5II are aimed at different markets. Given the faster release cycle of the current 6-series, the R6III will likely be along in the next year or so, and it will probably have a 24 MP stacked sensor (it would surprise no one if it gets the sensor from the R3). At that point, the R3 will probably leave the lineup for good.

 

[MSH411]

Not trying to be argumentative, but if the R3 was, partially, a stop-gap body, what is wrong with it being phased out? True, the R5 II with grip is pricey, but how long before the body's price drops?

I really don't perceive it as argumentative YuengLinger, it's just a conversation. Nothing is wrong with phasing it out eventually if that was Canon's strategy. When I looked at the current product line I made the assumption that the R3 would "always" be the intermediary between the R1 and R5. I was possibly wrong, time will tell. The only point I was making, that from a pricing aspect Canon was competing within it's own line with the R3 and R5 Mk II with both pricing and to some degree functionality.

Or are you suggesting Canon produce an R3 II? If they did one with a higher-res sensor, I would be interested. But then you are back to how it competes with the rest of the line up.

I guess I would answer that with a question. Is there room for an R3 II within the line that wouldn't compete with others in the current product line. As many have suggested a larger sensor and other refinements that separate it (R3) from the R5 II and the future release of the R1. The R5 and R6 II are fulfilling my needs nicely but would I buy a R3 II with lets say a 30MP sensor. Absolutely.

Let's see...Canon sold the R3 for some time at $6K, and I'm sure they priced it to fully realize ROI in a reasonable time frame. Now they're still selling it, at a lower price that's similar to the R5II and giving people a choice on how to drive Canon's profit. Seems like the exact opposite of shooting themselves in the foot.

I would agree with your theory regarding ROI but the bigger question is how many units were in inventory globally that could be impacted by the release of the R5 II? My interest in this is not to criticize Canon but to try and understand their model or strategy. If they have 10,000 units of the R3 globally (swag number) and the R5 II penetrates the R3 sales volume it could result in margin loss. The timing of the R5 II could have implications based on depreciated value on maintaining obsolete inventory. Is there a loss in overall margin?

Like I said this is more of a conversation, stream of thought.

I was getting close to picking up the R3 until post release of the R5 II and reading all the feedback. My original post was to gauge how many others were thinking the same way. How the owners of the R3 felt about the R5 II release and possibly pushing the R3 into obsolesces. The best resource, the people that currently own an R3 and that purchased the R5 II.

 

[YuengLinger]

If I didn't own the R5, I'd be buying an R5 II. I'm sure it will be one of the greatest all-around bodies ever produced; I like having 45MP for cropping; and the form factor fits my medium-sized hands. But the R5 II's improvements over the R5 simply don't tempt me at this point.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was getting close to picking up the R3 until post release of the R5 II and reading all the feedback. My original post was to gauge how many others were thinking the same way. How the owners of the R3 felt about the R5 II release and possibly pushing the R3 into obsolesces. The best resource, the people that currently own an R3 and that purchased the R5 II.

People who own the R3 are probably not the target market for the R5II. As I've said several times, the target market for the R5II is most likely the large number of people still shooting with a 5-series DSLR. With the price drop of the R3, those folks can now choose between a cheaper R5 or an R5II or R3 at a similar price point. Some will be people who've been looking at the 1-series for years but were put off by the price...now here's the R3 at a 5-series price and many of the features of the new R1. Either way, Canon gets them to trade their DSLR for a new MILC, and the lenses will follow... I suspect that's the true underlying strategy.

 

[YuengLinger]

People who own the R3 are probably not the target market for the R5II. As I've said several times, the target market for the R5II is most likely the large number of people still shooting with a 5-series DSLR. With the price drop of the R3, those folks can now choose between a cheaper R5 or an R5II or R3 at a similar price point. Some will be people who've been looking at the 1-series for years but were put off by the price...now here's the R3 at a 5-series price and many of the features of the new R1. Either way, Canon gets them to trade their DSLR for a new MILC, and the lenses will follow... I suspect that's the true underlying strategy.

The world may never know if this was Canon's chess strategy, but in hindsight, brilliant!

 

[neuroanatomist]

The world may never know if this was Canon's chess strategy, but in hindsight, brilliant!

Canon has explicitly stated that RF lens sales represent a major profit driver. The installed base of EF mount cameras is huge. Getting those folks to buy RF lenses is a very logical strategy. From our gear-centered perspective, it's all about mirrorless now but in the real world, DLSRs outsold MILCs until 2020.

