Canon not going global shutter with next round of EOS R camera bodies

[DhlcadR6]

Blah blah blah but GLOBAL SHUTTER.



(said the SoNikon troll)

Yea...nothing can be matched with GS+120fps+CF A cards.... rather wait for another 4year when CF B/internal SSD pairs with GS.

As nice as it would be to see a global shutter announcement from Canon as a quick response, I don't believe we're close to that yet. I would love to see the R1 be a "gloves off" kind of camera that doesn't hold back features arbitrarily.

The R3 is still a very formidable camera against the A9III and has easily been the best camera I have owned. There are some firmware polishes that Canon could do to the existing camera that would improve that experience even further. While it won't have a magical global shutter, it's still surprisingly well-matched against the A9III. (Wait, the A9III can't record 240p 1080p but the R3 can with autofocus?! What?)

Canon is not known to throw in experimental features onto their flagship, nor opens a new product line with flagship product first. They prefer a mid/low-range and see how things goes. FD T50, EOS 650, EOS D30, EOS M, EOS R are all midfielders that's not impressive on spec sheet but solid performer.

6K from R3 is also a big plus over a9iii.

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon is late to the mirrorless game, but they’ve already outperformed the market with no overheating 8K (just took them a minute and bad marketing). Either way, they still achieved it.

Is it just me but has DPR just given the R5 a also-ran award simply as they needed to include a Canon camera in their latest high end recommendations.... "A capable Canon"?!?
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/best-high-end-cameras
The best part is that they are still saying "Overheating looks to be a problem in video" when there has been a number of firmware updates including 8k raw light and ability to raise the internal alert temperature...
"Likewise the video looks great but the HQ 4K mode, taken from 8K capture, and 8K itself can prompt the camera to overheat fairly readily, and it can't shoot either at 60p as the Nikon can."
Yep, 8k60 is the minimum standard now!!

 

[AlanF]

Is it just me but has DPR just given the R5 a also-ran award simply as they needed to include a Canon camera in their latest high end recommendations.... "A capable Canon"?!?
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/best-high-end-cameras
The best part is that they are still saying "Overheating looks to be a problem in video" when there has been a number of firmware updates including 8k raw light and ability to raise the internal alert temperature...
"Likewise the video looks great but the HQ 4K mode, taken from 8K capture, and 8K itself can prompt the camera to overheat fairly readily, and it can't shoot either at 60p as the Nikon can."
Yep, 8k60 is the minimum standard now!!

Of course DPR has to rate the R5 behind the Z8, which is 3 years newer and has more modern technology and is a fine camera. I am a very happy R5 owner but I fully expect it to be leapfrogged as newer models come out. The Nikon owners had to put up with second rate gear for three years and now they are marginally ahead. The R5 is still good enough for me. So, why complain about DPR?

 

[DhlcadR6]

Of course DPR has to rate the R5 behind the Z8, which is 3 years newer and has more modern technology and is a fine camera. I am a very happy R5 owner but I fully expect it to be leapfrogged as newer models come out. The Nikon owners had to put up with second rate gear for three years and now they are marginally ahead. The R5 is still good enough for me. So, why complain about DPR?

If you are using Z6/Z7 1st gen to compare with Z8...that's 5 years.... painfully long to be honest.

 

[jd7]

I don't understand why people get so upset about whose sensor is "better" in a situation like this. All camera gear involves trade offs, and in this case Sony has provided an option which people haven't had before, but while you can have a global shutter and its benefits it also comes with certain disadvantages relative to other options on the market. The A9III is geared towards speed and shooting action, which seem to be where the advantages of a global shutter are potentially quite useful. In some circumstances, I expect the A9III will offer "better IQ" than the competition because of its global shutter and speed, eg because of the ability to shoot action without rolling shutter and the ability to shoot 120 FPS with AF. The abillity to get super fast shutter times (eg for using wide apertures in bright light) and flash sync speeds will also be a huge benefit to some. Of course, even "better IQ" is somewhat subjective, eg one person will value the lack of rolling shutter more than any loss of DR, but the next person might think the opposite. But as has been noted, the global shutter has its drawbacks too, eg relateively low DR and high noice at higher ISO, so in some situations other cameras, such as the R3 among others, will likely be able to produce images with "better IQ".

I don't think it is a surprise Sony is releasing a global shutter camera targetted at sports shooters - and increased the price - with an Olympics approaching. Some people won't be persuaded by the global shutter, given its disadvantages, but I can also imagine some (including perhaps some agencies?) will be attracted to what they can do with it for shooting sports. Sony can always drop the price after the Olympics. I can also imagine that Canon might decide that the trade offs involved in a global sensor are not worth it for the R1, assuming that camera will be geared towards use in just about any situation. If I had to guess, I could see Canon first introducing a global shutter at some point in an R3 successor (assuming Canon decides it is worth going with a global shutter at some point), for similar reasons to why Sony has introduced a global shutter in its A9 line.

Anyway, it seems to me that all of the cameras in this class are very good, so whatever you choose you should be able to get good photos with it. As always, it's a case of pick your poison and get on with it.

