Hey so I knew going into this that it was an Apples to Oranges comparison and know that this is not the "technical" way of comparing noise levels especially with since the R5 has nearly double the MP but what I was trying to get across is I still surprised at how much of a difference there was just comparing in Lightroom alone. I try to keep things as simple as possible but this one is on me. I should've been more thorough
Since I was one of the people that commented about the testing method I want to be clear that it wasn't an attack, or meant to dismiss the work you put in on the video. I don't know if that's how you took it, but some other commenter did and so I wanted to clear that up.
You need to downsize R5 and A1 images to R3 level and compare noise. Granted, it wont be as good, as R3's bigger photosites gather more light, but it will be better than looking than this. To be fair if printed it wont matter too much anyway
@@TigaWould Well thats why we have the dpreview iso tester and you can check for yourself. Just put all these cameras side by side and see. With the higher pixel cameras here (R5 and A1) they are slightly behind when scaled back but at lower iso's they clearly make for sharper images before and after the downscale. he made a mistake here it can happen in fact i think anyone who first gets a high-megapixel camera makes the same mistake to compare it pixel by pixel.
My friend bought the R6 because he said R6 has less noise, better photo quality compare to R5 (when R5 downsize). After he got the camera and he regret it because when he need more than 20mp he need to up-scale the image and it will not look good. How about upscale the R3 to 45mp and compare to the R5.
@@TigaWould Well this makes the A1 and Z9 more allround cameras (esp. the A1 since it can be kept small and looks/acts the same as others in their line up). I do feel you are missing one point that 'hidden' inside these high-megapixel cameras are aps-c cameras that you can switch too on the fly i would argue that the sony A1 (that i use) is the best aps-c camera at the moment if i press the button on most of my long lenses. At 21megapixels and no AA filter even that mode is darn close to the R3. For the rest you are correct and thats why both brands (not sure why nikon doesn't) added HEIF 10 bit files too and implemented WAY better wifi, ftp, usb-c and ethernet support (like 3 to 4 times faster as before and all in the background). I can take images and they can be anywhere on the globe in seconds.
I see a couple other people saying it, but it's important for comparing noise performance to scale the pictures so that they're the same dimensions, rather than zooming both to 100%. If the higher resolution sensor can match or beat the performance of the lower one when scaled you can say that the images it produces are just as good, with the added benefit of *not* having to scale them outside of low light scenarios.
Yup, the test is flawed and will yield different results if r3 is scaled up or r5 is scaled down. Megapixels does not introduce more noise ik itself. A7s3 is 48mp sensor etc.
What’s flawed about actually real life results? What you want is an apples to apples technical review but what you get when you do this test is real life. I’m sick of you people acting like your gonna take your 45mp camera and dumb it down to 25mp and use it. What real life tells us is your more than likely to use 45mp. So here’s the noise on 24mp full resolution and here’s noise at 45mp full resolution. Quit trolling. There’s nothing wrong with this test you don’t need the actually test facts you need real life usage facts. Go to your local camera store and compare apples to apples if you don’t like what Manny did here. Me I’m thankful you did it Manny keep up the good work.
@@dantecooper4705 This take is almost as bad as the attitude and tone with which it's delivered. What are you even talking about? Almost every deliverable produced, unless you're doing high end commercial photography, isn't going to be a full resolution image. It's going to be resized for web, it's going to be resized for social media, it's going to be printed at 8x10 inches. Whether the original file was 45mp or 24mp, the thing a client/viewer sees will be the same size either way. And even in the cases where you are sending people 45mp files, they're not zooming them into 100%, cropping out 90% of the file, and then publishing the remaining 10%. The fact of the matter is a higher resolution sensor can mirror the benefits of a lower resolution one when it comes to noise by scaling the image. The lower resolution sensor can't do the same in reverse. Now, when it comes to these particular cameras it's entirely possible that the R3 would still outperform the R5 when it comes to noise, even after scaling, but that wasn't the test that was performed.
@@LyraKat The problem here is Manny already told you in the video that he didn’t scale so why speak on it? He knows what kind of test he did and once again. Who is going to scale down there camera in real life? Are you gonna use Mraw or Sraw. I can see using the 1.6x crop option for reach but other than that I don’t know anyone that reduces image quality for better low light performance in real life. When I shoot I shoot raw full resolution. I’m not talking final print, or resized for the web. I want full results camera to light room. See I prefer to see what I would really do. I have a R5 I shoot raw I’m waiting on my R3 that I will shoot raw. I like seeing what actual results look like without trying to match the mp. I’m impressed by the R5 to see how the R3 out performs is nice. Hell I’d like to see the R3 against the 12mp A7sIII. I use my cameras in raw and nothing else dumb nothing down to match show me the truth the way I’m gonna use the camera.
@@dantecooper4705 > The problem here is Manny already told you in the video that he didn’t scale so why speak on it? Because without scaling you are not accurately comparing the low light capabilities of the two cameras. It's that simple. > Who is going to scale down there camera in real life? This was answered entirely in my previous comment. > I use my cameras in raw and nothing else dumb nothing down to match show me the truth the way I’m gonna use the camera. Maybe you're misunderstanding. When I and others say that for the test to be fair the images need to be scaled to the same resolution, we mean in post. Not shooting in JPEG, but shooting in RAW, scaling the images to the same resolution (whether that be through exporting, or just using the zoom feature in lightroom so that the subjects in the images are the same size rather than the image zooms being at the same percent) and comparing. You definitely WOULDNT shoot the image at a smaller size at the start, and of course you shoot RAW.
You are using professional studio lighting. You can shoot this with an RP and never see a difference when uploaded online. no one shoots indoor lightning for a shoot like this and no one is shooting anywhere close to 1600 ISO with studio lights. In fact, for most portraits, an RP will work just fine, its the glass that matters. I generally like your photos and these videos, and I know its your job to try and sell new cameras to people who think a new camera will somehow make them a better photographer but please...
I sooo feel ya!! A lot of these creators be using these cameras in the best lighting conditions,, I use to be in the hype of how they sell these cameras for the brands, I bought the fujifilm xh2 because of all the hype.. then when I went to shoot a wedding in low light settings,, the images were sh$tty!! lol never will I ever shoot low light in cropped sensor cameras,, that’s why I stick to full frame.. lol
I'd be curious to see how the R6 stacks against the R3. The R3 has slightly more resolution than the R6 so we should be able to better see the improvements brought about by Canon's newer stacked BSI process as opposed to also seeing the effects of having bigger pixel wells with the lower resolution. Just a thought.
@@TigaWould No disagreement here, I have both the R5 and R6, and yeah, the R6 totally stomps the R5 in low light, just like the R3 did in this video. That thing is basically a 1DXIII without the 1DXIII video features, but... There is benefit to going to a stacked BSI sensor, so comparing the R3 and R6 should show what if any difference that'd be.
@@TigaWould Photonstophotos just posted the R3 results. I did a quick comparison between it and the R6, and sure enough... There's not a huge difference. They're actually quite neck and neck. The R3 is better in some places and the R6 is better in other places. Basically, Canon was able to go from 20MP to 24MP and basically keep the same performance.