 

[mmmm]

I was getting close to picking up the R3 until post release of the R5 II and reading all the feedback. My original post was to gauge how many others were thinking the same way. How the owners of the R3 felt about the R5 II release and possibly pushing the R3 into obsolesces. The best resource, the people that currently own an R3 and that purchased the R5 II.

I see the r3 as a cheaper old generation but still very current 1 series camera. I'm debating between r1, r3 and r5ii - and in all honesty I think the r3 wins. It has all of the features that I find desirable in the r1, but I can get two for almost the same price - the newer r1 features are desirable but I dont need to be that cutting edge to fit my workflow nicely. I'm coming from 5div's and my biggest bugbear with this was buffer, slowdown, low light performance and focus accuracy. I believe the r5ii would be also a big upgrade, but I'm really liking the idea of the dual grip bodies, focus speed, low light capability and huge buffer. I believe the r3 is an excellent buy for me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I see the r3 as a cheaper old generation but still very current 1 series camera. I'm debating between r1, r3 and r5ii - and in all honesty I think the r3 wins. It has all of the features that I find desirable in the r1, but I can get two for almost the same price - the newer r1 features are desirable but I dont need to be that cutting edge to fit my workflow nicely. I'm coming from 5div's and my biggest bugbear with this was buffer, slowdown, low light performance and focus accuracy. I believe the r5ii would be also a big upgrade, but I'm really liking the idea of the dual grip bodies, focus speed, low light capability and huge buffer. I believe the r3 is an excellent buy for me.

N = 1. See...I was right.

 

[Deleted member 385220]

"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.



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.

I am not sure yet if Canon has the AF up to the level of Sony, from my experience with Sony's A9iii and AI you just never miss a shot. The Z9/Z8 combo was 2nd best, quite a decent improvement over the R3/R5 combo. Here's hoping once the R1 comes out it at least sits up with Nikon and competes with Sony's AF.

I agree the R5 and R3 should have always been where the R5ii and R1 are now, it feels like they have finally bridged the gap back again from Sony and Nikon as far as tech goes.

 

[Deleted member 385220]

Or are you suggesting Canon produce an R3 II? If they did one with a higher-res sensor, I would be interested. But then you are back to how it competes with the rest of the line up.

R3 with a higher-res sensor is exactly what the R5ii is, if you add the grip.

 

[Deleted member 385220]

To be frank, I neither noticed nor care who likes or laughs at a forum post. But as you brought it up, I wasn't scolding anyone. The op asked specifically for an r5ii v r3 comparison. I'm also interested in this very comparison. I was merely asking the poster to provide any insight into the question that was asked, as they had experience with that as well as the other cameras they noted in their post.

In my opinion R5ii won't replace the R3 for fast action sports, mainly due to the rolling shutter being present. If the readout speed was faster, I would say it absolutely makes the R3 redundant. If the rolling shutter doesn't bother you, it could definitely be seen as a better option to the R3.

Personally, I see the 5 series as a 2nd body, I have done this for years. I've always used a 1 series as the main body on a longer lens, and a 5 series with a shorter/wider lens.

The 5 series is the better portrait and landscape body, the 1 series is the better low light and fast action body. That's the way they continue to build them, and I guess you could argue the 5ii is close to making the 3 redundant. I don't see a need for the 3 series to continue now, I think the 7 series is more worth pursuing than 3. It definitely seems like the 3 was created as a stop-gap while they struggled putting the R1 together.

 

[docsmith]

Not a forum member, that I am aware, but Jeff Cable provided his answer to this question on the "Behind the shot" pod cast.

...he'd get the R5II.

 

[mmmm]

It definitely seems like the 3 was created as a stop-gap while they struggled putting the R1 together.

The r1 was releases on the regular 1 series schedule. I'm not sure its clear that they 'struggled' putting it together. Perhaps the r3 was a stopgap in the way that they produced a pro level body so that they didn't seem like they were being left behind by the competition. The way I see it is we have a 'special' mid generation 1 series level camera, still relevant tech wise, available for nearly half the price of its as yet unavailable replacement/peer. I dont see the r5ii making it redundant any more than any 5 series would ever make a still available 1 series (at least an equivalent) redundant. I dont see them as in competition with one another.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The r1 was releases on the regular 1 series schedule. I'm not sure its clear that they 'struggled' putting it together.

People just can’t do math. You’d think a problem like, “State the next number in the series: 2012, 2016, 2020, ____ ,” would not be too hard…but apparently it is.

 

[MSH411]

2024

Not that hard