My EF 70-200 2.8L III does seem to keep up with AF in the R3, so I think you're right on that. I think it may actually be even better than the RF 24-70. Glad to hear your comparison of the AF. That's the problem I was trying to solve when I bought the R3.
The R3 is by far the best feeling mirrorless flagship and for me has the best specs and EVF/OVF simulation is way better than the competition for me. I have NOT updated to mirrorless because I prefer the Nikon D6's to the Z9 and that is mainly due to being a photojournalist, who relies heavily on straight out of camera quality and speed. With my external wifi WT-6A and touch menu I can simply zoom and crop and or flick up and send images to my iphone, ipad or editior within a few seconds of shooting it at up to 650ft range. It works 100% reliably and even works when I have no service on my phone and I'm in the California mountains covering a wildfire. I can still transfer images to my iphone through the WT-6A. Unfortunately the built in wifi/wireless on the D6 and Z9 just dosn't work as well or as fast, and it's NOT 100% reliable. Plus I actually prefer 20-24mp files as they tend to do better at higher ISO and they don't slow down my workflow. I'm fortunate to have all of the latest and greatest F-mount E-type lenses, such as the 28mm f/1.4E which is incredibly sharp, the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL, and 500mm f/4E VR FL. So if I do ever get a Nikon mirrorless my lenses will work perfectly if not better than they do on my D6. I'm honestly not a fan of the Z9 files, they are noisy and I actually prefer the D6 files for JPEG and ready to go files. I hardly do anything other than crop or adjust exposure and therefore the D6 files are better, they don't require editing, waiting for previews to build or the crash's I've experienced with D850 files in Lightroom and even on my iPhone 12 Pro Max. 45.7mp files are NOT great when you need to get images out in a hurry and the D6 and R3 just hold up better and look better straight out of camera. Plus if you're like me and own optically superb lenses, you don't see much difference between 21-24mp and 45-50mp. Not until you zoom into 200% or crop heavily, etc. I shot the D850 with grip and D6 side by side and the files are so similar looking, I have ti check metadata to see if it was my D6 or D850. So I decided to sell my D5 and D850 and now have two D6's. I'm probably going to just get a D810 or D500 for a backup, third body. I nearly switched to Canon and the R3 though and I'm still considering it, but I just can't find enough of a reason to sell my Nikon gear. I am actually extremely happy with the D6, so I can understand why you like the R3, especially compared to Sony's ergonomics and build, etc. I too have hands that reach the bottom of the grip and I therefore do NOT like holding Sony camera's. They feel like crap, sorry to say. Maybe that's because the 1Dx and D5/D6 series just feel so good.
Great job with the video. I have a couple of R5's and when I'm in Av or Auto ISO I always use the Set Button and Main Control Dial to dial in Exposure Compensation.
On sony's the stab works the same as on canon and it is always with no special lens, depending of the stab mode on a tele lens like the 200-600, there is always the stab, just when shutter is puch halfway and just on vertical axis. The samme goes with this ibis that is linked to the is so when the stab on the lens is off the ibis is too
About the evfs there is not just dots that make sonys finder better, canon ones have the smaller ones on the market with x0,76 magnification against x0,80 on nikon and sony a1 and a7SIII x0,90.... and even your older sonys are x0,78
@@ryanheldoorn It is still, doesn't mean that canon is Bad, but I have a r6 a a7Iv and a a7Siii and it shows .. as i Can Say that 120p in the viewfinder doesn't change things that much it is a Real factor that need to be shown that you dont see the differents it is not the point, it is like if just look at an image on the backscreen of a canon or the evf it is less sharp than when you look at it on a computer specifically on canon mirrorless, it is a thing that need to be said even if it makes not that much differents, it is a specifications you can't be half honest
@@Guillaume9 I don’t agree mate. Firstly you can’t compare the evf of the canon r6 with the r3 because you clearly haven’t used the canon r3 because the evf in the r3 is far superior to the one in the r6. You might have a point for video because when shooting video, you can leave the a1 & a7s3 at max evf resolution, and then, yes it’s a bit crisper than the canon r3. BUT, if you’re shooting sports or action and need a high refresh rate of 120fps, then the Sony a1 resolution drops to almost exactly the same as the canon r3 which doesn’t change resolution when increasing refresh rate, and at that point they are basically indistinguishable. You will understand when you actually use a canon r3, but until then, you can’t compare the r6 or the a7iv evf resolution because they are not comparable. So therefore it is an honest review and opinion because I’ve actually used all of those camera except the r6