 

[vikingar]

Consider that the ratio of lenses to bodies sold is somewhere between 1.6 - 1.8, and also consider entry-level kits make up most of the unit sales, and that the most popular kits are 2-lens kits. In other words, the installed base of camera users comprises a majority of people who own only the camera and the 1-2 lenses that came with it, and a minority of people who own >2 lenses. That means inertia is much less of a factor in the market than you're suggesting.

If inertia were a major factor, Nikon's market share would not have done this:

• 2017 – 24.9%
• 2018 – 20.2%
• 2019 – 18.6%
• 2020 – 13.7%
• 2021 – 11.3%

Oh, you saw my post before I deleted it. Sorry, I thought I was too off topic for this thread.

Yes, I didn't think of the entry-level buyers, they have a fast and large effect on the market. I didn't realize they are still in the majority! Their investment is a lot smaller even with multiple crop lenses and switching brands is easier.

Sidenote: I tried looking up numbers just for the full frame market (as I'm personally only interested in that) but got nowhere. CIPA numbers are only split up into DSLR vs mirrorless, while they do split up lens numbers in "for smaller than 35mm format cameras" vs "for 35mm cameras or larger". It would a lot more useful if they split up the numbers for bodies into full frame vs APS-C as well. BCN has more specific numbers, but I think only Japan and I can't read their website.

 

[vikingar]

Of course DPR has to rate the R5 behind the Z8, which is 3 years newer and has more modern technology and is a fine camera. I am a very happy R5 owner but I fully expect it to be leapfrogged as newer models come out. The Nikon owners had to put up with second rate gear for three years and now they are marginally ahead. The R5 is still good enough for me. So, why complain about DPR?

The DPR "best camera around X$" guides were always a bit silly. The arbitrary dollar amounts and no complete picture of what lenses you'd also need to buy in addition to the respective camera.

Great for the low-end where you're not buying lenses, but above that the guides should either include 1-3 mid-/high-end lenses or just be brand-specific.

In my experience the guides were also out of date often enough to not be the best source of advice. Compare that to something like the MacRumors Buyer's Guide which is always up to date and also tracks expected release cycles and upcoming products.

 

[CrPr]

As long as the R5ii / R1’s sensor read out speed is fast enough (ie less than 5ms) then the image quality disadvantages of a global shutter will be the bigger problem for Sony. High iso noise and reduced Dynamic range are often cited as issues compared to stacked sensor designs.
If the R3 is the fast stacked sensor version of the R6II, then it’s pretty obvious that the R1 will be the stacked sensor version of the R5ii.
I personally will only want a global shutter camera if I can also retain or exceed the super low noise at high iso values and the really wide DR that I’m currently enjoying with the R6II.
I’m not trading a global shutter for anything else.
I’m not a R3 or R1 customer, I think an R5 is as high in the Canon linage as I would go. It’s a size, weight, performance, price
ratio.
however, I am really happy with my current R6II and R8. Best cameras I’ve ever owned.

Totally agree with you …

 

[el peso]

Let me try to understand.

Sony makes the body for $6000 at 24mp, but Canon should make a 50mp body for $5000 or they're not "keeping up"?

Nevermind the weaknesses of a global shutter image sensor. We'll have to wait a few months to see if they have closed the gap.

Seems you missed the main point — he is disappointed. That's the reason. I guess, that man looks too shy saying that. Canon owes him much and should give him that camera for free to mitigate his many-years disappointment.

 

[Brikna]

Now that Sony has made such a wonderful camera (A9III) and thus surpassed all other manufacturers and their cameras, what will we do with all the Sony cameras that do not have a global shutter - will we throw them in the trash too?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Now that Sony has made such a wonderful camera (A9III) and thus surpassed all other manufacturers and their cameras, what will we do with all the Sony cameras that do not have a global shutter - will we throw them in the trash too?

If you call trading Dynamic range and Iso noise for Global Shutter speed and sensor read out a "surpassing all others" then you are in the minority. There are raw files available from the Sony A9III and they aren't looking that great compared to the R3 files. Yes...wow-zers...80K max shutter speed...yes wow-zers super fast flash sysnc rate....Oh-poo....look at the iso noise.....oh-poo...look at the lowest iso speed of 250....oh-poo...look at the really bad DR. It's not a versatile camera...it's just built for press and action. For all other photography...you'll need a different camera body.

 

[Del Paso]

Now that Sony has made such a wonderful camera (A9III) and thus surpassed all other manufacturers and their cameras, what will we do with all the Sony cameras that do not have a global shutter - will we throw them in the trash too?

We should put them on display in a newly created "Museum of Extraordinary Human Genius". This is where they deserve to be!

 

[Brikna]

If you call trading Dynamic range and Iso noise for Global Shutter speed and sensor read out a "surpassing all others" then you are in the minority. There are raw files available from the Sony A9III and they aren't looking that great compared to the R3 files. Yes...wow-zers...80K max shutter speed...yes wow-zers super fast flash sysnc rate....Oh-poo....look at the iso noise.....oh-poo...look at the lowest iso speed of 250....oh-poo...look at the really bad DR. It's not a versatile camera...it's just built for press and action. For all other photography...you'll need a different camera body.

