Canon Announces That The Powerful Professional Full-Frame EOS R3 Mirrorless Camera Is On Its Way

[gatabo]

Perhaps it'll be the R3 and R7 announced together and the R7 may have similar body with integrated vertical grip as it's target market is sports and wildlife and maybe a stacked CMOS crop sensor.
I think Canon will hold off on the R1 for a while so it can get feedback from the R3 so that the R1 is ultra reliable and perfect for the pros that love 1DXs and more Great White RF lenses come out including the RF800L 5.6 and RF300L f2.8 both using Freznel DO elements and builtin T.Cs
I think the R1 will have basically the same body as the R3 but new twin digital processors using the latest ARMv9 chip protocols

Sure, R3+R7 could be announced together, as could also happen that there is just the R3 announcement alone or the R3+R1, we don't know yet

 

[pape2]

Really ?
Very few wildlife and sports photographers care about ibis and the R3,R1 & R7 look to be targeted directly at this segment. This feature is quite fragile and complex so it's just something unnecessary that might break.
Personally I'd rather have an R7 without ibis that costs several hundred dollars less and I think most people interested in any specialised sports/wildlife camera would agree but sounds like you know everything already

If this camera is designed only to professional sport shooters ,no ibis . But it might be designed for peoples who needs high megapixel too,so there would be ibis.
Canon is degreasing camera lines and making more multiuse products.
And this might be designed for 7dii users too if giving good working crop burst. R6 is for poor action shooters with f11 superteles

 

[Traveler]

I totally agree with you, I owned 1dx mk1 and all the 5d series and 6d series cameras including now r6 and r5 which are closer to 6d regarding size. I work on a lot of sport related project, since I’m one of the official Red Bull photographers and my cameras went trough basically all the possible conditions.
With the r5 or r6 I can just decide depending on the project will I put the grip cause of the long lenses, or remove it cause I need to hike 25 km to the location and think about every gram of my equipment.
And Sony actually showed that the size does not have to be a limitation for the a amount of technology you an fit into a camera.

Thanks for this comment, I was surprised how many people disagreed with me and were upset about my opinion...

 

[Traveler]

...... They understood early that the internet was the most powerful outlet for propaganda that marketing has ever seen. How much was actually organized by Sony and how much was organized by Sony fans is hard to say, but they were (and still are) all over the forums such as this one and many others. The number of pro-Sony YouTube reviewers seemed to far outnumber the other brands - often repeating the same info word for word. ....

In my opinion, the propaganda is not done directly by Sony but Sony's marketing feeds it. Sony was ahead with the tech (no matter how bad it was) and it gave them this fanbase at the beggining. Then (unlike Canon or Nikon) they listened to the youtubers. As some of them said "it is difficult not to praise their product when they care about you unlike other who give you a sh*t.". Even if they try to be independent it always affects their altitude somehow. Some other say that if you talk about Sony on YT your revenue is much higher. So there is this circle.

 

[Mikehit]

Really ?
Very few wildlife and sports photographers care about ibis and the R3,R1 & R7 look to be targeted directly at this segment. This feature is quite fragile and complex so it's just something unnecessary that might break.
Personally I'd rather have an R7 without ibis that costs several hundred dollars less and I think most people interested in any specialised sports/wildlife camera would agree but sounds like you know everything already

What makes you think that IBIS is fragile? I haven't seen any evidence so far.

As someone who shoots mainly wildlife (with varying degrees of competence) I say that any amount of IBIS would be welcomed - not everything is taken at 1/2000 sec to freeze fast action especially when light starts falling or animals are in shade and you are using 800mm f8 focal length. I am not doubting your own preferences but to project those onto sports/wildlife in general is misplaced - especially when the camera is probably also used for handheld video.
Don't forget that every manufacturer needs to widen their market as much as possible without compromising their core sector and as has been said, excluding IBIS from a flagship model would be commercial suicide for that reason. More people would welcome it than would complain and the price difference would make little to no difference in price bracket.

The one exception that I can recall has been the Panasonic GH5s (I think) which came out intended as a low light monster (only 10MP) but their reasoning was solid in that anyone using it in its intended conditions would be using gimbals anyway.

 

[Nemorino]

Very few wildlife and sports photographers care about ibis

A few month ago the majority of the CR user believed only very few wildlife and sports photographers would care about a mirrorless camera.
IMO ibis is more useful in milc to get a better picture in the EVF compared to DSLR.
Soon we will know if Canon has the same opinion.

