Canon talks EOS R3, and confirms that it is not the flagship mirrorless

[Ozarker]

demand is a strong word. and helping the competition is never what somebody wants to do. on the otherhand, building a community of partnerships might create a larger market for your stuff. there is value in having the ability to accessorize and build a system using components within an active community of suppliers. and i am ok with folks choosing components based upon interoperability and adherence to formal and informal standards.

These threads are full of people demanding Canon share their tech with third parties.

 

[entoman]

Canon never used a Sony sensor in a Canon interchangeable camera. Why they would start now? They are pretty competent making their own sensors. The R5 sensor is up there with the best.

I own an R5 and have used a7Riv (but not a1) so I can confirm that the R5 sensor is among the best. In fact it's marginally better in terms of noise control/sharpness balance, compared to the a1 if dpr studio comparison scenes are any guide.

But a jump from 20fps (R5) to 30fps (R3) will require not only a faster processor, but also faster readout, to eliminate rolling shutter, particularly as the R3 is an all out sports wildlife photojournalism camera (according to Canon).

Now maybe, just maybe, Canon has had a leap in tech and manufacturing ability that will enable them to produce a sensor that is on par or better than the a1 sensor, in terms of noise control, sharpness, readout speed and dynamic range. IF that's the case I'll be extremely happy, as no one wants Sony to have a monopoly (not even Sony themselves, as they know that competition is what drives product improvement). But equally, IF Canon don't yet have that ability, or if it proves too expensive to do it in house, they may well decide to deal with Sony. Canon have stated several times in interviews that they are willing to use other company's sensors if they are more suitable for specific products.

 

[entoman]

Why Sony? If anyone, Samsung is more than capable, I think.

Because Sony have already shown that they can produce the best FF sensor, with the a1.

There are several other companies making sensors, but Samsung have no expertise in large sensors, and much of the performance of their smartphones is more do do with firmware tech than with sensor tech. As far as FF sensors are concerned, Sony, Canon and Panasonic are running neck to neck.

My viewpoint is that I'd really like it if Canon jumped ahead of Sony and had a truly world-beating sensor in the R3, but equally I'd buy the R3 if it had a Sony sensor. I just want the best sensor available, and I don't care who makes it. People take brand-worship too far IMO.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

no one wants Sony to have a monopoly (not even Sony themselves

"Citation Needed"
Everyone that I know of would be a monopoly if they could including myself.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

As far as FF sensors are concerned, Sony, Canon and Panasonic are running neck to neck.

Doesn't Sony make the full-frame sensors for Panasonic?

 

[neuroanatomist]

My viewpoint is that I'd really like it if Canon jumped ahead of Sony and had a truly world-beating sensor in the R3, but equally I'd buy the R3 if it had a Sony sensor. I just want the best sensor available, and I don't care who makes it. People take brand-worship too far IMO.

Some people take brand-worship too far. Others take sensor-worship too far.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Some people take brand-worship too far. Others take sensor-worship too far.

I do wish Canon could license the tech from the symmetrical RGBW sensor that Black Magic uses in the URSA Mini Pro 12K.
Symmetrical sensors seem perfect for hybrid cameras.
I would still want Canon to make it since I trust their quality control over BMD.
R+G+B+W = W which makes it so much more flexible for oversampling and binning.

 

[Billybob]

"Citation Needed"
Everyone that I know of would be a monopoly if they could including myself.

So true. No one wants the other guy to have a monopoly. But me? Absolutely.

 

[Ozarker]

Yup. This is the R1 in all but name, they just don't want to call it that for a few reasons:

- they don't want to make 1DX owners feel bad about their year-old camera already being made obsolete

- they feel the 'real' R1 isn't ready and want to make a splash when they finally get quad pixel autofocus (or whatever feature they have planned) ready

- they want to avoid direct comparisons against the Sony A9, whether on price or features

Look at the form factor. There's no way Canon is going to have both an R1 and R3 exist alongside each other. Once Canon finally feels like they can make a good enough camera called the R1, they'll quietly it forget about the R3, just like they did with the EOS R.

What's in a name. Features, build, etc. make a flagship. Name has nothing to do with it. Canon could call it "fluffy" and it would not matter. Somehow, I don't think the "feelings" of 1DX III owners are a concern. I don't know, maybe sensitive owners of 1DX III would feel butthurt. Those people are idiots anyway. BTW: Year old cameras are not obsolete.

 

[RGF]

Will the R1 simply be a R3 Mark II?
Will there be a market for both a R1 and R3? Seems like there may be too much overlap

 

[David - Sydney]

The equivalent of your HP example would be if Canon added something to the camera and lens firmwares to make it impossible to use third-party lenses.
I don't think anyone expects Canon to suddenly update firmware with the intention of making third-party lenses useless. They haven't done that in the past, any malfunctions were down to the third party manufacturers not getting the protocols just right, i.e. they didn't reverse engineer as good as they should have.