All clear. My post was actually supposed to be sarcastic, but I see I didn't emphasize that enough. The thing is that many "trumpeters" behave as if no other camera exists anymore (of course they don't mention or slander all other Sony models at all, but all other manufacturers and all their models are on target) and that with the A9III the ultimate goal has been achieved. Neither the purpose nor the price and all the flaws that the A9III will show are important, the important thing is that we have a new "king".

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, why complain about DPR?

I gave up on reading their reviews years ago. Is their bias and lack of Canon experience still present?

I recall @Sporgon calling out their 5DIII/D800 comparison where they complained about Canon’s shadow performance but did the test at sunset and shot the Canon about 30 min later (anyone who’s shot at sunset knows how much less light there is 30 min later).

I called out their bashing Canon’s AF tracking when they had it configured in a way Canon recommended against (spot AF in Servo) because they couldn’t be bothered to RTFM.

Maybe they’ve changed, but if they’re still talking about video overhearing in the R5 as a current problem, it seems not.

 

[Brikna]

I gave up on reading their reviews years ago. Is their bias and lack of Canon experience still present?

I recall @Sporgon calling out their 5DIII/D800 comparison where they complained about Canon’s shadow performance but did the test at sunset and shot the Canon about 30 min later (anyone who’s shot at sunset knows how much less light there is 30 min later).

I called out their bashing Canon’s AF tracking when they had it configured in a way Canon recommended against (spot AF in Servo) because they couldn’t be bothered to RTFM.

Maybe they’ve changed, but if they’re still talking about video overhearing in the R5 as a current problem, it seems not.

Yes, a little has changed. Now Nikon is being praised, Sony is still the leader, and Canon does something good here and there (mainly when some camera accidentally misses the blow of Canon's cripple-hammer).

 

[Hector1970]

My take: 1DX III was a disappointment, MP was too low. Minimal updates / improvements. R3 a better update (I do think it started as an R1 project but once they got a sniff of what Sony was bringing out they renamed early). R5 was surprisingly good. Handles the 45 MP really well. I would like the R1 to be high MP with excellent focus. Universal shutter doesn’t bother me especially at the cost of higher base ISO. 30/40/50 FPS I don’t care - a headache. I just want sharp shots with detail.

 

[AlanF]

I gave up on reading their reviews years ago. Is their bias and lack of Canon experience still present?

I recall @Sporgon calling out their 5DIII/D800 comparison where they complained about Canon’s shadow performance but did the test at sunset and shot the Canon about 30 min later (anyone who’s shot at sunset knows how much less light there is 30 min later).

I called out their bashing Canon’s AF tracking when they had it configured in a way Canon recommended against (spot AF in Servo) because they couldn’t be bothered to RTFM.

Maybe they’ve changed, but if they’re still talking about video overhearing in the R5 as a current problem, it seems not.

They got better when Rishi stopped commenting. But, why bother with them?

 

[ToonD]

When one walks out on the pitch, professional sports stadium, pro basketball arena, pro tennis match, they will know and see what the landscape looks like. One literally can count Sony still cameras on one single hand. And that has not changed in decades and never will in your life time

That's not my personal experience in the Netherlands. If you take the team photographers of the top four football clubs they all shoot Sony. And a lot of other photographers have also made the switch. But I think Sony, Canon, Nikon, it's all fine. A part of my work is live editing photos for an photo agency in sport. So I deal with pics from als three brands. And sure there are some differences in the characteristics but the main thing is still the photographer. What is his placement down the pitch in relatie to the stadium lights, how is he exposing, does he know the sport, etc.

 

[Ozarker]

The question is, who needs to close the gap? Isn't it?
Whether in IQ, market share, profit, or service quality or else...

I'm not sure closing the gap is good if IQ suffers. For me, that's like asking the leader of a foot race to go slower because the 2nd or 3rd place runner has nicer socks.

*That's to those who think global shutter is all that because it's on the spec sheet regardless of performance.

 

[Brikna]

My take: 1DX III was a disappointment, MP was too low. Minimal updates / improvements. R3 a better update (I do think it started as an R1 project but once they got a sniff of what Sony was bringing out they renamed early). R5 was surprisingly good. Handles the 45 MP really well. I would like the R1 to be high MP with excellent focus. Universal shutter doesn’t bother me especially at the cost of higher base ISO. 30/40/50 FPS I don’t care - a headache. I just want sharp shots with detail.

Although you wrote that this is your view - if you think the 1DXIII was only a slight improvement over the 1DXII - here's something you can look into (if you haven't already);

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/eos-1d-x-mark-iii-vs-mark-ii/

For some, just the IR thumb sensor on the joystick was enough to make them decide to jump to the Mark III, and in my opinion there are many, many significant improvements... But that's only my take.