@@TigaWould Totally agree. Even Canon (despite everybody dumping on them for being "behind" in specs) has produced cameras that generally exceed what you need for the vast majority of uses for a very long time. The lower noise floor and higher dynamic range are nice to haves, but not totally necessary except for very niche use cases. I always get a kick out of watching people switch camera brands over stuff like that. I'm like "really? Unless you absolutely need that for the type of work you do (and I've looked at your work, and you don't do that type of work), you could've just stayed with what you have and kept on trucking" There's nothing wrong with upgrading or changing brands because you want to, and you don't need a reason to do so, but it's comical to watch people do so, then justify it with "it has better specs", or "I need it so I can get better photos". They somehow think upgrading their camera will upgrade their photos. Probably not.
Got my R3 about a week ago. Imo it’s much better camera to shoot with than the Sony or R5. It’s smaller than you expect when you first see it. I imagined it would feel similar to my previous 1DXMK2. But thankfully it’s much smaller and lighter than that camera. The R3 feels like the perfect interpretation of what a “Pro” body should be circa 2020. It’s large enough to feel balanced without being so large as to feel burdensome. The IBIS is a noticeable upgrade over the R5 version. It feels more refined. The battery last a long time… a really long time. Image quality wise, the images seem to punch way above their weight considering the resolution. I recall reading somewhere that it’s actually renders closer to 30mp in detail… which I believe might be the case. I can say with confidence I prefer the R3 over the R5. I’d be curious to see how it compares to the Nikon in the real world. But that said, their zero chance I would jump to a new system. Not with the R1 coming next year:D
@@TigaWould probably R1 will be the best camera of all,. vs sony A1, R3, Z9,. but im concerned about its price,. and probably shocking price at 8,000 usd. of sony A1 is 6,500 and R3 is 6,000 and Z9 is 5,500 i think R1 will be price at 8,000 usd,. i think all system is great now,. and the specs i over kill for all of us photographers,. and we all know,. price of camera do matters to us..
Hi Manny. I also have both cameras, the R3 and the R5. Have you noticed how much better the colors are from the R3? Not so red cast, not so harsh contrasts?
Great video as allways, but would it not have been sensible to resize the R5 to the size of the R3? Now the noise looks bigger, more prominent because the image is bigger
Why does every press this point? How many people are really resizing R5 files? I’m curious to how many people really resize when the light gets low. Wouldn’t this test prove more realistic? If I’m shooting a wedding when the lights get low I’m boosting iso I don’t want to go to the menu to resize. What if I forget to resize back when I do a portrait session next shoot? I feel like I didn’t buy a 45mp camera to constantly be resizing. Or am I tripping?
@@dantecooper4705 i feel it is a slightly unfair way to compare the 2 results. You are right. Nobody will resize, but when you do a test like this it is relevant I think.
Flash photography is fascinating. Given I don’t do it, but I don’t understand at all how you have these super bright previews on your LCD & then after the actual photo is snapped it looks like a completely different movie haha. Dope photos as always bro.
Man hella random, but I’ve been watching both of you for the last 4 years and it’s so fuckin cool to see y’all grow and make major moves. Proud of you guys.
high resolution sensor means high resolution images including high resolution noise. When you scale down, the original image will turn even sharper, so will its noise.
Own the R5 and honestly, I have never gone past maybe ISO 800 (usually I bump up the ISO if I am shooting with continuous lighting). I shoot mainly in the studio with Profoto and don't have the need to push the ISO. Of course, if you are finding yourself using the faster ISO than maybe the noise issue is an important one but for me I would not worry about noise/ISO.
I'd like to see the comparison of a 1dx Mark II and the r3. I rarely use my 1dx for high-speed sports but I found it particularly good at landscapes and portraits because of its low light capability.
I agree. I love my 1DXii for landscape and although I don't do a lot of portraits, it has always created great images when I have. I'd definitely like to see a comparison with the R3.
I finally got to edit photos from the first day of racing I shot with it today. Holy smokes…this sensor is GOOD. Canon reds are finally naturally represented and accurate. The R5 would have a tendency to shoot Reds and Oranges very closely to the point where it became ambiguous on some cars. This sensor has some seriously good highlight and shadow recovery along with massive color depth. At least that’s my opinion after one REAL day shooting with it.
Just finish watching the video. Since I'm one of the handful? in Chicago to own the R3 right now, and used it. @0:26 The reason why I bought the R3 right off the bat on the release day (had it pre-order as soon pre-orders started). I think I can be consider as (semi-)pro sports photographer, since I (used to, before covid) do IHSA high school sports. Yet, the main reason for me why I bought it is because I do Golf & Tennis photos. And I need an electric shutter that won't warp the golf club or tennis racket while it's in motion and I have my silent shutter on. I also do Weddings (as a second shooter), and stage theater (because of my work place). The other reason I picked the R3 is because I hope I get to see less light banding at certain lighting condition. So my images don't look "stripey" when I see the JPEG file of it. :| and also, to combine all of Sports, Wedding, and Stage Theater. The eye control focus is my selling point. yet I wear glasses. I think it'll take some time to get the calibration for eye control just right. until I get the other eye piece. Which said helps for people with glasses improv on the eye control focusing. I'll get more intel probably in 2022, if I ever get back shooting high school sports. Due to covid, I have to step down until the all clear for me. For, I got 4 more weddings this year to get more intel on the performance of the R3 in real world conditions. But as a portrait camera, basing off first impress when I did "self portraits" of myself. Part of me want to say, yeah the R3 can do photoshoots with it. But would I make it my main camera to use for photoshoots? Maybe not???? Maybe I'll pick the R5. I need more testing / practice to confirm my answer. For now, I'm glad that the R3 does have "face priority TTL", which makes my photoshoots really quick and fast without the guessing on light metering. I can just run and gun my photoshoots without worry of getting the wrong exposure during the shoot. I'm pretty sure the R5 (and R6?) also have "face priority TTL"
Hey Manny, I have a request for you mate. Can you compare the Canon R3 and Canon R6 and maybe add Sony A7S3 as well if possible as I'm planning on getting a camera which performs amazing in low light conditions such as night clubs and concerts as that's what I have been shooting currently. Can you make a video on this?
Recap: lower resolution sensor has lower noise at high ISOs than a higher resolution sensor without downscaling. I understand that he acknowledges in the video that he expected this result but I mean come on: water is wet and oil is oily.
7:35 If you're using the same lens to compare high ISO images between the R3 and R5, wouldn't it make sense to compare the images taken from the exact same distance from the subject for each camera? As it is, the image taken with the R5 was taken closer to the subject than the R3.
Manny, awhile back you did a Sony vs Canon color comparison. How do you feel about the colors out of the A1 vs the R3/R5 now? Are "Canon skintones" still a thing for portrait photographers? Do Canon skintones really require less tweaking SOOC, or is mostly myth at this point?
Canon color change also, if compare a 5d ii vs 5d iv vs r vs r5 chage a lot... For portraits the best Camera is that you can get witht a good lens. I use an a7 ii, 2014 sony and i get amazings colors. Sony now have very good "soc" colors.
To me the biggest difference is seen in video. I’ve owned both the a1 and the 1dx iii as a full split hybrid shooter, and for video, canon wins every time. There’s a true to life look to the skin tone even while giving the the image a look. I sold my a1 for the r3. Easy decision imo.