RF-mount is no different than EF-mount, F-mount, Minolta A-mount and so on in this regard. Third party manufacturers are free to reverse engineer and develop their own lenses. Canon isn't going to provide them with all the information to get it just right as that would negate a lot of their advantage as a lens manufacturer. Manufacturers who have optioned to license their mounts have put in place certain conditions to protect themselves but they also tend to lack the capacity required to develop and manufacture their own high end lenses in a way that makes a serious impact, or just lack the confidence in their mount at the time (Sony E-mount was a daring experiment that paid off, eventually, but compare that to what canon did with RF or nikon with Z)

Sigma and Tamron have figured out the EF mount pretty good. Figuring out how the EF to RF adapter works should be easy. Making lenses based on that should be no more difficult. And if it is, maybe they just shouldn't be in the business.
Anyone complaining about Canon not simply sharing with Sigma and Tamron every bit of information needed to replicate what Canon themselves are doing is just showing his or her ignorance when it comes to how a business works.

I think that we are in agreement
As long as Canon maintains EF backward compatibiility which is an obvious choice then 3rd parties can have no issue. It is entirely possible that Canon has encrypted their RF protocols meaning that they can never be reverse engineered. Even if they haven't then the complexities of combined AF/IBIS may be hard to decipher. Noting that Canon have not provided (unfortunately) the option to deselect IBIS and keep OIS operational.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

What's in a name. Features, build, etc. make a flagship. Name has nothing to do with it. Canon could call it "fluffy" and it would not matter. Somehow, I don't think the "feelings" of 1DX III owners are a concern. I don't know, maybe sensitive owners of 1DX III would feel butthurt. Those people are idiots anyway. BTW: Year old cameras are not obsolete.

I used to think that way, but then a bunch of folks here wrote that they won't get the R3 because it is not the R1 even though we do not know much about it.
They made it seem like it could have everything they would ever need and want but will not buy it because something better is coming.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I used to think that way, but then a bunch of folks here wrote that they won't get the R3 because it is not the R1 even though we do not know much about it.
They made it seem like it could have everything they would ever need and want but will not buy it because something better is coming.

Some people just wish. They won’t buy the R3 because an R1 is coming. The won’t buy an R1 because an R1 Mark II is coming. And so on. Meanwhile, they’ll keep shooting with their T1i and 18-55mm kit lens.

 

[AEWest]

Will the R1 simply be a R3 Mark II?
Will there be a market for both a R1 and R3? Seems like there may be too much overlap

No, There will be too much overlap between the 1dx3 and R3. I think that the R1 will be 100+mp with global shutter.

 

[Cyborx]

All modern cameras deliver sharp pictures even smartphones , if your pictures aren't sharp you're doing something wrong

I’m affraid you don’t know what you’re talking about my friend. Camera’s like the 1dx mark I in combination with EF lenses always have a certain amount of diversion. The difference in sharpness compared to the R5 is insane. If you don’t agree to that you better stick to shooting birds

 

[Bahrd]

My viewpoint is that I'd really like it if Canon jumped ahead of Sony and had a truly world-beating sensor in the R3, but equally I'd buy the R3 if it had a Sony sensor. I just want the best sensor available, and I don't care who makes it. People take brand-worship too far IMO.

Yes, they do. I just wondered: had such a deal been true what short- and long-term incendivities for Canon, Sony and Samsung would have been.

 

[Ozarker]

I used to think that way, but then a bunch of folks here wrote that they won't get the R3 because it is not the R1 even though we do not know much about it.
They made it seem like it could have everything they would ever need and want but will not buy it because something better is coming.

I'm not buying anything until Canon releases the R.5!

 

[SteveC]

I'm not buying anything until Canon releases the R.5!

You clearly lack ambition.

The ambitious amongst us are waiting for the Canon R minus 1300.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’m affraid you don’t know what you’re talking about my friend. Camera’s like the 1dx mark I in combination with EF lenses always have a certain amount of diversion.

Funny, you claim someone else doesn’t know what they’re talking about then proceed to spout nonsense about image ‘diversion’.

Incidentally, my 1D X can produce very sharp images, without diversion, sinestration or farkenluffle.

 

[Cyborx]

Funny, you claim someone else doesn’t know what they’re talking about then proceed to spout nonsense about image ‘diversion’.

Incidentally, my 1D X can produce very sharp images, without diversion, sinestration or farkenluffle.

Sure, just put an R5 image and a 1Dx image next to eachother and there is absolutely no difference in sharpness. Whatever bro! In my opinion Canon has -with the R5- finally produced a camera that is crispy sharp. A little too late unfortunately with all semi pro’s and even pro’s made the switch to Sony.