R7 vs R6 vs R5 vs R3

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19403690
.
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.

.

Auto-focus accuracy, we are getting to a a point where it's all very close, and all so good it almost doesn't matter. But;

R3 has best AF and very good low light image quality.
R6 also has best in class low light image quality, but is slightly behind in AF.
R7 is going to offer more reach for sports, and again slightly better AF, and more flexible choice of frame rates and faster. But mcuh lower buffer, which to me is more important than the FPS number.
One could argue that puts the R5 as a best compromise between them all.

But what is "sports"?
If it's indoor gymnastics under terrible light, it's going to be the R6, or R3, then R5, and R7 will be the weakest contender.
All will give you nearly 100% keeper rate if you do your part.So it comes down to IQ in low light.

That the R3 is in this I find puzzling. If you are in a position to get the R3 (and even R5) why are we talking about the R7?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403720
.
But what is "sports"?
.

.
Well there is sports action, and then there are other sub-genres, such as sports portraiture and so forth. . The timelessly famous Ali shot isn't really sports action because the action ended a second or so prior to the image being taken. . A great, great many of the still photos that I see in publication (I am a HUGE NFL fan) are not sports action ..... they are shots of the athletes and coaches on the sidelines, or interacting with one another between plays.

Many times when people write "sports photography" I just automatically assume they mean sports action, but it probably isn't very good for me to make that assumption, as a ton of the commercially successful sports imagery involves no action at all.

.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403720
.
That the R3 is in this I find puzzling. If you are in a position to get the R3 (and even R5) why are we talking about the R7?
.

.
I see your point, but the two levels of bodies do compete against one another in some people's decision-making.

A very good friend of mine, who only photographs birds, but does so very seriously, has a 1DX Mark 2 and a 1DX Mark 3. . But yet he rarely ever uses them, instead preferring to use his 7D Mark 2 for over 95% of his photography. . I mean he's got a 1DX Mk 3 with an 800mm f5.6 on it on the back seat, and a 1DX Mark 2 in his bag somewhere, yet right there in his front seat next to him is the 7D Mk2 and the 500mm f4. . On many trips he will never take a single shot with his 1DX Mk 3. . It is there only for backup duty in case his 7D2 were to fail in some way.

I am starting to consider ditching my 5D Mark 4 for a crop sensor camera. . Why? . Because a lot of my wildlife photography is now herp-centric. . And when photographing herps, I want as much depth of field as I can get most of the time ..... which is the opposite of what I am often looking for with bird photography or mammal photography, where isolating the subject from the background is usually an important objective.

Also, when photographing herps, a smaller size of gear matters to me, where it doesn't matter much at all when photographing birds and mammals. . Why? . Because with birds and mammals, I am usually using a huge 800mm lens that needs to be / should be on a big tripod, anyway. . But when photographing herps, all of the gear - the bodies, lenses, light(s), water, snacks, ground cloth, and herp supplies, need to fit into a day pack. . So being able to use smaller lenses would be an advantage because then I can fit more lenses into the day pack, and hence get more varied types of photos of the herps that I find.

So, those who are really into herp photography would probably choose an R7 over an R3, even if they could easily afford an R3. . The pixel density would allow them to use lenses of smaller focal length, which are smaller in size. . And the small sensor size gives them more depth of field (when framing the same way, which it always is), so those are two big advantages of the R7 with no corresponding disadvantage whatsoever.

.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403720
If it's indoor gymnastics under terrible light, it's going to be the R6, or R3, then R5, and R7 will be the weakest contender.
All will give you nearly 100% keeper rate if you do your part.So it comes down to IQ in low light.

Why would the R6 be better than the R5 for indoor sports?

Tommydigi wrote in post #19403746
Why would the R6 be better than the R5 for indoor sports?

I believe the R6 has better low light performance than the R5

Taxboy wrote in post #19403857
I believe the R6 has better low light performance than the R5

That's generally considered a fact. I don't consider it a fact.
The 45mp R5 file can be down sampled to 20mp. That will greatly decrease noise in the R5 file.
If you are only shooting at high ISO, you're wasting money on the R5.
If however, you want a camera for use at lower ISO as well, the higher cost of the R5 gives you more than double the megapixels.

To me it feels like the R5 is the best compromise meaning I can do well in low light, it has really good autofocus, I can crop in if needed etc.

I've always had a camera for low light and a camera for fast autofocus etc. I'd like to just have 1 really good camera so I'm leaning heavily toward the R5. I've been happy with the low light performance of my R and even my 7d2 so I'm sure the R5 will be more than enough even if there are superior cameras for this or that.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19403746
Why would the R6 be better than the R5 for indoor sports?