@@ryanheldoorn look man, if you dont understand What Imean it is sad, r3 fonder is the same as the r5 the blackout free thingy is something else, but the mgnification is exzctly thé same one the r6 r5 and r3 and as they are using the same glass to do that the increase resolution is not much it is sort of 1/3 much résolution than the r6, and looking at an r6 and r5 it IS not that much different just in the r7 you sée more the pixels. However because you dont read m'y comment right, I Say that the canon u i dont show you in playback mode the photo as crisp as it should be, thé r6 fonder is fine, just when i play back it IS less sharp that's What I Say, and I dont know if you look through an r6 to make your statement, it IS a 2/3 résolution r3 fonder with same glass and just not thé eye focus and realtime view in burst
@@Guillaume9 look man! At no point in this whole exchange have you mentioned the canon r5 evf. You said, you had r6!!! I NEVER SAID EVF WAS DIFFERENT COMPARED TO R5!!! It looks like you are the one not reading comments mate. Clearly there is a language barrier here but don’t start being a know it all, when you clearly have never used the canon r3 or Sony a1 and are instead just reading the spec sheet! I suggest you go rent an a1 and canon r3 and do your own REAL comparison instead of going off website manufacturers details. Until that time, I’m going to assume you have no REAL LIFE USAGE EXPERIENCE WITH THE CAMERA YOU SEEM TO THINK YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
Good review mate. 1DX II shooter here and have just ordered an R3 to take over primary shooting duties and keeping the 1DX II as the second camera. I'm a sports shooter. Golf, motorsports, field sports (cricket, rugby, soccer). How are you finding the vertical grip? Doesn't look as if the depth of it is as deep as the main grip. Also, have you tried the optical viewfinder simulation mode? I've heard that mode is just awesome.
Appreciate the kind words champ. In terms of the OVF Mode, I have not used it at all, as in my opinion, once you’ve used mirrorless and gotten used to the ‘what you see is what you get’ experience of an EVF, it’s pretty hard to go back. The vertical grip feels good. I did go into this in my second video, detailing the feel and button placement relative to the primary grip. The vertical grip in many regards feels better because it’s longer.
I think you’ll find, canons official statement is more along the lines of ‘the r3 is not called the R1 because it does not have the same durability and weather sealing that out 1 series cameras are renown for.
@@ryanheldoorn I have watched several videos in which canon officials state that it is weather sealed to the same level as the 1D series bodies. Note, I am not talking about durability, just weather sealing. Having said that, I have the R3 and have held a 1DX II in my hand at the same time and they feel identical in built quality to me at least.
@@mdbedelsohn4307 I would agree with 2 of those indeed. I kept seeing the camera busy LED light up every now and again when I was getting the camera out of a bag or picking it up with gloves and what it was, was the card door opening just enough and the closing again to make the camera light up the LED. The hot shoe cover is good until, again, you need to get it out of a bag and it can pull off very easily. I often use gaffa tape over the top of it for my snow trips.
@@ryanheldoorn shame at that price point... Sounds like you"ll need to gaffer it totally up.. Right now I'm still more leaning towards the 1DXiii... What do you think, I'm going to miss out too much on the Full-screen AF and other features? Also I do lots of night events and I'm still not trusting the EVF for that... Lens-wise, the EF-line seems capable enough for 20MP (with a huge range of even 2nd hands).
Of course there is. Many sport and wildlife shooters shoot Manual but use AUTO ISO, especially in rapidly changing lighting conditions where focusing on composition and tracking is paramount. One particular example of why being able to use exposure compensation in Manual mode while using auto iso, is in snow sports. Cameras don't meter well in the snow because the frame is so full of, well, white snow, so exposure compensation for +.03-+0.7 at times is necessary to make sure the snow remains white instead of the camera underexposing and making the snow grey.
@@ryanheldoorn I understand what you are saying but ISO is not an exposure setting as it does not affect the amount of light entering the sensor. It's more of a brightness control. I understand the usefulness of what you are saying as ISO affects the "look" of the images but it is still not an EXPOSURE value so no, there is nothing to compensate.