Nice video, thanks for showing us your shooting process & digital darkroom development. Quick question: Are you processing in Canon DPP before you take it to LR? If no, you should. LR strips out what is proprietary to Canon in Camera. When you process first in Canon DPP, save as a Tiff, you preserve more of what your vision was when you took the shot.
I have used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II for all photos/videos of my Macaw parrot family since 2016; but after watching videos on the Canon R3 for bird photographers I decided to rent one. The eye tracking autofocus is so amazing I decided to buy this incredible camera. My only complaint with the R3 is it does not use 2 CFExpress cards like the new canon R1 will.
Nice to know. Also, it would have been nice to compare the R3 against the R6 in low light, too. And also, when the Sony releases an A9 III with probably 24-something MP, to compare them then too.
I'm not at all surprised that the higher resolution (and older) sensor creates more noise at higher ISO. That's what I would expect. Smaller photosites on the sensor means more noise. That said, the AI denoising tools in Lightroom are *so* good now that I just don't worry about noise any more. I shoot with a 1DXii and a Panasonic G9. The 1DXii has waaaay less noise at higher ISOs, but I can still make the G9 images look great.
So this was an interesting video along with the one you did comparing the R3 to the Z9. If you only wanted 24 Mpixel what about the Sony A9 II prevent it from being in the same category as the Canon R3? I have the A1 and A9 II along with an R5. Even been looking at the Z9. Thanks as always for you videos.
@Manny Ortiz TOTALLY off topic question for you. I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 version of the RF 70-200 (I’m assuming that basically F4 or F2.8 in any brand are very similar). I currently use a R6 camera and looking to take photos of my 2 year old along with friends and family in forest type environments along with recreation center, arenas and outdoor winter and summer sports for toddlers and a bunch of general portraits. I’m assuming that there won’t be much of a difference in bokeh from one to another when the subject is 30+ feet away in sports type scenarios but more so concerned about the lower light areas that are most likely less than optimal environments. If I buy the 70-200 F4 I’m also considering in upgrading my main lens (EF 24-70 F4) to the RF F2.8 version since most of the time I’m within our house or a family members house so it would be nice to blur out the distracting backgrounds a bit more because my 50mm 1.8 is a bit too tight in my small house. Any input would be appreciated! Thanks in advance for anyones time on this topic.
The money spent on an F4 seems like a waste unless you're absolutely strapped to a tight budget until you can afford better gear, but it doesn't sound like that's your scenario. 2.8 is an easy choice otherwise
@@dna8269 I’d like to get the 70-200 next and if I choose the F2.8 version I’d be delaying the purchase of upgrading my 24-70 to a 2.8 also. This is all for personal use and I won’t make money on it but I do think you’re right and the 2.8 is probably the better and cheaper choice in the long run.
@@kore996, I’m going to throw you a curve ball and say get the Metabones Speedbooster EF to RF. After March 2021 firmware update 1.4 onwards, it finally allowed R5/6, C70, and Red Komodo to work. I don’t have all the EF lenses but the ones I have work great in video and stills. The drawbacks are: 1) it is longer and put some more weight but that doesn’t bother me; and 2) you’re in APSC/super35 but the crop is only 1.136x (= 1.6x x 0.71) and you get an extra stop of light. I have the R5 and use the EF 16-35/4 with IS and it becomes 18-40/2.8 with IS. My EF 70-200/2.8 iii becomes 80-227/2.0, etc etc. I have EF primes, 35/1.4 ii and 85/1.4 which turns into 40/1.0 and 97/1.0 respectively. And in video, since it is in APSC/Super35, it oversample from 5.1K to 4K with no overheating. Whenever I don’t want the crop or shoot in daylight, I use the EF to RF drop in variable adapter and have the variable nd filter for those bright days. Those two adapters will cost you ~$1000 and you can continue to use your EF lenses until you save up or there are more budget friendly from Sigma, Tamron, or other 3rd party lens manufacturers. If you’re doing paid work and absolutely need the very best IQ, then for sure get the RF. For my use cases, it doesn’t rationalize that extra $1,000-$2,000/lens for that extra IQ.
@@nomad0714 appreciate your time and input, looks like you put some thought in to your response. The reason I’m considering the new RF 70-200’s is because they are lighter than previous versions. I have a spinal injury and my left arm doesn’t quite cooperate most of the time along with pain so I’m trying to keep things as small and simple as I can. Because of my injury working with primes is extremely difficult for me when trying to keep up with taking photos of my son she trying to get a decent composition and not clip his limbs in the photos. I also have the basic EF-RF Canon adapter for use with my existing EF 24-70 F4. I’ve heard of speed boosters but never looked in to them and just heard them referenced a lot in UA-cam videos. Either way, thanks for your reply!
@@kore996 Without knowing about your physical challenges I would have said get the RF 70-200 f2.8 hands down. I'd much rather deal with f/4 for wider angle photos where one can get away with slower Tv than one can with longer focal lengths. I often shoot with a 70-200/2.8 on one body and a 24-105/4 on another, even though I also have a 24-70/2.8. Sometimes I do use the 24-70/2.8 instead. The former makes much more sense to me than using a 70-200/4 and a 24-70/2.8. Most non-daylight sports under lights need at least f/2.8 to get 1/800-1/1000 at ISO3200 (unless you're in a pro or large college facility, which are lit much better than typical high school or youth sports facilities). Many HS and lower facilities are a stop or two darker than that. f/4 really starts to affect IQ when you have to go to ISO 6400 or 12800 just to get 1/800.
Isn't it about the difference of capturing the same amount of light on R5 45MP sensor vs 24MP R3. Same amount of light, captured on the same area.. Nice presentation!
Il confronto tra un sensore da 24 mega e uno di 45 ad alti iso è diciamo quasi inutile con tutto il rispetto...... dovresti portare il file della r5 a 24 mega e rifare i crop...allora li si potrebbe fare una comparazione più sensata...anche se probabilmente la r3 dovrebbe essere meglio ugualmente.
I would expect the result you observed, Manny. One could do what I did...picked up the R6 for low light and the R5 for daylight/larger prints/video and spend about the same as the R3 alone. Just can't push that R5 high MP sensor too much in low light or noise will creep in fast. Before I left Sony to go back to Canon, I experienced the same issue with the A7R3 vs. A73. As others have stated, the R6 vs. R3 low light comparison would be interesting (and I'd expect the R6 might produce slightly better results as to noise). Great video comparison. Highlights the old adage that the right tool for the job is key.
manny we all know that low megapixel camera have lower noise. high megapixel camera are best when shot in well let situation.. love your vids still. bless. the R6 shoots better Low images than the R5
The R3 is really the best sport and journalism camera there is! Good for every situation (low light and speed). I am looking forward what Canon will bring in 2022! The Canon R5C, R7, R1, R5mk2, R8?
... a fact that I would never have expected. I'm surprised that BSI sensors with fewer megapixels also have less iso noise under the same conditions. 🤷🏼♂️ Thx for sharing. 🙏🏻
Hey Manny....thank you for doing this comparison! Curious if the R6 would provide a closer result to the R3 in low light? I do feel the BSI sensors handle this situation better regardless as I have seen that similar low light result from my Z7 II....but I still switched:-) Next time mom comes over you should use her as a model....you'll get nothing but love on that one😉
@@Libinkttm I sure am glad my clients like Banana Republic, J. Crew, Budweiser have never asked me what is in my hands. Honestly, clients don't care. They only care that the job is done to specifications. Recently ordered the Z9 but keeping my Nikon DSLRs that I have used over the years and have billed several millions in image production with this gear. Just sayin' that only photographers and influencers care... Wait I take it back, Ford as for medium format images, so I used PhaseOne for that. :)
@@Libinkttm In what way is Canon better? Just curious because as a Nikon shooter for 26 years, along with Mamiya/PhaseOne & Hasselblad, the color profiles of these are better than Canon or Sony.
