We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

[EOS 4 Life]

Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.

The debates are pretty meaningless.
There are high MP cameras that do well in low light and other high MP cameras that don't.

 

[DBounce]

As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things.

Lesson: Don’t assume that you are representative of the market.

Which is exactly why your opinion is irrelevant… Canon is getting your money regardless. They’ll have to work a bit harder for people like me.

 

[lustyd]

Would not a round sensor waste a lot of pixels? A 100 MP sensor would actually be about 40 MP useable once cropped (I did not do the math). Where an 80 MP sensor wastes nothing except for post cropping if desired but not required. Also the computing power I would imagine would be exponentially greater (More heat, more difficulty to eliminate rolling shutter or more difficult for global shutter). Also just getting shutter speed up on the sensor and again all that effort and most of it wasted.

It's only wasted if you don't use it. The number of scenarios where it would be useful are huge, and the technology is available. Most of the arguments against are effectively boiling down to "we don't do it that way". Instead of worrying about the technology, put yourself in more of a growth mindset and think what you could use that feature for. Perhaps you took a landscape shot and later realised it might have been cool as a portrait. Maybe you lined up perfectly and it still came out wonky. Instead of cropping you keep full resolution and just rotate a little. Maybe photos don't actually need to be rectangular at all, eyes certainly don't work that way.

 

[AlanF]

Maybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.

I seem to recall that twin-lens reflexes like Rolleiflex etc had 6cmx6cm.

 

[sanj]

The debates are pretty meaningless.
There are high MP cameras that do well in low light and other high MP cameras that don't.

Ok. Thanks. How do you compare R5 to R3?

 

[lustyd]

Which is exactly why your opinion is irrelevant… Canon is getting your money regardless. They’ll have to work a bit harder for people like me.

Maybe they are working harder for the 99% of R1 potential buyers who are photographers and want a better photo camera. The 1% using a professional photography camera costing $10k to shoot video might seem irrelevant to a company who also have a range of video cameras.

My original point though was that calling out 8k video as the main compelling feature of a top tier photo camera would suggest there are no compelling photography enhancements (at least none we know of) and therefore why would anyone change from 1Dx anyway? To me, 8k video is an "oh yeah we stuck that in too because we could" in these bodies. The lower range stuff like the R3, absolutely people are buying those to save cash on a real video camera setup so it might be more compelling.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Which is exactly why your opinion is irrelevant… Canon is getting your money regardless. They’ll have to work a bit harder for people like me.

Your opinion is also irrelevant, since Canon doesn't care at all about you personally.

 

[bergstrom]

Just hurry up with the RP2

 

[DBounce]

I'm certain there are lots of people like you. That doesn't make you the target demographic though. Is there a reason you prefer stills bodies to Red or Blackmagic type bodies designed for the job? Seems to me that if Canon intended to design video in as a high end feature they'd end up changing almost everything about the 1Dx body. For a start I'd want a bunch of holes to bolt things to, better support for external screens, more buttons etc.

Firstly, if I wasn’t the target demographic this camera would not be 8K capable, as the rumors are suggesting. Clearly hybrid shooters are the target market… and that’s me… and people like me... I think we are the majority.

Leica m11 is stills only… as it’s the Hasselblad X2D… those are your highend “stills only” options. The R1 will be “a jack of all trades and master of all”… it won’t master video without the specs I’ve mentioned. And it better bring some serious dynamic range!

I prefer stills bodies because of convenience. I don’t like having to choose between shooting video or shooting stills. If I have a hybrid, I can do either; Also hybrid bodies draw less attention.

I hate rigging cameras… but to avoid rigging the features the camera offers must be complete.

 

[DBounce]

Your opinion is also irrelevant, since Canon doesn't care at all about you personally.

My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$

 

[neuroanatomist]

My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$

Lol. Your money is insignificant. Canon sells millions of ILCs per year. Whether or not one individual buys a single camera (or a few cameras) is utterly meaningless to Canon. Get over yourself.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Ok. Thanks. How do you compare R5 to R3?

The R3 is a lot better in low-light than the R5.
At the same time the R5 is very good in low-light despite being 45 MP.
I would also choose the R3 in low-light over the 12 MP a7S III.

 

[AlanF]

The R3 is a lot better in low-light than the R5.
At the same time the R5 is very good in low-light despite being 45 MP.
I would also choose the R3 in low-light over the 12 MP a7S III.