@@djole02 I understand what your saying champ but you’re missing my/the point. It’s about ease of use and if a button is labelled as such, it should do said job it’s labelled for in any mode regardless of if it’s feasible, possible or relevant. In the case of auto iso and using exposure compensation while using auto iso, it is useful and relevant and it is an exposure compensation tool regardless of if it’s artificial or not. Even if the camera is iso invariant like most mirrorless cameras are, it’s still valuable to get the ‘what you see is what you get’ sensation or feedback while actually taking the shot.
@@ryanheldoorn I understand you logic and frustration and would like to use it that way on my Canon cameras as well but Canon doesn't treat auto ISO as other manufacturers. I always shoot with some amount of flash and auto ISO just goes to 400 when you turn on flash, it's complete nonsense... In flash photography ISO does affect the exposure as it changes the e-ttl metering values and thus flash output power but I don't understand why it doesn't work like it works on my Nikon cameras.
@@djole02 Well flash is a whole extra can of worms to get into and far outside of my wheelhouse as I rarely use flash unless I'm using it as a lantern for my milky way explorer shots and at that point, I've always use rear curtain shutter (but only with sony cameras).
It was hit and miss for me personally. I felt it was very light source dependant, especially when calibrating. Personally, I also felt it caused and unnatural strain on my eyes. I wouldn't consider this camera just for that feature. It's more of a ok thing to have for some situations, but something I wont use.
maybe i missunderstand talking about 'minimum ISO that is of interest?' My R5 even older SLR's i can set maximum ISO and keep the shutterspeed flexibel .. what is my missunderstanding on the subject? maybe the R3 is very different but i have my doubts
Ok, so what I mean by 'Minimum Shutter Speed' in the AUTO ISO settings, is that Canon only allows you to set a minimum shutter speed of 1 Sec. On Sony and other manufacturers, I can set the same setting but all the way up to 30 sec (auto min shutter speed). Sony allows 1,2,4,8,15,30 second options to be selected. Why is this important? Well on Canon, once the 'Auto Min Shutter Speed is reached (which in the canons case 1 sec being the maximum), iso will begin to increase until, as you mentioned the 'Max Auto ISO' is reached, and then, only then will the camera start to extend the shutter for longer than 1 sec. Whereas on the Sony, I can set a much longer 'Auto Min Shutter Speed' say 8 seconds, before the ISO starts to raise. So as a practical example, when doing sunsets into nighttime Timelapse's, the canon will produce noiser images (higher ISO's) much earlier in the Timelapse, because the shutter speed can't be extended past 1 sec. E.G. Canon 1 sec shutter and 3200 ISO, or I can have Sony at 8 sec shutter and 200 ISO, which is clearly much more preferable. You could of course set your Canon to a max ISO of 1600, but when you got into complete darkness of night, you may have issues with exposure not being bright enough for your shutter speed and interval settings plus of course the problem as mentioned above, with noiser images, early in the Timelapse. Also if you went this route on the canon, you also have to adjust your Max Shutter in the orange menu, to accomodate for the interval length. Basically changing 2-3 settings when it shouldn't be necessary.
@@ryanheldoorn I get it. I guess you are on the R3 set to full electronic shutter. When using the mechanical shutter, the EOS R3's shutter speed ranges from 30s. I am having mine on half mechanical, half electronic .. this might be a problem of course, because of the shutter maybe have the cam shaking a bit...at least it is not a mirror anymore.
@@ryanheldoorn .."Also if you went this route on the canon, you also have to adjust your Max Shutter in the orange menu, to accomodate for the interval length. Basically changing 2-3 settings when it shouldn't be necessary." Set your ideal timelaps settings ones on C1, C2 or C3. C has a weird logic of setting parameters globaly.. even changing to M does not go under the 'globaly' sett shutter speed ;-( .. with C1 etc. prepared i am super fast changing modes in Shows with super changing circumstances..