@@RayValdezPhotography The R5 falls below? I have to assume you’re referring to video alone, as the R5 is pretty much the perfect stills camera; unless you feel differently. If so, please elaborate.
@@RayValdezPhotography of course low light and DR are negligibly better; it’s 21 mpxl < the R5. Are you saying the images from the R3 are superior to those from the R5? I’d love to see it…
@@johnhoey4605 Canon, Nikon, nor Sony determined their flagships based on megapixels. The 1dx was the flag ship and had less MP than a mark iv. I am just trying to tell you the facts. For you maybe that is the priority but to the people that actually make the cameras, it is not true.
I don’t think he’s telling the truth. Difference is very little. Especially after noise cancellation. Images of 12,800 a very usable from the R5 even blown up
So far, basing from my first impression of the R3 from the last few days of owning. As someone with glasses, I feel like the R3 needs a decent amount of calibration until it feels good enough to use with your glasses on. I feel like when I take off my glasses, and did a separate calibration profile for that condition. Having no glasses feel like the eye control focus have better accuracy than with my glasses on. But I was just using the stock eye piece. I need to get that bigger eye piece for glasses user to see if the accuracy gotten better.
Also for processing have you seen Vanessa Joy comparing LR to Capture One? Apparently the processing and on JPEGS, bringing up the blacks etc are a lot better in C1. Not sure how the noise would be impacted. But I did shoot some indoor sports and was in the 12,800 range and while noise is there it looked like film grain in that particular situation so didn't see the nasty chroma noise you were seeing. But sounds like it would be interesting to see what C1 would do with your images?
Sorry but low noise in 12800 isn't that great. old cameras like Nikon d750 had great noise performance at that iso (that is a cheaper model d5 etc has even better performance that is in the same price bracket as r3). if r3 had the same performace you show here at 51000 then we are talking...
chil bro,. theres more to come in 2022,. Eos R1, R5c, R7, R8, eos Rii and Eos RPii just wait,. i think canon will go all in now,. because sony already threatened their market share,.
That’s it!!!!! I have so much noise problem with my R5 that I already wondered what is this shit Canon sold me…. When you shoot CRaw it’s even more intense… it’s actually not possible to shoot a night event like a party or a low light bar evening… even if I use f1.4 sigma lenses my image falls completely apart with the shit R5. With ISO 5000 already the camera is kind of unusable
This was really interesting to see! I just read that DXOmark said the R3 has the best low light performance sensor out of any full frame camera that’s currently available. Canon has made some great leaps recently, it felt like the sensors were far behind Sony and Nikon for awhile, but they’re starting to lead in some areas again! Just means there really isn’t a BAD pro camera these days!
Hey so I knew going into this that it was an Apples to Oranges comparison and know that this is not the "technical" way of comparing noise levels especially with since the R5 has nearly double the MP but what I was trying to get across is I still surprised at how much of a difference there was just comparing in Lightroom alone. I try to keep things as simple as possible but this one is on me. I should've been more thorough
Thanks for your time putting this together ❤
Since I was one of the people that commented about the testing method I want to be clear that it wasn't an attack, or meant to dismiss the work you put in on the video. I don't know if that's how you took it, but some other commenter did and so I wanted to clear that up.
@@LyraKat The R3 is better in low light, regardless.
The R5 has a 45MP sensor, and the R3 a 30MP sensor. Not double.
@@benjaminmesa1089 24*.
You need to downsize R5 and A1 images to R3 level and compare noise. Granted, it wont be as good, as R3's bigger photosites gather more light, but it will be better than looking than this. To be fair if printed it wont matter too much anyway
This is why I want the dislike thing back
@@TigaWould Well thats why we have the dpreview iso tester and you can check for yourself. Just put all these cameras side by side and see. With the higher pixel cameras here (R5 and A1) they are slightly behind when scaled back but at lower iso's they clearly make for sharper images before and after the downscale. he made a mistake here it can happen in fact i think anyone who first gets a high-megapixel camera makes the same mistake to compare it pixel by pixel.
My friend bought the R6 because he said R6 has less noise, better photo quality compare to R5 (when R5 downsize). After he got the camera and he regret it because when he need more than 20mp he need to up-scale the image and it will not look good.
How about upscale the R3 to 45mp and compare to the R5.
@@TigaWould Well this makes the A1 and Z9 more allround cameras (esp. the A1 since it can be kept small and looks/acts the same as others in their line up). I do feel you are missing one point that 'hidden' inside these high-megapixel cameras are aps-c cameras that you can switch too on the fly i would argue that the sony A1 (that i use) is the best aps-c camera at the moment if i press the button on most of my long lenses. At 21megapixels and no AA filter even that mode is darn close to the R3. For the rest you are correct and thats why both brands (not sure why nikon doesn't) added HEIF 10 bit files too and implemented WAY better wifi, ftp, usb-c and ethernet support (like 3 to 4 times faster as before and all in the background). I can take images and they can be anywhere on the globe in seconds.
@@TigaWould Thank you, I will let him know your suggestion.
I see a couple other people saying it, but it's important for comparing noise performance to scale the pictures so that they're the same dimensions, rather than zooming both to 100%. If the higher resolution sensor can match or beat the performance of the lower one when scaled you can say that the images it produces are just as good, with the added benefit of *not* having to scale them outside of low light scenarios.
Yup, the test is flawed and will yield different results if r3 is scaled up or r5 is scaled down. Megapixels does not introduce more noise ik itself. A7s3 is 48mp sensor etc.
What’s flawed about actually real life results? What you want is an apples to apples technical review but what you get when you do this test is real life. I’m sick of you people acting like your gonna take your 45mp camera and dumb it down to 25mp and use it. What real life tells us is your more than likely to use 45mp. So here’s the noise on 24mp full resolution and here’s noise at 45mp full resolution. Quit trolling. There’s nothing wrong with this test you don’t need the actually test facts you need real life usage facts. Go to your local camera store and compare apples to apples if you don’t like what Manny did here. Me I’m thankful you did it Manny keep up the good work.
@@dantecooper4705 This take is almost as bad as the attitude and tone with which it's delivered. What are you even talking about? Almost every deliverable produced, unless you're doing high end commercial photography, isn't going to be a full resolution image. It's going to be resized for web, it's going to be resized for social media, it's going to be printed at 8x10 inches. Whether the original file was 45mp or 24mp, the thing a client/viewer sees will be the same size either way.
And even in the cases where you are sending people 45mp files, they're not zooming them into 100%, cropping out 90% of the file, and then publishing the remaining 10%.
The fact of the matter is a higher resolution sensor can mirror the benefits of a lower resolution one when it comes to noise by scaling the image. The lower resolution sensor can't do the same in reverse.
Now, when it comes to these particular cameras it's entirely possible that the R3 would still outperform the R5 when it comes to noise, even after scaling, but that wasn't the test that was performed.
