So who's the Photographer that messed up their NDA? LOL!!
Upvote
0
I don't know, part of me wonders if expectations should be higher for the R1 now. For all we know, the R3 could have been intended as an R1 but got rebranded late in development because it wasn't seen as completely filling the 1D niche in testing. Re starting development of a camera body late in the game isn't really feasible, but giving it a "lower tier" name and creating something above it later could be a reasonably quick way to pivot.And the expectations for an R1 are suddenly lower...
Not really. The people who wanted the higher resolution rarely needed the durability of the 1D, and Canon put out the 5DS R (which itself is hardly flimsy) for that crowd. As much as the 1Ds mk II will always have a special place in my heart, ultimately they were all work tools and when they effectively scrapped the 1Ds line and moved that function over to the 5D body, it was quite a relief. Having the 1D X set-up ready for action and the 5DSR sat in the studio tethered was a perfect working pairing.Why? Largely because there's no option, if you're in the Canon system and need a truly rugged camera then the 1DX line is your option.
Remember how they used to split the 1D and 1Ds lines? That was a great way to leverage R&D and production cost whilst catering to the needs of photographers. Sadly the 'merged' 1DX was a step back in many ways.
Canon literally said this was not a 1D replacement. They have always, from the first second they publicly acknowledged the development of this camera, been very explicit about what it was intended for (sports, i.e. low resolution) and where it would fit in the product line (i.e. below the 1D and eventual R1). They've even said they called it the R3 specifically because it was not worthy of the '1' designation and that they didn't feel RF tech was far enough along for anything to be called '1' yet.In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII
I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the corner and gimp them.
Sanj you know the answer to that, the site is driven by clicks and views, there is no point in saying anything one time if you can repost it and get it clicked on ten times.This discussion is overkill. How many times?....
In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.
1. The loss of OVF
2. Two Different Format Cards
3. No significant jump in resolution
4. Transition to RF Glass
These four factors will make us wait until the R1 is released. Also 30fps is no inducement we know all that is required is 15fps RAW for stills for any sport.
This does leave one to wonder if Canon will double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII for the R1. We are seeing people shoot sports with the Fuji GFX100s and the work is amazing, stunning, beautiful, sharp, crisp with exceptional detail and resolution.
Not doubting the EXIF, but what if the NDA says "you can only publish 24MP images", and so they set the RAW+JPG size to 24MP JPG in camera?