Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month

[degos]

Designing a lens has tradeoffs. To satisfy a tiny minority who prioritizes extender compatibility on a certain lens will presumably make the lens less attractive in way that are more important to far more potential customers. It's not a "fiasco" - it's presumably a smart choice. I switched to Canon for great lens designs like the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500, whose benefit is to get to 500 without an extender.

Tamron and Sigma don't seem to have any problem getting a zoom to 600mm without an extender. And f/6.3 too...

 

[Emyr Evans]

Tamron and Sigma don't seem to have any problem getting a zoom to 600mm without an extender.

With a +50% weight increase over the RF 100-500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Tamron and Sigma don't seem to have any problem getting a zoom to 600mm without an extender. And f/6.3 too...

Depends on how you define ‘problem’. At the long end, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses are relatively soft, sufficiently so that Canon’s EF 100-400 delivers similar (if not slightly better) results at 400mm, and the RF 100-500 at 500mm delivers clearly better IQ. (Note - I am referring to comparing the 400mm image upsampled or the 600mm downsampled to the same ‘pixels on duck’ size).

The Canon lenses are also much smaller and lighter. For me, carrying a larger, heavier lens and getting similar or worse IQ is a problem (if I am going to go big, I take the 600/4 which gains over a stop and delivers much better IQ). Weather sealing is also a feature of the Canon lenses that may be important to some.

The Canon lenses are also significantly more expensive, which is a problem of a different sort. If a 3rd party 150-600mm gives nearly the IQ of a Canon 100-400/500 at 1/3-1/4 the cost, that may be worth the extra length and weight to some. However, if the forthcoming non-L RF 100-400 delivers 400mm IQ equivalent to the 3rd party 600mm, that may take cost out or the equation.

 

[Bahrd]

Are you sure about the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM, could this be for the M and not the RF?

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-rf-100-400-f55-71

It would make sense. And would make our host perplex...

 

[AlanF]

Depends on how you define ‘problem’. At the long end, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses are relatively soft, sufficiently so that Canon’s EF 100-400 delivers similar (if not slightly better) results at 400mm, and the RF 100-500 at 500mm delivers clearly better IQ. (Note - I am referring to comparing the 400mm image upsampled or the 600mm downsampled to the same ‘pixels on duck’ size).

The Canon lenses are also much smaller and lighter. For me, carrying a larger, heavier lens and getting similar or worse IQ is a problem (if I am going to go big, I take the 600/4 which gains over a stop and delivers much better IQ). Weather sealing is also a feature of the Canon lenses that may be important to some.

The Canon lenses are also significantly more expensive, which is a problem of a different sort. If a 3rd party 150-600mm gives nearly the IQ of a Canon 100-400/500 at 1/3-1/4 the cost, that may be worth the extra length and weight to some. However, if the forthcoming non-L RF 100-400 delivers 400mm IQ equivalent to the 3rd party 600mm, that may take cost out or the equation.

The latest variant of the Sigma 150-600mm Sport designed for the Sony, and most likely the basis for any R model, has just been reviewed and is not impressive at 400-500mm. https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-dn-os-sport-lens-review-35605

 

[adrian_bacon]

Interesting note: Fro Knows Photo over on YouTube has an R3 and made a big deal about not being able to talk about the megapixels. I doubt this changes anything, but wouldn't that be cool if the R3 had more than 24mp and we've just been seeing the exif data from jpegs that have been downscaled in camera (like medium jpegs).

 

[tooyoung225]

I think tooyoung255 wants an RF mount C500.
The C70 is better for me in that regard but I do also plan to use an R3 as well if it turns out to be what I expect it to be.

I love the C70, and it has been an incredible camera for me since I bought it. I honestly wouldn't mind a FF RF cine cam , but more so looking for a smaller form (box cam?) like the c50 is supposed to be, to use as a dedicated gimbal/Bcam/Ccam. Assuming the specs we've seen for it are the full story.... Either way, I'd bet I'm not alone in saying that Canon seems to be dragging their feet in the cinema cam world when it comes to the new RF mount.