@@LyraKat The problem here is Manny already told you in the video that he didn’t scale so why speak on it? He knows what kind of test he did and once again. Who is going to scale down there camera in real life? Are you gonna use Mraw or Sraw. I can see using the 1.6x crop option for reach but other than that I don’t know anyone that reduces image quality for better low light performance in real life. When I shoot I shoot raw full resolution. I’m not talking final print, or resized for the web. I want full results camera to light room. See I prefer to see what I would really do. I have a R5 I shoot raw I’m waiting on my R3 that I will shoot raw. I like seeing what actual results look like without trying to match the mp. I’m impressed by the R5 to see how the R3 out performs is nice. Hell I’d like to see the R3 against the 12mp A7sIII. I use my cameras in raw and nothing else dumb nothing down to match show me the truth the way I’m gonna use the camera.
@@dantecooper4705
> The problem here is Manny already told you in the video that he didn’t scale so why speak on it?
Because without scaling you are not accurately comparing the low light capabilities of the two cameras. It's that simple.
> Who is going to scale down there camera in real life?
This was answered entirely in my previous comment.
> I use my cameras in raw and nothing else dumb nothing down to match show me the truth the way I’m gonna use the camera.
Maybe you're misunderstanding. When I and others say that for the test to be fair the images need to be scaled to the same resolution, we mean in post. Not shooting in JPEG, but shooting in RAW, scaling the images to the same resolution (whether that be through exporting, or just using the zoom feature in lightroom so that the subjects in the images are the same size rather than the image zooms being at the same percent) and comparing. You definitely WOULDNT shoot the image at a smaller size at the start, and of course you shoot RAW.
Thanks!
You are using professional studio lighting. You can shoot this with an RP and never see a difference when uploaded online. no one shoots indoor lightning for a shoot like this and no one is shooting anywhere close to 1600 ISO with studio lights. In fact, for most portraits, an RP will work just fine, its the glass that matters. I generally like your photos and these videos, and I know its your job to try and sell new cameras to people who think a new camera will somehow make them a better photographer but please...
He should show shitty conditions like the cameras will encounter in real life
@@v_stands_for_value124yep, agreed. It is in said condition that manufacturers actually deliver different results, with different kits.
I sooo feel ya!! A lot of these creators be using these cameras in the best lighting conditions,, I use to be in the hype of how they sell these cameras for the brands, I bought the fujifilm xh2 because of all the hype.. then when I went to shoot a wedding in low light settings,, the images were sh$tty!! lol never will I ever shoot low light in cropped sensor cameras,, that’s why I stick to full frame.. lol
I'd be curious to see how the R6 stacks against the R3. The R3 has slightly more resolution than the R6 so we should be able to better see the improvements brought about by Canon's newer stacked BSI process as opposed to also seeing the effects of having bigger pixel wells with the lower resolution. Just a thought.
@@TigaWould No disagreement here, I have both the R5 and R6, and yeah, the R6 totally stomps the R5 in low light, just like the R3 did in this video. That thing is basically a 1DXIII without the 1DXIII video features, but... There is benefit to going to a stacked BSI sensor, so comparing the R3 and R6 should show what if any difference that'd be.
@@TigaWould No, it's like getting the 1D X III sensor without the rest of the advantages of the 1D X III.
Goto dpreview iso compare tool all these cameras are in their and you can play with all the modes, downscale or not raw or jpeg, lights on/off etc etc
@@TigaWould Photonstophotos just posted the R3 results. I did a quick comparison between it and the R6, and sure enough... There's not a huge difference. They're actually quite neck and neck. The R3 is better in some places and the R6 is better in other places. Basically, Canon was able to go from 20MP to 24MP and basically keep the same performance.
@@TigaWould Totally agree. Even Canon (despite everybody dumping on them for being "behind" in specs) has produced cameras that generally exceed what you need for the vast majority of uses for a very long time. The lower noise floor and higher dynamic range are nice to haves, but not totally necessary except for very niche use cases. I always get a kick out of watching people switch camera brands over stuff like that. I'm like "really? Unless you absolutely need that for the type of work you do (and I've looked at your work, and you don't do that type of work), you could've just stayed with what you have and kept on trucking" There's nothing wrong with upgrading or changing brands because you want to, and you don't need a reason to do so, but it's comical to watch people do so, then justify it with "it has better specs", or "I need it so I can get better photos". They somehow think upgrading their camera will upgrade their photos. Probably not.
Got my R3 about a week ago. Imo it’s much better camera to shoot with than the Sony or R5. It’s smaller than you expect when you first see it. I imagined it would feel similar to my previous 1DXMK2. But thankfully it’s much smaller and lighter than that camera. The R3 feels like the perfect interpretation of what a “Pro” body should be circa 2020. It’s large enough to feel balanced without being so large as to feel burdensome. The IBIS is a noticeable upgrade over the R5 version. It feels more refined. The battery last a long time… a really long time. Image quality wise, the images seem to punch way above their weight considering the resolution. I recall reading somewhere that it’s actually renders closer to 30mp in detail… which I believe might be the case.
I can say with confidence I prefer the R3 over the R5. I’d be curious to see how it compares to the Nikon in the real world. But that said, their zero chance I would jump to a new system. Not with the R1 coming next year:D
@@TigaWould probably R1 will be the best camera of all,. vs sony A1, R3, Z9,. but im concerned about its price,. and probably shocking price at 8,000 usd.
of sony A1 is 6,500 and R3 is 6,000 and Z9 is 5,500 i think R1 will be price at 8,000 usd,.
i think all system is great now,. and the specs i over kill for all of us photographers,. and we all know,. price of camera do matters to us..
Hi Manny. Have you try to downsample images to resolution of r3 and than zoom in?
Hi Manny. I also have both cameras, the R3 and the R5. Have you noticed how much better the colors are from the R3? Not so red cast, not so harsh contrasts?
Great video as allways, but would it not have been sensible to resize the R5 to the size of the R3? Now the noise looks bigger, more prominent because the image is bigger
This!
Lol
Why does every press this point? How many people are really resizing R5 files? I’m curious to how many people really resize when the light gets low. Wouldn’t this test prove more realistic? If I’m shooting a wedding when the lights get low I’m boosting iso I don’t want to go to the menu to resize. What if I forget to resize back when I do a portrait session next shoot? I feel like I didn’t buy a 45mp camera to constantly be resizing. Or am I tripping?
@@dantecooper4705 i feel it is a slightly unfair way to compare the 2 results. You are right. Nobody will resize, but when you do a test like this it is relevant I think.
@@dantecooper4705 Truth is you don't need 45mp.
Flash photography is fascinating. Given I don’t do it, but I don’t understand at all how you have these super bright previews on your LCD & then after the actual photo is snapped it looks like a completely different movie haha. Dope photos as always bro.
Man hella random, but I’ve been watching both of you for the last 4 years and it’s so fuckin cool to see y’all grow and make major moves. Proud of you guys.
The electronic shutter not worth it as it bends poles etc in photos.
@@mandofan2616 can it make a bent pole straight tho? 🤔
AH AH AH ITS YCImaging. My two favourite photography/videographers in one comment section
@@toosas photoshop will be your friend there
IF we were to scale the R5 + A1 image to the same size, I do not think the noise would be too different.
high resolution sensor means high resolution images including high resolution noise. When you scale down, the original image will turn even sharper, so will its noise.