@@arthur3038 no this auto min shutter speed is the same in mechanical shutter. I think you are confusing ‘auto min shutter’ in the ‘auto min ISO’ setting, which just regular shutter speeds. Yes the r3 can also do normal 30 sec shutter speed but ‘auto min shutter speed’ is used in conjunction with ‘auto min ISO’ when using AV or M modes
@@arthur3038 I’m well aware of this and I did mention that the mechanical shutter needs to be altered on the orange menu to allow for the interval, but as I said in the video and in my direct reply to you, this is more steps than necessary and still doesn’t fix the ‘auto min shutter speed’ issue. We are taking about Timelapse here. Not single shots. I’m aware it can be programmed to a custom shoot mode but again, the ‘auto min shutter’ in the ‘auto min ISO’ settings only goes to 1 second. I plan to do a video explaining this as this is something that canon users have never been able to do so I’ll demonstrate between the Sony and canon settings.
With the file size of the R3 and any canon they are hardly uncompressed file at lest much compressed than sony ones so uncompressed is not a good statement
I’m assuming you’re trying to say that Sony compression on their compressed file formats is far greater than canons compression??? In my experience, the compression is mostly negligible unless of course highlight quality is your greatest concern, because all compression (Sony, canon, Nikon etc) affects highlights or recovery of highlights far more than an uncompressed file format.
@@ryanheldoorn no it is just that things smaller are much compressed there is no Magic, raw uncompressed is uncompressed it is full data if there is less it is a compression no matter What, and canon cleverly never advertise there raw to be uncompressed. It is physics not quality comparison. Again it is not vecaise for your case that works fine that it is somewhat a bit of a compromise, sracking specs mean that you have to be considérant all the things. Like saying définition on Sony is better but not at 120fps yes but at 60 it is better, for raw it is the same but sometimes when you want to recover shadows there are things missing, it could not be Bad but it exist. I dont Say Sony is better, but for canon it is easier to get a good burst, and well Sony compressed raw is not Bad too, it is juste not fair saying Sony des a burst in compressed raw yes but canon toi and note 50 mpx and not redondant recording on the r3. I like canon and Sony considering myself buying the r3 but I dont neglect thé default each have in all fairness
@@Guillaume9 mate I don’t know what you’re on about. The canon r3 files are either raw or raw light. The raw are uncompressed and the raw light are compressed.
@@ryanheldoorn yeah but in no caracteristic details it mentionned uncompressed but canon original raw version 3. It is a choice of lesser data or the better solution much compressed file, there is no Magic on canon raw to fit all that data. Thé other exemple could be for vidéo canon and Sony use somewhat the same codecs but canon choice is to baked in a much bigger bitrate resulting in bigger file for canon so less overheat in the sonys body but there is Always a trade for size and saying the contrary is like saying the earth is flat
@@Guillaume9 you mean the earth is not flat?!!! 🤣 Personally I don’t mind the bigger video size bitrate codecs on the canon r3 as they’re (in my opinion) easier to work with in post because there’s more information. And I think Sony shot only compressed the file format in video because their own cf express A cards only go to 160GB so I’m sure you can see that if the bitrate was the same as canon, people would complain about the cf express A card capacity
This histogram thing is just nonsense... You will ALWAYS deactivate a histogram or waveform when you're filming. I never ever film with that on with my c300 and never missed that on my r3 for more then 0,00001 seconds
Well, I prefer my R3 simply due to not having overly big file sizes, and I have enough reach with my lenses anyway without having to crop alot, R3 feels much nicer than the A1 for shooting too and having full raw files is nice for editing.
@@ryanheldoorn Alot of people use 150-600's, 100-500's and etc for wildlife, 600 f4 has an additional 20% reach over the 150-600/200-600 lenses so yeah, I can see why alot of Sony A1 users with the 200-600 would need the extra resolution. I just find it a hassle on storage lol.
My EF 70-200 2.8L III does seem to keep up with AF in the R3, so I think you're right on that. I think it may actually be even better than the RF 24-70.
Glad to hear your comparison of the AF. That's the problem I was trying to solve when I bought the R3.