Same AF, and if we are close enough to fill the frame completely, the R6 sensor is arguably a tad better (and i do mean a tad) at noise handling.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19403924
To me it feels like the R5 is the best compromise meaning I can do well in low light, it has really good autofocus, I can crop in if needed etc. ...

If you want my personal opinion, yes, that's why of all of them, the R5 was the one I purchased immediately! For me, I shoot far too many things to only want a fast cropper. Those have always been a secondary body for me.

Like the 5 series from the start, it offers a brilliant compromise of features, the best ability to fill all roles. Even more flexible than more costly options.

And for a short period, (before the R3) it had the best AF in the business. Now there are better, but the difference is not such that it needs to be a deciding factor.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403685
I think it will be my choice for most macro work.

That is what is attracting me too, the R7 for macro work. It really would benefit from the RF 100mm, so that is another attraction but also a $$ hurdle.

One thing that might be a showstopper is the viewfinder blackout that happens with mirrorless bodies when the viewfinder is moved away from the eye. Not sure yet if that can be satisfactorily fixed by taping the sensor.

I'm currently using the 90D for macro and finding it to be fantastic for that. It is hard to beat, so I'm still on the fence.

I've bee doing digital photography since 1996 Kodak DC20 & dSLRs since 2003 EOS 10D.

What I've realized is that

Full frame vs APS-C vs point & shoot

$$$ vs $$ vs $

Physically heavy vs physically light vs physically pocketable

Buy what you can afford or can physically carry with you, always.

I am only interested in the R7

My 1Dx2 and 5D4 handle all my needs for weddings however, I think the R7 and eye focus will make some aspects of wildlife photography a little better and easier......BIF's. moving stuff that will just be easier to get.....Its one less thing....crop factor is big for me.....I have no interest in RF glass

umphotography wrote in post #19415627
I am only interested in the R7

My 1Dx2 and 5D4 handle all my needs for weddings however, I think the R7 and eye focus will make some aspects of wildlife photography a little better and easier......BIF's. moving stuff that will just be easier to get.....Its one less thing....crop factor is big for me.....I have no interest in RF glass

Crop factor isn't as important as pixel density.

Like say the 2014 7D2 & 2015 5Ds R pixel densities are identical

But of course their continuous shooting fps differ & ISO sensitivity also differ as well.

dolina wrote in post #19415629
Crop factor isn't as important as pixel density.

Like say the 2014 7D2 & 2015 5Ds R pixel densities are identical

Right. If you are cropping, then crop factor is irrelevant. Pixel density matters. And the R7 has pretty good pixel density.

dolina wrote in post #19415629
Crop factor isn't as important as pixel density.

Like say the 2014 7D2 & 2015 5Ds R pixel densities are identical

But of course their continuous shooting fps differ & ISO sensitivity also differ as well.

True

But none of those factors are on cameras that dont have auto Eye Focus.....Its all about the technology.....I would like eye focus and crop factor is much more important to me for wildlife......My 1Dx2 is bulletproof....but its going to miss on smaller quick moving subjects...the eye focus feature will probably help

It has been a month since the last post here but I thought I would chime in.

I got the R7 kit (I am still on the waiting list at Hunts Melrose for body only) and so have had it since July 2nd. So far for the last 3 months it is the only camrera I have shot with (20k+ clicks so far) There are some really nice features, 15fps MS, 15 or 30 ES (rolling shutter on BIF) I like the control wheel use it for EV while the control ring for ISO. A great EYE AF.
One thing that isn't talked about that much is the pre-shot burst shooting where you hold the shutter button halfway down and when you hit it you get your shot plus the previous 1/2 second about 15 frames. I have used it several times and it lets you get the bird as it takes off. I like that feature.

I am sold on the R7 to say the least. Is it perfect, no but it ticks off a bunch of boxes and the AF and also the ISO are really good. I have been thinking that when (and if) they ever call me saying they have an R7 body only, whether to buy it as a second camera. I often go out with my RF600/11 and there have been several times when birds, Canada Geese, come in close and land and the 600 is way too much lens. I am starting to try to take a second camera to have next to my chair so I can grab it and try for those shots. I can't change lenses fast enough and even grabbing a second camera I will probably miss the action.
I have two cameras I can use the 5DIV and my 90D. I am also looking at weight as until I get my leg surgery done over the next 5 months carry weight is a challenge and I already carry a folding chair to sit in and a camera.
My set up for the 2nd camera will either be 90D w/ 55-250, or 5DIV with 70-300ii. The 5DIV is heavier than the 90D but the AF is better on the 5DIV and 5DIV has better AF.
My thought had been to replace the 90D with the R7 OR should I get rid of the 90D and 5DIV and get a R6 as a second body and also to use it for landscape and interiors...

I guess this will give me lots to think about as I drink coffee in the yard or while I sit waiting for BIF.