WOW! Canon R1 vs R3 Sensor Review: NOT WHAT I EXPECTED… (vs Sony a9 III)

Summary

In this detailed comparison, Jared Poland takes a deep dive into the real-world and studio performance of the Canon R1 and R3 cameras. Focusing on factors like high ISO performance, dynamic range, and speed, the video explores how both cameras perform under various conditions, including sports and concert photography. Jared also compares the R1 to the Sony A9 III in terms of ISO handling and dynamic range. While the R1 prioritizes speed, the R3 still holds up as an exceptional camera, showcasing impressive results even at extreme ISO levels. The comparison aims to help viewers make informed decisions about these high-end cameras.

Takeaways

• 😀 The R1 vs R3 comparison tests focus on raw image quality in real-world and studio settings, highlighting differences in high ISO performance and dynamic range.
• 😀 The R1 has been tested in various real-world scenarios, from bright sunny days to concert environments, to assess performance at various ISOs, especially high ones like 102,400.
• 😀 In terms of raw image quality, the R1 and R3 are closely matched, but the R1 exhibits slightly sharper focus and superior dynamic range when using the electronic shutter.
• 😀 Despite the R1's superior performance at higher ISOs, the R3 still holds up very well, showing that both cameras provide exceptional quality.
• 😀 At lower ISOs (e.g., 5,000 or 12,800), both the R1 and R3 produce nearly identical results, making it hard to distinguish between the two cameras.
• 😀 In concert photography, the R1 shows impressive performance at extremely high ISOs like 40,000, even producing usable results at 80,000 and 102,400 ISO.
• 😀 When comparing the R1 and R3 under studio conditions, the R1 excels in dynamic range, with 14-bit raw files providing cleaner images, especially when using the electronic shutter.
• 😀 The R3, while still an excellent camera, experiences a slight dynamic range drop when using the electronic shutter, whereas the R1 does not.
• 😀 Despite the marginal differences in image quality between the R1 and R3, the R1’s faster readout speed, especially for sports photography, is a significant advantage over the R3.
• 😀 The R1 shows better performance in video, especially when shooting in C-Log2, with improved image quality at base ISOs like 800, 1600, and 12,800 compared to the R3.

Q & A

What was the main focus of the video?

The main focus of the video was a comparison between the Canon R1 and R3 cameras, specifically in terms of raw file performance, ISO handling, and image quality in both real-world and studio settings.

What type of shooting environments were used for testing the cameras?

The testing was done in both real-world environments, like basketball games and concerts, as well as controlled studio setups to compare performance under different lighting conditions and settings.

How were the R1 and R3 cameras compared in terms of ISO performance?

Both cameras were tested at high ISOs (up to 102,400), with the results showing that the R1 handled higher ISOs slightly better in some instances, but the R3 still performed excellently at high ISO levels.

What was the significant difference in terms of ISO handling between the R1 and the R3?

The R1 performed better at higher ISOs (such as 40,000 and 80,000), but the R3 showed better results when pushed to 102,400 ISO, with cleaner noise performance at these extreme settings.

How did the R1 and R3 compare when shooting at 12,800 ISO in the studio?

At 12,800 ISO, the image quality between the R1 and R3 was very similar, with both cameras producing fantastic results. However, there were subtle differences that made it hard to definitively say one was better than the other.

Did the video mention any notable differences in autofocus or sharpness?

While both cameras were sharp, the R1 was noted for being slightly sharper in terms of focus, particularly in challenging lighting or fast-moving subjects. However, the difference was minimal and hard to discern without pixel-peeping.

What role did the electronic shutter play in the comparison?

The electronic shutter was tested on both cameras, and the R1 performed better in terms of dynamic range, especially at higher ISOs. The R3 showed slight dynamic range loss when using the electronic shutter, but the R1 maintained consistent quality with both electronic and mechanical shutters.

How did both cameras handle extreme ISO settings in the concert environment?

In the concert environment, both cameras handled high ISOs well, with the R1 reaching 102,400 ISO, and the R3 performing better at extreme ISOs. However, both produced acceptable results for practical use, even at 40,000 and 80,000 ISO.

What is the significance of the R1's faster readout speed?

The R1’s faster readout speed, which allows for faster continuous shooting (up to 40 fps), may slightly compromise image quality in extreme conditions, but it offers significant advantages in terms of speed and real-world use, especially for action shots and sports photography.

How did the R1 perform when compared to the Sony A9 III in terms of high ISO performance?

The R1 outperformed the Sony A9 III in terms of high ISO performance, producing cleaner images at higher ISOs (like 102,400 ISO) while the A9 III maxed out at 25,600 ISO. The R1 also had better dynamic range due to its newer sensor technology.