The R3 is by far the best feeling mirrorless flagship and for me has the best specs and EVF/OVF simulation is way better than the competition for me. I have NOT updated to mirrorless because I prefer the Nikon D6's to the Z9 and that is mainly due to being a photojournalist, who relies heavily on straight out of camera quality and speed. With my external wifi WT-6A and touch menu I can simply zoom and crop and or flick up and send images to my iphone, ipad or editior within a few seconds of shooting it at up to 650ft range. It works 100% reliably and even works when I have no service on my phone and I'm in the California mountains covering a wildfire. I can still transfer images to my iphone through the WT-6A. Unfortunately the built in wifi/wireless on the D6 and Z9 just dosn't work as well or as fast, and it's NOT 100% reliable. Plus I actually prefer 20-24mp files as they tend to do better at higher ISO and they don't slow down my workflow. I'm fortunate to have all of the latest and greatest F-mount E-type lenses, such as the 28mm f/1.4E which is incredibly sharp, the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL, and 500mm f/4E VR FL. So if I do ever get a Nikon mirrorless my lenses will work perfectly if not better than they do on my D6. I'm honestly not a fan of the Z9 files, they are noisy and I actually prefer the D6 files for JPEG and ready to go files. I hardly do anything other than crop or adjust exposure and therefore the D6 files are better, they don't require editing, waiting for previews to build or the crash's I've experienced with D850 files in Lightroom and even on my iPhone 12 Pro Max. 45.7mp files are NOT great when you need to get images out in a hurry and the D6 and R3 just hold up better and look better straight out of camera. Plus if you're like me and own optically superb lenses, you don't see much difference between 21-24mp and 45-50mp. Not until you zoom into 200% or crop heavily, etc. I shot the D850 with grip and D6 side by side and the files are so similar looking, I have ti check metadata to see if it was my D6 or D850. So I decided to sell my D5 and D850 and now have two D6's. I'm probably going to just get a D810 or D500 for a backup, third body. I nearly switched to Canon and the R3 though and I'm still considering it, but I just can't find enough of a reason to sell my Nikon gear. I am actually extremely happy with the D6, so I can understand why you like the R3, especially compared to Sony's ergonomics and build, etc. I too have hands that reach the bottom of the grip and I therefore do NOT like holding Sony camera's. They feel like crap, sorry to say. Maybe that's because the 1Dx and D5/D6 series just feel so good.
great honest review , honesty is key, just recieved mine today, had the 1dx mk3 since launch so hoping for a similar layout
You’ll feel right at home Bruce. 👌
@@ryanheldoorn yup had a look last night set a few things up 👍👍
Most thorough review out there. Great job, thanks.
Appreciate the kind words. Follow up vid coming hopefully in the next week or so.
Great job with the video. I have a couple of R5's and when I'm in Av or Auto ISO I always use the Set Button and Main Control Dial to dial in Exposure Compensation.
Appreciate the kind words. Glad you enjoyed the video
One of the more solid reviews out there, thanks for this.
Appreciate the kind words and happy to have been of any help 👌
On sony's the stab works the same as on canon and it is always with no special lens, depending of the stab mode on a tele lens like the 200-600, there is always the stab, just when shutter is puch halfway and just on vertical axis. The samme goes with this ibis that is linked to the is so when the stab on the lens is off the ibis is too
About the evfs there is not just dots that make sonys finder better, canon ones have the smaller ones on the market with x0,76 magnification against x0,80 on nikon and sony a1 and a7SIII x0,90.... and even your older sonys are x0,78
To be honest, unless you are putting each camera up to your eye, one after the other, you would barely notice it.
@@ryanheldoorn It is still, doesn't mean that canon is Bad, but I have a r6 a a7Iv and a a7Siii and it shows .. as i Can Say that 120p in the viewfinder doesn't change things that much it is a Real factor that need to be shown that you dont see the differents it is not the point, it is like if just look at an image on the backscreen of a canon or the evf it is less sharp than when you look at it on a computer specifically on canon mirrorless, it is a thing that need to be said even if it makes not that much differents, it is a specifications you can't be half honest
@@Guillaume9 I don’t agree mate. Firstly you can’t compare the evf of the canon r6 with the r3 because you clearly haven’t used the canon r3 because the evf in the r3 is far superior to the one in the r6.
You might have a point for video because when shooting video, you can leave the a1 & a7s3 at max evf resolution, and then, yes it’s a bit crisper than the canon r3. BUT, if you’re shooting sports or action and need a high refresh rate of 120fps, then the Sony a1 resolution drops to almost exactly the same as the canon r3 which doesn’t change resolution when increasing refresh rate, and at that point they are basically indistinguishable. You will understand when you actually use a canon r3, but until then, you can’t compare the r6 or the a7iv evf resolution because they are not comparable.
