But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?I had planned to ditch the last of my sony gear for canon once the R3 was released(right now I am part sony(a9ii), and part canon - (R5)). If this camera is less than 36mp, there's no point in upgrading, and especially paying $6000 to upgrade to a camera that is less of a camera than the R5. Who really needs 30fps. The R5's speed is plenty. If the R3 doesn't come near the R5's resolution, canon really dropped the ball. I will be extremely disappointed.
I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.
Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?
I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.
If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
Upvote
0