Edit:
In the video linked here it is suggested to swich the IS on to improve the quality of the EVF:

Canon R5 Settings for capturing Extreme (small, fast moving) Birds in Flight

Ron over at Whistling Wings posted a new video with some amazing info on using the R5 and the RF 100-500 for birding Hope it is ok to link to Ron's Gallery - https://ronaldbielefeld.smugmug.com/Tree-swallows-2021/

www.canonrumors.com

Can't remember if he is talking about IS or IBIS but afaik the R5 uses allways both together.

 

[sanj]

Why would wildlife/sports photographers not care about stabilization? And why is it fragile?

 

[sanj]

Canon has a new patent for IBIS in smaller cameras so you may be right.
The RP body was originally too small for IBIS.
(It also would seem like a waste not to apply that research to M, Powershot, and Rebel bodies.)

I doubt if camera size has anything to do with IBIS. Note: iPhone has it!

 

[sanj]

I’ll be preordering the R3 on day one.

It has EVF.

 

[Joules]

Why would wildlife photographers not care about stabilization? And why is it fragile?

I think the reasoning doesn't work out, but it probably goes like this:

IBIS is more effective at wider focal lengths. Therefore it improves pictures taken with longer focal lengths to a lesser degree. And this is true. But jumping from that to wildlife and sports photography not benefitting from it or the respective photographers not caring isn't, in my opinion. I personally am most interested in IBIS especially in those circumstances, where every bit of stabilization is appreciated.

And fragile is also the wrong expression. It is certainly more likely to fail than no IBIS at all, just because it is complex moving electronics. "The best part is no part" after all. But that's a relative statement, and stating that it is fragile is absolut. Who cares if IBIS fails in average about every 500.000 shots, for example? Shutters fail much more frequently. We don't know the meantime between failures for Canon's IBIS implementation yet, I think. Until we do, it is best assumed that if failure was common, Canon will not put it in a 1 series equivalent body.

 

[Chig]

Why would wildlife/sports photographers not care about stabilization? And why is it fragile?

Because we use high shutter speeds to freeze motion so it isn't needed .
Image stabilisation is only useful for counteracting camera shake for static subjects at slow shutter speeds.
It's fragile because it has many moving parts

 

[Nemorino]

Therefore it improves pictures taken with longer focal lengths to a lesser degree

as mentioned before the improvement of the viewfinder could be more important.

 

[Chig]

I think the reasoning doesn't work out, but it probably goes like this:

IBIS is more effective at wider focal lengths. Therefore it improves pictures taken with longer focal lengths to a lesser degree. And this is true. But jumping from that to wildlife and sports photography not benefitting from it or the respective photographers not caring isn't, in my opinion. I personally am most interested in IBIS especially in those circumstances, where every bit of stabilization is appreciated.

And fragile is also the wrong expression. It is certainly more likely to fail than no IBIS at all, just because it is complex moving electronics. "The best part is no part" after all. But that's a relative statement, and stating that it is fragile is absolut. Who cares if IBIS fails in average about every 500.000 shots, for example? Shutters fail much more frequently. We don't know the meantime between failures for Canon's IBIS implementation yet, I think. Until we do, it is best assumed that if failure was common, Canon will not put it in a 1 series equivalent body.

If you're shooting fast moving objects you need high shutter speeds so ibis isn't needed as it only helps to counteract camera shake but high shutter speeds do that anyway.

 

[Joules]

If you're shooting fast moving objects you need high shutter speeds so ibis isn't needed as it only helps to counteract camera shake but high shutter speeds do that anyway.

Two points about that:

For one, the higher the shutter speed, the lesser the motion blur, sure. But it is not eliminated and so having additional factors to prevent motion from affecting the image quality can be a benefit. Especially when the light is suboptimal. Keep in mind that stabilization also improves the EVF image and the data that AF is based on.

You are certainly right that it isn't needed, but it is nonetheless helping. If the amount of that is worth the potential risk of failure during a shoot is up to the individual photographer and heavily depends on the durability of Canon's implementation - for which we have no data that I know of.

And also: don't move the goal post. You made this statement:

Very few wildlife and sports photographers care about ibis and the R3,R1 & R7 look to be targeted directly at this segment. This feature is quite fragile and complex so it's just something unnecessary

Not all wildlife or sports involves rapidly moving subjects. I personally would like greater amounts of stabilization for birds sitting in branches in the shade, for example. Basically every Tele lens already has a moving, "fragile" IS unit and I think that is very much appreciated by a lot of wildlife and sports photographers. Anything that improves this existing stabilization and also adds capabilities to it (stabilization in roll and tilt) will certainly be appreciated by some.