So therefore it is an honest review and opinion because I’ve actually used all of those camera except the r6
@@ryanheldoorn look man, if you dont understand What Imean it is sad, r3 fonder is the same as the r5 the blackout free thingy is something else, but the mgnification is exzctly thé same one the r6 r5 and r3 and as they are using the same glass to do that the increase resolution is not much it is sort of 1/3 much résolution than the r6, and looking at an r6 and r5 it IS not that much different just in the r7 you sée more the pixels.
However because you dont read m'y comment right, I Say that the canon u i dont show you in playback mode the photo as crisp as it should be, thé r6 fonder is fine, just when i play back it IS less sharp that's What I Say, and I dont know if you look through an r6 to make your statement, it IS a 2/3 résolution r3 fonder with same glass and just not thé eye focus and realtime view in burst
@@Guillaume9 look man! At no point in this whole exchange have you mentioned the canon r5 evf. You said, you had r6!!! I NEVER SAID EVF WAS DIFFERENT COMPARED TO R5!!! It looks like you are the one not reading comments mate.
Clearly there is a language barrier here but don’t start being a know it all, when you clearly have never used the canon r3 or Sony a1 and are instead just reading the spec sheet!
I suggest you go rent an a1 and canon r3 and do your own REAL comparison instead of going off website manufacturers details.
Until that time, I’m going to assume you have no REAL LIFE USAGE EXPERIENCE WITH THE CAMERA YOU SEEM TO THINK YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
Good review mate. 1DX II shooter here and have just ordered an R3 to take over primary shooting duties and keeping the 1DX II as the second camera. I'm a sports shooter. Golf, motorsports, field sports (cricket, rugby, soccer). How are you finding the vertical grip? Doesn't look as if the depth of it is as deep as the main grip. Also, have you tried the optical viewfinder simulation mode? I've heard that mode is just awesome.
Appreciate the kind words champ. In terms of the OVF Mode, I have not used it at all, as in my opinion, once you’ve used mirrorless and gotten used to the ‘what you see is what you get’ experience of an EVF, it’s pretty hard to go back.
The vertical grip feels good. I did go into this in my second video, detailing the feel and button placement relative to the primary grip. The vertical grip in many regards feels better because it’s longer.
@@ryanheldoorn thanks mate, awesome. Subbed. Keep up the good work.
@@chrise4835 ha cheers mate. Have no doubt the R3 will mail anything you throw at it
Really great review!
Appreciate the kind feedback 👌
Canon has stated that R3 is just as weather sealed as 1DX III
I think you’ll find, canons official statement is more along the lines of ‘the r3 is not called the R1 because it does not have the same durability and weather sealing that out 1 series cameras are renown for.
@@ryanheldoorn I have watched several videos in which canon officials state that it is weather sealed to the same level as the 1D series bodies. Note, I am not talking about durability, just weather sealing. Having said that, I have the R3 and have held a 1DX II in my hand at the same time and they feel identical in built quality to me at least.
Seems like the weak part is the card-door, Flippy screen and hot-shoe
@@mdbedelsohn4307 I would agree with 2 of those indeed. I kept seeing the camera busy LED light up every now and again when I was getting the camera out of a bag or picking it up with gloves and what it was, was the card door opening just enough and the closing again to make the camera light up the LED.
The hot shoe cover is good until, again, you need to get it out of a bag and it can pull off very easily. I often use gaffa tape over the top of it for my snow trips.
@@ryanheldoorn shame at that price point... Sounds like you"ll need to gaffer it totally up.. Right now I'm still more leaning towards the 1DXiii... What do you think, I'm going to miss out too much on the Full-screen AF and other features? Also I do lots of night events and I'm still not trusting the EVF for that... Lens-wise, the EF-line seems capable enough for 20MP (with a huge range of even 2nd hands).
@16:47 of course it doesn't work in manual, there is nothing to compensate in manual mode...
Of course there is. Many sport and wildlife shooters shoot Manual but use AUTO ISO, especially in rapidly changing lighting conditions where focusing on composition and tracking is paramount. One particular example of why being able to use exposure compensation in Manual mode while using auto iso, is in snow sports. Cameras don't meter well in the snow because the frame is so full of, well, white snow, so exposure compensation for +.03-+0.7 at times is necessary to make sure the snow remains white instead of the camera underexposing and making the snow grey.
@@ryanheldoorn I understand what you are saying but ISO is not an exposure setting as it does not affect the amount of light entering the sensor. It's more of a brightness control. I understand the usefulness of what you are saying as ISO affects the "look" of the images but it is still not an EXPOSURE value so no, there is nothing to compensate.
