R7 vs R6 vs R5 vs R3

I'm looking to finally make the jump to the world of mirrorless and would be interested in seeing people's views on where they think these cameras are targeted at.

My own brief view (based on internet "research") is :
R5 Biggest sensor FF for those seeking maximum image quality especially aimed at landscape and portrature. High quality autofocus and large sensor also allows use for cropping for nature photography. Expensive though.

R6 Smaller sensor FF same AF as R5. Aimed primarily at landscape and portrature. Slightly better low light performance but smaller file size does not offer the same ability to crop as the R5 Less expensive

R3 Aimed at action photography. AF supposedly better than R5/6 Full frame similar sensor size to R6 Very expensive !!

R7 Cropped sensor with bigger sensor than R6. Only been released but most chatter about use as a birders/ nature photography camera. Some concerns raised about potential image noise and rolling shutter as well as buffer size. Potential good vfm

Interested to see others thoughts on my analysis

The R6 is spectacular for sports, not just landscape or portraits.

I have the R3 and the R5. The R3 is far more capable for action photography, but the R5 is certainly no slouch. Obviously better resolution with the R5, and a smaller body due to not having a built-in grip etc. That could be important for things like backpacking, etc. I would choose the R5 for landscape, but while I haven't used it for that yet I suspect the R3 is plenty capable there as well just at a lower MP count.

'Bigger' vs. 'smaller' is not as appropriate description!

FF sensor simply means '24mm x 36mm frame'...found in all the models listed (not R7). It is the RESOLUTION that varies, 'lower resolution' vs 'higher resolution' is more appropriate description, describing the number of pixels which fit within the 24mm x 36mm frame of R, RP, R6, R5, R3. And as pixel count increases, the 'PIXEL DENSITY', or number of pixels which capture the same subject, increases and offers the potential of 'greater croppability'.

'Bigger' vs. 'smaller' is appropriate to comparing FF vs. APS-C sensor physical size. And often the pixel density is higher on APS-C sensor, which is why birders like it.

Fair comment. Thanks for finding a more appropriate wording to explain my thinking

There are separate threads on this website dedicated to each of the cameras mentioned in post #1. I would monitor those threads if I were in your shoes.

All are capable, but vary widely in price and size. Three are FF and one is crop. Of course the R3 is the most capable and the most expensive.

Lou

"Targeted"

While any camera can be used in a variety of situations, it would seem obvious that differing models are marketed toward a specific purpose, and "affordability".

Landscapes--especially for large print output results: EOS R5.

Sports / Action--especially if one's income depends on it: EOS R3.

Birds & other small creatures, especially at a distance: EOS R7.

All of the above, with caveats dependent on the desired results: EOS R6.

IMO, for anyone seeking advice as to what camera to purchase, would benefit by starting with the type/s of photography most interested in, and what they can afford to spend.

"smaller sensor" saw someone on Facebook say the same thing recently. It's not smaller, it's just less megapixels.

R6 is the best bang for buck though. You get majority of the features in the R3 and R5 for less. I've yet to get it to overheat too.

Taxboy wrote in post #19400921
.

Interested to see others thoughts on my analysis

Yes,

...or None of the Above.

I'm honestly not sure what the point is, what are they positioned for? Simply put, your analysis is only your own. How people are actually using these cameras doesn't come close to fitting into these little niches.

EG: My R5 is the best wildlife camera I've owned. Better than my 1DXIII was. It's also better for shooting performances in dark theatres.

That's just one example. Honestly I could care less what anyone, particularly what Canon was targeting. I only care about if it fits for me.

Using myself as an example again, Canon does not think that the R3 user is likely to care about the lowly affordable R7.
Well it just so happens that i was a 1d shooter up until very recently, 1D-1D4, 1Dx2, 1DxIII. For many years ONLY the 1D bodies had the AF and FPS that I required for how and what I shoot. So back then, yes the target or niche was more important.

5D4 changed all that. I found that the performance of the "lesser" bodies caught up with the 5D4 ( 5D3 and 7D2 to some extent) so that I no longer had to decide between AF/FPS and resolution.

Well, R5 really drove that home with massive bump in resolution and AF on par with 1DXIII, and FASTER frame rate than any previous 1D body! The XIII was gone in a flash.