Canon has much better data on the amount of these people and the reliability of their solutions than either of us, so what they put into their professional offering will show just how important and good that feature is for the target audience.

 

[tapanit]

Because we use high shutter speeds to freeze motion so it isn't needed .
Image stabilisation is only useful for counteracting camera shake for static subjects at slow shutter speeds.
It's fragile because it has many moving parts

There are many kinds of nature photography, not all of them use high shutter speeds.

As for fragility, theoretically more moving parts mean more things that can break but whether or not that is significant in practice with IBIS is an empirical question and I haven't seen many reports of IBIS breaking, so I doubt that'd really be a big problem.

 

[snapshot]

There are many kinds of nature photography, not all of them use high shutter speeds.

As for fragility, theoretically more moving parts mean more things that can break but whether or not that is significant in practice with IBIS is an empirical question and I haven't seen many reports of IBIS breaking, so I doubt that'd really be a big problem.

without high shutter speeds and the motion that make them necessary, would high frame rates be something worth paying extra for?

 

[AEWest]

There are many kinds of nature photography, not all of them use high shutter speeds.

As for fragility, theoretically more moving parts mean more things that can break but whether or not that is significant in practice with IBIS is an empirical question and I haven't seen many reports of IBIS breaking, so I doubt that'd really be a big problem.

I saw the Canon marketing video for the new 100mm macro. The photographer was taking handheld photos and video of insects and snakes. The images and videos were very sharp and stable, no doubt partially due to having IBIS.

 

[bernie_king]

A few month ago the majority of the CR user believed only very few wildlife and sports photographers would care about a mirrorless camera.
IMO ibis is more useful in milc to get a better picture in the EVF compared to DSLR.
Soon we will know if Canon has the same opinion.

Edit:
In the video linked here it is suggested to swich the IS on to improve the quality of the EVF:

Canon R5 Settings for capturing Extreme (small, fast moving) Birds in Flight

Ron over at Whistling Wings posted a new video with some amazing info on using the R5 and the RF 100-500 for birding Hope it is ok to link to Ron's Gallery - https://ronaldbielefeld.smugmug.com/Tree-swallows-2021/

www.canonrumors.com

Can't remember if he is talking about IS or IBIS but afaik the R5 uses allways both together.

It depends on the lens. He does another video where he talks about turning OFF the IBIS for birds in flight because the IBIS fights with the Lens IS in his 600 F4 and it actually blurs the photos. I had the same issue and turning off stabilization fixed that. With lens-only IS you can overwhelm the system, but the IBIS combination makes it too strong. I really wish in those situations I could shut off the IBIS. They really need to give the option to shut one off.

 

[Nemorino]

urning OFF the IBIS for birds in flight because the IBIS fights with the Lens IS in his 600 F4

It will be interesting if this problem will be solved with the new RF version

 

[Richard CN]

Really ?
Very few wildlife and sports photographers care about ibis and the R3,R1 & R7 look to be targeted directly at this segment. This feature is quite fragile and complex so it's just something unnecessary that might break.
Personally I'd rather have an R7 without ibis that costs several hundred dollars less and I think most people interested in any specialised sports/wildlife camera would agree but sounds like you know everything already

really?
turn the IS off all your super telephotos and tell me how that works for you.
with IBIS + IS you get a more stabilized view, allowing you to focus on your target with minimal movement. That assists with your AF tracking and also your metering, not to mention your composition. I'm also sure that Canon is quite aware of the IBIS durability if there is even an issue there. Not to mention you have IS units in the lenses too.

also if an R7 (or even an R3/R1) is ONLY used with long telephotos, then canon isn't going to sell as many as they could. So it's unwise to suggest that Canon is going to make three expensive camera bodies for one specific use case. Alot of pros still use 24-70's and even wider on the field, NBA games typically you see a lot of 70-200's, etc. you see it every Olympics, every Superbowl, etc (24-70's and even 16-35mm). it's not all about the long telelphotos.

for an R7? Canon is going to *try* to still get other people to buy it. Let's face it. 7D hasn't been a hot seller, just anecdotally, because if was; Nikon and Canon would have spent much more time in this market.
Canon created two "pro" 7D cameras (over 5 years and nothing since 2014), Nikon created 3, but went from 2007 for the D300 to 2016 with the D500. That's it for over what? 11 or so years of DSLR development? How many "pro" aps-c mirrorless is out there from the big three? 0.