@@djole02 I understand what your saying champ but you’re missing my/the point. It’s about ease of use and if a button is labelled as such, it should do said job it’s labelled for in any mode regardless of if it’s feasible, possible or relevant. In the case of auto iso and using exposure compensation while using auto iso, it is useful and relevant and it is an exposure compensation tool regardless of if it’s artificial or not. Even if the camera is iso invariant like most mirrorless cameras are, it’s still valuable to get the ‘what you see is what you get’ sensation or feedback while actually taking the shot.
@@ryanheldoorn I understand you logic and frustration and would like to use it that way on my Canon cameras as well but Canon doesn't treat auto ISO as other manufacturers. I always shoot with some amount of flash and auto ISO just goes to 400 when you turn on flash, it's complete nonsense... In flash photography ISO does affect the exposure as it changes the e-ttl metering values and thus flash output power but I don't understand why it doesn't work like it works on my Nikon cameras.
@@djole02 Well flash is a whole extra can of worms to get into and far outside of my wheelhouse as I rarely use flash unless I'm using it as a lantern for my milky way explorer shots and at that point, I've always use rear curtain shutter (but only with sony cameras).
Curious what you thought about the eye tracking autofocus feature
It was hit and miss for me personally. I felt it was very light source dependant, especially when calibrating. Personally, I also felt it caused and unnatural strain on my eyes. I wouldn't consider this camera just for that feature. It's more of a ok thing to have for some situations, but something I wont use.
maybe i missunderstand talking about 'minimum ISO that is of interest?' My R5 even older SLR's i can set maximum ISO and keep the shutterspeed flexibel .. what is my missunderstanding on the subject? maybe the R3 is very different but i have my doubts
Ok, so what I mean by 'Minimum Shutter Speed' in the AUTO ISO settings, is that Canon only allows you to set a minimum shutter speed of 1 Sec. On Sony and other manufacturers, I can set the same setting but all the way up to 30 sec (auto min shutter speed). Sony allows 1,2,4,8,15,30 second options to be selected. Why is this important? Well on Canon, once the 'Auto Min Shutter Speed is reached (which in the canons case 1 sec being the maximum), iso will begin to increase until, as you mentioned the 'Max Auto ISO' is reached, and then, only then will the camera start to extend the shutter for longer than 1 sec. Whereas on the Sony, I can set a much longer 'Auto Min Shutter Speed' say 8 seconds, before the ISO starts to raise. So as a practical example, when doing sunsets into nighttime Timelapse's, the canon will produce noiser images (higher ISO's) much earlier in the Timelapse, because the shutter speed can't be extended past 1 sec. E.G. Canon 1 sec shutter and 3200 ISO, or I can have Sony at 8 sec shutter and 200 ISO, which is clearly much more preferable. You could of course set your Canon to a max ISO of 1600, but when you got into complete darkness of night, you may have issues with exposure not being bright enough for your shutter speed and interval settings plus of course the problem as mentioned above, with noiser images, early in the Timelapse. Also if you went this route on the canon, you also have to adjust your Max Shutter in the orange menu, to accomodate for the interval length. Basically changing 2-3 settings when it shouldn't be necessary.
@@ryanheldoorn I get it. I guess you are on the R3 set to full electronic shutter. When using the mechanical shutter, the EOS R3's shutter speed ranges from 30s. I am having mine on half mechanical, half electronic .. this might be a problem of course, because of the shutter maybe have the cam shaking a bit...at least it is not a mirror anymore.
@@ryanheldoorn .."Also if you went this route on the canon, you also have to adjust your Max Shutter in the orange menu, to accomodate for the interval length. Basically changing 2-3 settings when it shouldn't be necessary." Set your ideal timelaps settings ones on C1, C2 or C3. C has a weird logic of setting parameters globaly.. even changing to M does not go under the 'globaly' sett shutter speed ;-( .. with C1 etc. prepared i am super fast changing modes in Shows with super changing circumstances..