You need to downsample the R5 files to the same resolution to compare at the same pixel level.
This. Would be a better comparison if this was done. Down sampling would reduce noise as well from my experience.
Exactly, this video is spreading as much misinformation as an average Tony Northrup video. 😅
Own the R5 and honestly, I have never gone past maybe ISO 800 (usually I bump up the ISO if I am shooting with continuous lighting). I shoot mainly in the studio with Profoto and don't have the need to push the ISO. Of course, if you are finding yourself using the faster ISO than maybe the noise issue is an important one but for me I would not worry about noise/ISO.
I'd like to see the comparison of a 1dx Mark II and the r3. I rarely use my 1dx for high-speed sports but I found it particularly good at landscapes and portraits because of its low light capability.
I agree. I love my 1DXii for landscape and although I don't do a lot of portraits, it has always created great images when I have. I'd definitely like to see a comparison with the R3.
I finally got to edit photos from the first day of racing I shot with it today. Holy smokes…this sensor is GOOD. Canon reds are finally naturally represented and accurate. The R5 would have a tendency to shoot Reds and Oranges very closely to the point where it became ambiguous on some cars. This sensor has some seriously good highlight and shadow recovery along with massive color depth. At least that’s my opinion after one REAL day shooting with it.
Some ppl say r3 colors are hard to deal with in post .why ?
@@creativegreats6924 I’ve never heard anyone say that, but if someone did, I would have to question their competence as an editor.
@@kevindiossi but the colors don't match well with r5c and other Canon cams right ?
@@creativegreats6924 we shoot with C70 and R5 footage regularly and have zero issues. Perhaps you’re using AWB? No clue why someone has an issue.
@@kevindiossi do you think the colors of the r3 are better ? Or do they match r5 easy ?
Just finish watching the video.
Since I'm one of the handful? in Chicago to own the R3 right now, and used it.
@0:26 The reason why I bought the R3 right off the bat on the release day (had it pre-order as soon pre-orders started). I think I can be consider as (semi-)pro sports photographer, since I (used to, before covid) do IHSA high school sports. Yet, the main reason for me why I bought it is because I do Golf & Tennis photos. And I need an electric shutter that won't warp the golf club or tennis racket while it's in motion and I have my silent shutter on.
I also do Weddings (as a second shooter), and stage theater (because of my work place). The other reason I picked the R3 is because I hope I get to see less light banding at certain lighting condition. So my images don't look "stripey" when I see the JPEG file of it. :|
and also, to combine all of Sports, Wedding, and Stage Theater. The eye control focus is my selling point. yet I wear glasses. I think it'll take some time to get the calibration for eye control just right. until I get the other eye piece. Which said helps for people with glasses improv on the eye control focusing.
I'll get more intel probably in 2022, if I ever get back shooting high school sports. Due to covid, I have to step down until the all clear for me. For, I got 4 more weddings this year to get more intel on the performance of the R3 in real world conditions.
But as a portrait camera, basing off first impress when I did "self portraits" of myself. Part of me want to say, yeah the R3 can do photoshoots with it. But would I make it my main camera to use for photoshoots? Maybe not???? Maybe I'll pick the R5. I need more testing / practice to confirm my answer. For now, I'm glad that the R3 does have "face priority TTL", which makes my photoshoots really quick and fast without the guessing on light metering. I can just run and gun my photoshoots without worry of getting the wrong exposure during the shoot. I'm pretty sure the R5 (and R6?) also have "face priority TTL"
6:50 well no, there is not much more noise; not clear at all. did you measure ? what was the signal/noise ratio ?
watching this video 2 years later, im wondering of DXO Pure Raw 3 can clean up the R5 files to look better than the unprocessed R3 files
Hey Manny, I have a request for you mate. Can you compare the Canon R3 and Canon R6 and maybe add Sony A7S3 as well if possible as I'm planning on getting a camera which performs amazing in low light conditions such as night clubs and concerts as that's what I have been shooting currently. Can you make a video on this?
R3 is better than A7s3
Recap: lower resolution sensor has lower noise at high ISOs than a higher resolution sensor without downscaling. I understand that he acknowledges in the video that he expected this result but I mean come on: water is wet and oil is oily.
RIGHT !!!!! And everything else is just entertainment.
7:35 If you're using the same lens to compare high ISO images between the R3 and R5, wouldn't it make sense to compare the images taken from the exact same distance from the subject for each camera? As it is, the image taken with the R5 was taken closer to the subject than the R3.
Manny, awhile back you did a Sony vs Canon color comparison. How do you feel about the colors out of the A1 vs the R3/R5 now? Are "Canon skintones" still a thing for portrait photographers? Do Canon skintones really require less tweaking SOOC, or is mostly myth at this point?
Canon color change also, if compare a 5d ii vs 5d iv vs r vs r5 chage a lot...
For portraits the best Camera is that you can get witht a good lens.
I use an a7 ii, 2014 sony and i get amazings colors.
Sony now have very good "soc" colors.
Meh, it's a myth mostly. Especially how it turned out in the blind test that people liked actually surprisingly the Sony colors the most.
To me the biggest difference is seen in video. I’ve owned both the a1 and the 1dx iii as a full split hybrid shooter, and for video, canon wins every time. There’s a true to life look to the skin tone even while giving the the image a look. I sold my a1 for the r3. Easy decision imo.
Asking alot of dumb questions
yess canon is still the best skin and color tones
Sony and Nikon are the worst
Nice video, thanks for showing us your shooting process & digital darkroom development. Quick question: Are you processing in Canon DPP before you take it to LR? If no, you should. LR strips out what is proprietary to Canon in Camera. When you process first in Canon DPP, save as a Tiff, you preserve more of what your vision was when you took the shot.
Can you please compare the dynamic range! the colors of the r3, also look FIRE in comparison to the r5
Hmmm , after this curious to know how the R6 would stack up against the R3 in low light.
BUT in order to compare the noise you have to reduce the size of the R5 and A1 :) when you scale down the noise goes away and the detail is better.
I think he is referring to color shift in high ISO test
Exactly, this is super important. This will most likely make the r5 perform similar or better than the r3.
Hi Manny, have u tried high ISO comparison between the R6 and the R3?
Maaaaaaaaaarni. Where have you been? 8 days is too far for a next videos😩😩 thanks for coming back tho😁😎
He fell in love again when he said “that’s pretty damn good” 😂 I’m the same way with my fiancé lol
I have used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II for all photos/videos of my Macaw parrot family since 2016; but after watching videos on the Canon R3 for bird photographers I decided to rent one. The eye tracking autofocus is so amazing I decided to buy this incredible camera. My only complaint with the R3 is it does not use 2 CFExpress cards like the new canon R1 will.
Nice to know.
Also, it would have been nice to compare the R3 against the R6 in low light, too. And also, when the Sony releases an A9 III with probably 24-something MP, to compare them then too.
Do you have any dates on when the white beauty dish is going to be back in stock. Apparently its great because you cant find one anywhere.
Store blames truckers, truckers blame port workers, port workers blame ships... It's a whole different world now.