So here I am an old 1 series shooter, clearly I am the "target" for the R3, right? In fact, yes, I was waiting for it and ready to buy as the rumors trickled out,. until that resolution vs. performance issue came back to haunt us. Id already dropped that 24mp sensor when i sold my 1DXIII. Not interested in it again. Stick with R5.

Guess what Canon, low and behold, I'm also shooting the lowly R7!

The days of being forced to buy a 1 series to get a real action camera with FPS and AF for sports and wildlife are now dead and gone.

Thank FOOT!

You missed several differences between the R5 and R6. They may not matter to you. The R5 has better weather sealing, some question this, but Canon mentions this in their material. Plus the R5 viewfinder is better.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #19403026
"smaller sensor" saw someone on Facebook say the same thing recently. It's not smaller, it's just less megapixels.

R6 is the best bang for buck though. You get majority of the features in the R3 and R5 for less. I've yet to get it to overheat too.

You are quite correct it was my poor choice of words when posting

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403056
Yes,

...or None of the Above.

I'm honestly not sure what the point is, what are they positioned for? Simply put, your analysis is only your own. How people are actually using these cameras doesn't come close to fitting into these little niches.

EG: My R5 is the best wildlife camera I've owned. Better than my 1DXIII was. It's also better for shooting performances in dark theatres.

That's just one example. Honestly I could care less what anyone, particularly what Canon was targeting. I only care about if it fits for me.

Using myself as an example again, Canon does not think that the R3 user is likely to care about the lowly affordable R7.
Well it just so happens that i was a 1d shooter up until very recently, 1D-1D4, 1Dx2, 1DxIII. For many years ONLY the 1D bodies had the AF and FPS that I required for how and what I shoot. So back then, yes the target or niche was more important.

5D4 changed all that. I found that the performance of the "lesser" bodies caught up with the 5D4 ( 5D3 and 7D2 to some extent) so that I no longer had to decide between AF/FPS and resolution.

Well, R5 really drove that home with massive bump in resolution and AF on par with 1DXIII, and FASTER frame rate than any previous 1D body! The XIII was gone in a flash.

So here I am an old 1 series shooter, clearly I am the "target" for the R3, right? In fact, yes, I was waiting for it and ready to buy as the rumors trickled out,. until that resolution vs. performance issue came back to haunt us. Id already dropped that 24mp sensor when i sold my 1DXIII. Not interested in it again. Stick with R5.

Guess what Canon, low and behold, I'm also shooting the lowly R7!

The days of being forced to buy a 1 series to get a real action camera with FPS and AF for sports and wildlife are now dead and gone.

Thank FOOT!

Thanks for responding - can I please ask what type of photography you are using the R7 for ?

Taxboy wrote in post #19403671
Thanks for responding - can I please ask what type of photography you are using the R7 for ?

I've only just got it, but it'll be my second camera for wildlife. (Often I will shoot two bodies, one with a long prime one with a zoom like the 100-500mm.)

When I go light with only one body, I might choose the R7 and the zoom over the R5 for that extra "reach" depending on conditions.

It'll be used as my general purpose light traveling camera with one flexible zoom and the 50mm f/1.8.

As backup when i do people/portraiture work.

I've yet to try it in truly dark conditions, but i work in theatre and often take photos of events. Right now I'm in good shape with the R5 and 5D4, which are both tops in low light, but if it is up to the task, this might replace the 5D4 as second body. (I am skeptical, but you never know till you try)

I think it will be my choice for most macro work.

On rare occasions I make videos for my class. Last time I did this at the beginning of the pandemic, I used the EOS R which I sold some time back. This will fill that role now.

duckster wrote in post #19400927
.
The R6 is spectacular for sports, not just landscape or portraits.
.

.
Is it better suited for sports than the other bodies mentioned?

By "better suited", I specifically refer to autofocus accuracy/speed/recogni​tion, frame rate, and battery power.

I guess that I, like the OP, am not just interested in how good each body is for a particular genre, but more so in how good it is relative to the other bodies in the list for any given genre.


.

Taxboy wrote in post #19403669
.
You are quite correct it was my poor choice of words when posting
.

.
I actually liked your original wording. . "Bigger" and "smaller" are things that do matter when it comes to sensors. . Resolution is only part of what matters. . Actual sensor size has an important role in determining depth of field and angle of view, all else being equal. . And regardless of what people on forums often say, there are many, many times when all else is equal.


.