@@arthur3038 no this auto min shutter speed is the same in mechanical shutter. I think you are confusing ‘auto min shutter’ in the ‘auto min ISO’ setting, which just regular shutter speeds. Yes the r3 can also do normal 30 sec shutter speed but ‘auto min shutter speed’ is used in conjunction with ‘auto min ISO’ when using AV or M modes
@@arthur3038 I’m well aware of this and I did mention that the mechanical shutter needs to be altered on the orange menu to allow for the interval, but as I said in the video and in my direct reply to you, this is more steps than necessary and still doesn’t fix the ‘auto min shutter speed’ issue. We are taking about Timelapse here. Not single shots. I’m aware it can be programmed to a custom shoot mode but again, the ‘auto min shutter’ in the ‘auto min ISO’ settings only goes to 1 second. I plan to do a video explaining this as this is something that canon users have never been able to do so I’ll demonstrate between the Sony and canon settings.
With the file size of the R3 and any canon they are hardly uncompressed file at lest much compressed than sony ones so uncompressed is not a good statement
I’m assuming you’re trying to say that Sony compression on their compressed file formats is far greater than canons compression??? In my experience, the compression is mostly negligible unless of course highlight quality is your greatest concern, because all compression (Sony, canon, Nikon etc) affects highlights or recovery of highlights far more than an uncompressed file format.
@@ryanheldoorn no it is just that things smaller are much compressed there is no Magic, raw uncompressed is uncompressed it is full data if there is less it is a compression no matter What, and canon cleverly never advertise there raw to be uncompressed. It is physics not quality comparison.
Again it is not vecaise for your case that works fine that it is somewhat a bit of a compromise, sracking specs mean that you have to be considérant all the things.
Like saying définition on Sony is better but not at 120fps yes but at 60 it is better, for raw it is the same but sometimes when you want to recover shadows there are things missing, it could not be Bad but it exist.
I dont Say Sony is better, but for canon it is easier to get a good burst, and well Sony compressed raw is not Bad too, it is juste not fair saying Sony des a burst in compressed raw yes but canon toi and note 50 mpx and not redondant recording on the r3.
I like canon and Sony considering myself buying the r3 but I dont neglect thé default each have in all fairness
@@Guillaume9 mate I don’t know what you’re on about. The canon r3 files are either raw or raw light. The raw are uncompressed and the raw light are compressed.
@@ryanheldoorn yeah but in no caracteristic details it mentionned uncompressed but canon original raw version 3. It is a choice of lesser data or the better solution much compressed file, there is no Magic on canon raw to fit all that data.
Thé other exemple could be for vidéo canon and Sony use somewhat the same codecs but canon choice is to baked in a much bigger bitrate resulting in bigger file for canon so less overheat in the sonys body but there is Always a trade for size and saying the contrary is like saying the earth is flat
@@Guillaume9 you mean the earth is not flat?!!! 🤣
Personally I don’t mind the bigger video size bitrate codecs on the canon r3 as they’re (in my opinion) easier to work with in post because there’s more information. And I think Sony shot only compressed the file format in video because their own cf express A cards only go to 160GB so I’m sure you can see that if the bitrate was the same as canon, people would complain about the cf express A card capacity
👍☕️
Seems everyone who takes pictures uses an Apple lol.
Go get yourself a Z9 Mate and stop messing about.
Haha if I had the extra coin to be able to use 3 different brands at the same time, I would haha
What is better with the Z9? Most reviews seem to evaluate them approximately on par. Serious question.
This histogram thing is just nonsense... You will ALWAYS deactivate a histogram or waveform when you're filming. I never ever film with that on with my c300 and never missed that on my r3 for more then 0,00001 seconds
Just buy the Sony A1
I hear you. Sony has lent me the A1 which I receive later this week so I'll have both cameras at the same time, to see which one best fits my needs.
Well, I prefer my R3 simply due to not having overly big file sizes, and I have enough reach with my lenses anyway without having to crop alot, R3 feels much nicer than the A1 for shooting too and having full raw files is nice for editing.
@@frostybe3r agree 24MP is enough if you have the right lenses for the scenario.
@@ryanheldoorn Alot of people use 150-600's, 100-500's and etc for wildlife, 600 f4 has an additional 20% reach over the 150-600/200-600 lenses so yeah, I can see why alot of Sony A1 users with the 200-600 would need the extra resolution.
I just find it a hassle on storage lol.
@@frostybe3r agreed but then again, not everyone can afford to have the 600 f4 or 400 f2.8 primes so there’s always an inherent trade off