@Manny Ortiz you think the R3 is better for landscape photography
Great, informative video. I wonder how the R3 stacks up vs. the R6 in low light capabilities?
what's wrong with the sound of your voice? It feels as if you have some sort of noise cancelling. I heard it around 7:00 mark
great video, you might have to do a comparison with the R6 as well however you might benefit from that 45mp sensor but low light is def clean
The R3 is just way too big danmm it 😩😩, I was suppose to get mine today , but im still considaring if Im taking it or not
Let me know if you’re interested in selling it for what you paid 🙌
@@dna8269 I took it finally lol, and I love it, its just a learning curve
Don't be afraid to go over and beyond10 minutes in your videos. Your content is entertaining and valuable with the information you provide.
Love the shot with Diana looking in the mirror.
Very good video. Also very considerate when you highlighted the "bars" in the beginning of the video given the difference in perspective.
Are the fixture lights daylight balanced in that gym?
Will the canon 580ex 2 flash work on the R5?
That's logical. The pixels are bigger from the R3. So in low light it's better.
6.00µm > 4.39µm 💪🏻
I'm not at all surprised that the higher resolution (and older) sensor creates more noise at higher ISO. That's what I would expect. Smaller photosites on the sensor means more noise. That said, the AI denoising tools in Lightroom are *so* good now that I just don't worry about noise any more. I shoot with a 1DXii and a Panasonic G9. The 1DXii has waaaay less noise at higher ISOs, but I can still make the G9 images look great.
Are you switching back to Canon now?
So this was an interesting video along with the one you did comparing the R3 to the Z9. If you only wanted 24 Mpixel what about the Sony A9 II prevent it from being in the same category as the Canon R3? I have the A1 and A9 II along with an R5. Even been looking at the Z9. Thanks as always for you videos.
@Manny Ortiz TOTALLY off topic question for you. I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 version of the RF 70-200 (I’m assuming that basically F4 or F2.8 in any brand are very similar). I currently use a R6 camera and looking to take photos of my 2 year old along with friends and family in forest type environments along with recreation center, arenas and outdoor winter and summer sports for toddlers and a bunch of general portraits. I’m assuming that there won’t be much of a difference in bokeh from one to another when the subject is 30+ feet away in sports type scenarios but more so concerned about the lower light areas that are most likely less than optimal environments. If I buy the 70-200 F4 I’m also considering in upgrading my main lens (EF 24-70 F4) to the RF F2.8 version since most of the time I’m within our house or a family members house so it would be nice to blur out the distracting backgrounds a bit more because my 50mm 1.8 is a bit too tight in my small house. Any input would be appreciated! Thanks in advance for anyones time on this topic.
The money spent on an F4 seems like a waste unless you're absolutely strapped to a tight budget until you can afford better gear, but it doesn't sound like that's your scenario. 2.8 is an easy choice otherwise
@@dna8269 I’d like to get the 70-200 next and if I choose the F2.8 version I’d be delaying the purchase of upgrading my 24-70 to a 2.8 also. This is all for personal use and I won’t make money on it but I do think you’re right and the 2.8 is probably the better and cheaper choice in the long run.
@@kore996, I’m going to throw you a curve ball and say get the Metabones Speedbooster EF to RF. After March 2021 firmware update 1.4 onwards, it finally allowed R5/6, C70, and Red Komodo to work. I don’t have all the EF lenses but the ones I have work great in video and stills. The drawbacks are: 1) it is longer and put some more weight but that doesn’t bother me; and 2) you’re in APSC/super35 but the crop is only 1.136x (= 1.6x x 0.71) and you get an extra stop of light.
I have the R5 and use the EF 16-35/4 with IS and it becomes 18-40/2.8 with IS. My EF 70-200/2.8 iii becomes 80-227/2.0, etc etc. I have EF primes, 35/1.4 ii and 85/1.4 which turns into 40/1.0 and 97/1.0 respectively.
And in video, since it is in APSC/Super35, it oversample from 5.1K to 4K with no overheating.
Whenever I don’t want the crop or shoot in daylight, I use the EF to RF drop in variable adapter and have the variable nd filter for those bright days.
Those two adapters will cost you ~$1000 and you can continue to use your EF lenses until you save up or there are more budget friendly from Sigma, Tamron, or other 3rd party lens manufacturers.
If you’re doing paid work and absolutely need the very best IQ, then for sure get the RF. For my use cases, it doesn’t rationalize that extra $1,000-$2,000/lens for that extra IQ.
@@nomad0714 appreciate your time and input, looks like you put some thought in to your response. The reason I’m considering the new RF 70-200’s is because they are lighter than previous versions. I have a spinal injury and my left arm doesn’t quite cooperate most of the time along with pain so I’m trying to keep things as small and simple as I can. Because of my injury working with primes is extremely difficult for me when trying to keep up with taking photos of my son she trying to get a decent composition and not clip his limbs in the photos. I also have the basic EF-RF Canon adapter for use with my existing EF 24-70 F4. I’ve heard of speed boosters but never looked in to them and just heard them referenced a lot in UA-cam videos. Either way, thanks for your reply!
@@kore996 Without knowing about your physical challenges I would have said get the RF 70-200 f2.8 hands down. I'd much rather deal with f/4 for wider angle photos where one can get away with slower Tv than one can with longer focal lengths. I often shoot with a 70-200/2.8 on one body and a 24-105/4 on another, even though I also have a 24-70/2.8. Sometimes I do use the 24-70/2.8 instead. The former makes much more sense to me than using a 70-200/4 and a 24-70/2.8. Most non-daylight sports under lights need at least f/2.8 to get 1/800-1/1000 at ISO3200 (unless you're in a pro or large college facility, which are lit much better than typical high school or youth sports facilities). Many HS and lower facilities are a stop or two darker than that. f/4 really starts to affect IQ when you have to go to ISO 6400 or 12800 just to get 1/800.
Isn't it about the difference of capturing the same amount of light on R5 45MP sensor vs 24MP R3. Same amount of light, captured on the same area.. Nice presentation!
Il confronto tra un sensore da 24 mega e uno di 45 ad alti iso è diciamo quasi inutile con tutto il rispetto...... dovresti portare il file della r5 a 24 mega e rifare i crop...allora li si potrebbe fare una comparazione più sensata...anche se probabilmente la r3 dovrebbe essere meglio ugualmente.
It is not surprising 6um pixel pitch on R3 will always yield cleaner shots on dim lights vs the R5 4.39um sensor. The trade off is resolution.
Manny softbox on sale yet ???
Great videos , this is not rocket science , have the R5 and R6 .
The R6 is exactly one stop better in low light high iso.
Literally 16 seconds lol. Not gonna lie I’m watching the video right now as I type this lol. Much love from the island of Puerto Rico 🇵🇷 📷📷📷🤙🏽
I would expect the result you observed, Manny. One could do what I did...picked up the R6 for low light and the R5 for daylight/larger prints/video and spend about the same as the R3 alone. Just can't push that R5 high MP sensor too much in low light or noise will creep in fast. Before I left Sony to go back to Canon, I experienced the same issue with the A7R3 vs. A73. As others have stated, the R6 vs. R3 low light comparison would be interesting (and I'd expect the R6 might produce slightly better results as to noise). Great video comparison. Highlights the old adage that the right tool for the job is key.
надо приводить итоговую картинку к одинаковому разрешению. да и Фотошоп уже убирает шумы очень хорошо
Brilliant and useful as always, keep it up man.