What do you consider the level of low light to be (iso will be a good enough number)? And it what way at those low levels is the R3 better? And what RAW converter and other software do you use to deal with noise?

 

[DBounce]

Lol. Your money is insignificant. Canon sells millions of ILCs per year. Whether or not one individual buys a single camera (or a few cameras) is utterly meaningless to Canon. Get over yourself.

I don’t think I’m the only one that will not purchase this camera if it does not support video. I believe collectively we would make a big dent in the bottom line.

What I don’t understand is why so many stills shooters are “anti video”… whereas, hybrid shooters nonetheless embrace stills features and video features alike.

Hey… video is just 24 stills per second. What benefits video benefits stills.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don’t think I’m the only one that will not purchase this camera if it does not support video. I believe collectively we would make a big dent in the bottom line.

Of course you don't. Like many deluded posters here, you think your personal opinions represent those of a large number or even the majority of other buyers, with zero evidence to support your belief. Dozens of times over the past decade-plus, people have predicted that if Canon didn't give them and all those masses they spoke for X or do the Y that they and all the masses they spoke for demanded, Canon's bottom line would suffer and they would dramatically lose market share.

What happened? Canon gained market share.

But hey, you go on predicting a big negative impact for Canon because of your personal opinions. Surely this time, you'll be right.

What I don’t understand is why so many stills shooters are “anti video”… whereas, hybrid shooters nonetheless embrace stills features and video features alike.

I don't, either. I see many people saying they don't care about video, and only a handful of whiners who seem anti-video (and to whom I often say, why aren't you using a Nikon Df?).

Personally, I like the video controls on my R3...they give me some extra ones I can assign for other uses, e.g. I have the stills/video switch set to toggle silent shooting.

 

[sanj]

Maybe they are working harder for the 99% of R1 potential buyers who are photographers and want a better photo camera. The 1% using a professional photography camera costing $10k to shoot video might seem irrelevant to a company who also have a range of video cameras.

My original point though was that calling out 8k video as the main compelling feature of a top tier photo camera would suggest there are no compelling photography enhancements (at least none we know of) and therefore why would anyone change from 1Dx anyway? To me, 8k video is an "oh yeah we stuck that in too because we could" in these bodies. The lower range stuff like the R3, absolutely people are buying those to save cash on a real video camera setup so it might be more compelling.

"there are no compelling photography enhancements" No need to be so insecure. Sir. The will be still photography enhancement for sure. It is a stills camera first.

 

[sanj]

The R3 is a lot better in low-light than the R5.
At the same time the R5 is very good in low-light despite being 45 MP.
I would also choose the R3 in low-light over the 12 MP a7S III.

Thank you

 

[sanj]

My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$

Yes, YOUR opinion is relevant and Canon does want YOUR dollars. By YOURS I mean collective people who have your needs.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.

It is not just the noise, but at high ISO most high resolution cameras including the R5 have that colour shift. Either the whole photo turns to green or magenta or - and that is much worse - that colour shift only happens in the dark areas that you try to recover. The special thing about the R3 is that it keeps the colours at high ISO even in the shadows and the blacks also stay black for much longer, while you have to darken the blacks in post, if you use a higher resolution camera.
This video compares low light capabilities or the R3 and R5:

This screenshot from the video shows the bad chromatic noise of the R5 at ISO 12.800:

Look, how much cleaner the R3 is. Scaling down does not help getting rid of the R5 noise.

 

[sanj]

Of course you don't. Like many deluded posters here, you think your personal opinions represent those of a large number or even the majority of other buyers, with zero evidence to support your belief. Dozens of times over the past decade-plus, people have predicted that if Canon didn't give them and all those masses they spoke for X or do the Y that they and all the masses they spoke for demanded, Canon's bottom line would suffer and they would dramatically lose market share.

What happened? Canon gained market share.

But hey, you go on predicting a big negative impact for Canon because of your personal opinions. Surely this time, you'll be right.

View attachment 205718


I don't, either. I see many people saying they don't care about video, and only a handful of whiners who seem anti-video (and to whom I often say, why aren't you using a Nikon Df?).

Personally, I like the video controls on my R3...they give me some extra ones I can assign for other uses, e.g. I have the stills/video switch set to toggle silent shooting.

All opinions are personal. A market research company will evaluate how many of these opinions are there and if they need to address these collective opinions in their marketing assessment reports which will help the manufacturers design and price their products. In other words, if one person wants something, perhaps more do. The question would be how many such people there are.