 

[definedphotography]

Interesting note: Fro Knows Photo over on YouTube has an R3 and made a big deal about not being able to talk about the megapixels. I doubt this changes anything, but wouldn't that be cool if the R3 had more than 24mp and we've just been seeing the exif data from jpegs that have been downscaled in camera (like medium jpegs).

Also interesting he said it was the best MLC from Canon thus far.

 

[Mo Cee]

Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.

 

[Chig]

Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.

Canon has just raised it's prices so don't hold your breath !
All manufactured goods are going up in price due to supply issues and increased cost of materials, freight and labour.

 

[Mo Cee]

Canon has just raised it's prices so don't hold your breath !
All manufactured goods are going up in price due to supply issues and increased cost of materials, freight and labour.

I purchased my first R5 for $3899 in LA about two months ago. I see that this is still the current price. Do you see a higher price? Hope not. Thanks!

 

[FrenchFry]

From the Google translation of the Nokishita twitter:

"The new accessories for Canon "EOS R3" added the other day are "Speedlight Transmitter ST-E10", "Multi Accessory Shoe Adapter AD-E1", "Stereo Microphone DM-E1D", "Strap ER-L1", and "Eye Cup ER-HE". I was able to confirm with "Eye Cup ER-E"."

And then later :
"Correction × "Eyecup ER-E" → 〇 "Eyecup ER-H" #Correction"

https://mobile.twitter.com/nokishita_c

 

[danfaz]

I purchased my first R5 for $3899 in LA about two months ago. I see that this is still the current price. Do you see a higher price? Hope not. Thanks!

Canon Direct has refurbished R5s for $3509 now.

 

[SteveC]

Also interesting he said it was the best MLC from Canon thus far.

That is utterly unsurprising, actually. But it would be good to know by what criteria he was judging...what's important to him? If resolution, then the folks who think it's been getting scaled down are right.

I just need to remember to change my signature line when it comes out.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That is utterly unsurprising, actually. But it would be good to know by what criteria he was judging...what's important to him? If resolution, then the folks who think it's been getting scaled down are right.

I just need to remember to change my signature line when it comes out.

Fro is a sports shooter who hates DSLR cameras.

 

[fox40phil]

Apart from the fact Canon had a 1200mm lens with a built in TC in the 1980's, and they have the EF 200-400 f4 L with built in TC....

they should update both for RF!!

More tele lenses please!

 

[Hector1970]

Interesting note: Fro Knows Photo over on YouTube has an R3 and made a big deal about not being able to talk about the megapixels. I doubt this changes anything, but wouldn't that be cool if the R3 had more than 24mp and we've just been seeing the exif data from jpegs that have been downscaled in camera (like medium jpegs).

I enjoyed his video, I'm not usually a huge fan. It was good to get it in hand to get a proper view of it. I still hold vague hopes 24MP is understating the sensor size but who knows. Hopefully it will all be out in the open soon.

 

[DJL329]

Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.

Check out canonpricewatch.com. There's an active deal on the R5 for $3699.99. It's from an authorized dealer, with a 1-year Canon USA warranty.

 

[M. D. Vaden of Oregon]

It is a bit of a miss to release the R3 without a new super tele to go with it that shows of what RF can do. Perhaps a 500 f/4.0 DO?

Even the first EOS R made the EF 85mm 1.2 L ii seem like a brand new lens. As long as Canon has even the EF super tele lenses available, an R3 body seems like a great idea. Scores of photographers already own the lenses.

 

[slclick]

Well, it IS only 24MP. Arguably on a mirrorless design, even a consumer 16/2.8 can deliver that... 14-45mm is the sweet spot where SLR designs always had to be highly compromised to leave film-flange clearance for the mirror.

Well, it IS only 24MP. Arguably on a mirrorless design, even a consumer 16/2.8 can deliver that... 14-45mm is the sweet spot where SLR designs always had to be highly compromised to leave film-flange clearance for the mirror.

How ricockulous is that logic. The flagship Canons have been 20MP for how long? Plus, announcing things at the same time doesn't necessarily mean they are matched like a set.