Please make a self portal tutorial! I need more matches on tinder!!
can you compare the ISO of the R3 with the R 6?? ;)
Decision made, thanks for that informative side by side
Diana is looking sensational in these pics/video... she even got her Manny to blush for the cam (3:05) ;)
This was more of a light and composition video for me. And I loved it!
Please please keep making this longer form videos. Awesome work
You have 10 minutes comparison, I still don't understand which camera is better. which camera has better quality
which rf lens ill be perfect for fashion?
You cannot compare noise without scaling them to the same resolution. Come on.
manny we all know that low megapixel camera have lower noise. high megapixel camera are best when shot in well let situation.. love your vids still. bless. the R6 shoots better Low images than the R5
The R3 is really the best sport and journalism camera there is!
Good for every situation (low light and speed).
I am looking forward what Canon will bring in 2022!
The Canon R5C, R7, R1, R5mk2, R8?
Thanks for this! Love that background for the talking head portion of this video
... a fact that I would never have expected. I'm surprised that BSI sensors with fewer megapixels also have less iso noise under the same conditions. 🤷🏼♂️ Thx for sharing. 🙏🏻
Hey Manny....thank you for doing this comparison! Curious if the R6 would provide a closer result to the R3 in low light? I do feel the BSI sensors handle this situation better regardless as I have seen that similar low light result from my Z7 II....but I still switched:-) Next time mom comes over you should use her as a model....you'll get nothing but love on that one😉
I would love to see an A1, R3, Z9 comparison when really taxing the af systems!
Who cares? You get the best pictures out of a nikon.
@@dkastra26 for fashion / portrait photography, Canon is definitely better than Nikon ..
@@Libinkttm I sure am glad my clients like Banana Republic, J. Crew, Budweiser have never asked me what is in my hands. Honestly, clients don't care. They only care that the job is done to specifications. Recently ordered the Z9 but keeping my Nikon DSLRs that I have used over the years and have billed several millions in image production with this gear. Just sayin' that only photographers and influencers care... Wait I take it back, Ford as for medium format images, so I used PhaseOne for that. :)
@@reneefariasphoto40 I totally agree with all what you said... But Canon is better for fashion photography, its not something that clients notice.
@@Libinkttm In what way is Canon better? Just curious because as a Nikon shooter for 26 years, along with Mamiya/PhaseOne & Hasselblad, the color profiles of these are better than Canon or Sony.
the sexual tension in this shoot lmfao , good content
Another great video homie! Those gym shots were straight 🔥🔥🔥💯The R3 is boss!
You did not zoom both pictures the same way.
Hit that like button. Soon as I clicked on your content lol. Your dope asf manny
The R5 was punched in quite a bit more on your screen. I’m sure someone else pointed that out in the comments. Didn’t read through them all.
I can't wait to see you get a Z9 in your hands.
Thanks for showing us the difference nice shots too
And what is baffling, to me at least, is why/how/by whom is the R3 considered the “Flagship.” The R5 is the flagship as far as I’m concerned.
it has more MP but falls below in every area.
@@RayValdezPhotography The R5 falls below? I have to assume you’re referring to video alone, as the R5 is pretty much the perfect stills camera; unless you feel differently. If so, please elaborate.
@@johnhoey4605 AF, low light, DR, FPS, build quality, battery life. As i said earlier MP is the only thing the R5 excels at. i own both cameras BTW
@@RayValdezPhotography of course low light and DR are negligibly better; it’s 21 mpxl < the R5. Are you saying the images from the R3 are superior to those from the R5? I’d love to see it…
@@johnhoey4605 Canon, Nikon, nor Sony determined their flagships based on megapixels. The 1dx was the flag ship and had less MP than a mark iv. I am just trying to tell you the facts. For you maybe that is the priority but to the people that actually make the cameras, it is not true.
I wasn't gonna pick up the R3... Man~ why you do this dude. Gonna' have to think about this.
I appreciate this test. kee doing more. maybe htrow in the r6
Doing 100% on both cameras is viewing at different magnification. Try the r5 around 50% and the gap will close significantly.
I can imagine the Canon R1 having the same specs of the R3 but with a higher resolution
Wonder how R6 would do with even less megapixels??
I don’t think he’s telling the truth. Difference is very little. Especially after noise cancellation. Images of 12,800 a very usable from the R5 even blown up
Wait...the R3 has smaller file sizes? Also how was the eye follow detect thing they been promoting?
So far, basing from my first impression of the R3 from the last few days of owning. As someone with glasses, I feel like the R3 needs a decent amount of calibration until it feels good enough to use with your glasses on. I feel like when I take off my glasses, and did a separate calibration profile for that condition. Having no glasses feel like the eye control focus have better accuracy than with my glasses on. But I was just using the stock eye piece. I need to get that bigger eye piece for glasses user to see if the accuracy gotten better.
dang yo you didn't have to do that to the canon r5 though.. i felt bad as it fell back lol
Also for processing have you seen Vanessa Joy comparing LR to Capture One? Apparently the processing and on JPEGS, bringing up the blacks etc are a lot better in C1. Not sure how the noise would be impacted. But I did shoot some indoor sports and was in the 12,800 range and while noise is there it looked like film grain in that particular situation so didn't see the nasty chroma noise you were seeing. But sounds like it would be interesting to see what C1 would do with your images?
Or wait for canon to release a new FF with the same sensor at a lower price, which I am sure they will.
Sorry but low noise in 12800 isn't that great. old cameras like Nikon d750 had great noise performance at that iso (that is a cheaper model d5 etc has even better performance that is in the same price bracket as r3). if r3 had the same performace you show here at 51000 then we are talking...
Why couldn’t Canon have gone with 36 megapixels on the R3?! That would have been a nice sweet spot.
I agree 💯
Agree
36mpx = no 8k.
R3 is for sports, sooc jpgs fast to the media for website or social media.
Canon are working on R1, that its the king.
@@mmcmw2 z9 gives u all so ...
chil bro,. theres more to come in 2022,.
Eos R1, R5c, R7, R8, eos Rii and Eos RPii
just wait,. i think canon will go all in now,. because sony already threatened their market share,.
That’s it!!!!! I have so much noise problem with my R5 that I already wondered what is this shit Canon sold me…. When you shoot CRaw it’s even more intense… it’s actually not possible to shoot a night event like a party or a low light bar evening… even if I use f1.4 sigma lenses my image falls completely apart with the shit R5. With ISO 5000 already the camera is kind of unusable
This was really interesting to see! I just read that DXOmark said the R3 has the best low light performance sensor out of any full frame camera that’s currently available. Canon has made some great leaps recently, it felt like the sensors were far behind Sony and Nikon for awhile, but they’re starting to lead in some areas again! Just means there really isn’t a BAD pro camera these days!
Great info bro!
Great vid, it's too bad the R3 has a very noticable green cast on skin - did that not bother you at all? Whereas the R5 looks gorgeous.
What pics ?
Diana got me whenever she winked lmao
That's so cool you get to work with your wife. I'm becoming a better photographer little by little watching you vids 👍
Love your vlog. Lots of love from nepal. 🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵❤❤❤❤
Ayo Manni Lightroom update review next 🤣😂🤣
Just get an R6. If you can't an R3
Same Sensor and Processor in the 1Dx mkIII