Here are more images of the Canon EOS R3

[Stig Nygaard]

Would people buy a second best camera, if it costs 80% or so of the best camera?

Might not be same target group. Pros and cons with each depending on which type of photographer you are.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's just as big as on any other camera, 3.2-inch, just like the 1DX series.

Not if you do an overlay of the R3 on the 1DX II and scale them to the same battery size. Then the actual screen, not the bezel, is a good bit smaller on the R3.

 

[polaris8030]

You know, now that you mention it, I am surprised I have not seen fast charging in a camera. I do not know much about if this would be possible with the internals, but charging batteries is one of the most tedious tasks for any photographer. If a camera like the R1 was able to implement this, it would be a blessing.

the Canon battery and charging tech is quite a ways behind what is available on phones. the battery pack itself is not keeping up with the pace of technology available in the smartphone space.
this website shows what's inside the LP-E6 battery : https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Canon+LP-E6+battery+pack+Teardown/133243
these are 2 Panasonic batteries in series (~8.4V) .. digging around will reveal that the battery tech is from 2010
It's a 2Ah battery but the charger is rated at 1.2A (or < 1C as they say in the battery world).

In-body fast charging is bound to create heat so I don't know what's an acceptable charging current, but I do want to see fast (> 1C ) charging brought to the adapters. Not a battery expert .. but If my smartphone can charge 0 to 80% for a 2Ah battery in about 10 minutes, I think it can be done for camera batteries.
writing this - I wonder if such a fast charger is available on the market.

 

[padam]

Not if you do an overlay of the R3 on the 1DX II and scale them to the same battery size. Then the actual screen is a good bit smaller on the R3.

You can scale all you want, but if it wasn't shot with the same focal length, it is useless.

It is probably exactly the same 3.2-inch, 2.1 million dot touch LCD on the 1DX III, R5 and R3 (the 1DX II has the same size as well, but with slightly less resolution)

 

[privatebydesign]

The rear shot shows "LAN" at the bottom of the body. Does that mean that we're going to get a RJ45 network connection to hard wire the camera into a network? That would be sweet as transferring pictures would be so much faster.

1 series cameras have had that for generations.

 

[marathonman]

I'm excited by the amalgamation of the 1dx controls with R5 that we are seeing here on R3. The main difference / advantage I see vs 1 dx mkiii, is that with the RF mount, you get the extra dial on the adapter / lens to adjust aperture etc. And having the R5 mode dial, gives you that extra option for adjusting ISO easily etc.
I don't mind losing that silly small LCD screen below main screen on 1dx mkiii but I would dearly love to see GPS. I fear I will be disappointed there.
I also don't see a Direct Print button that @Canon Rumors Guy promised would be on this camera ;-)
Good stuff.

 

[privatebydesign]

You can scale all you want, but if it wasn't shot with the same focal length, it is useless.

It is probably exactly the same 3.2-inch, 2.1 million dot touch LCD on the 1DX III, R5 and R3 (the 1DX II has the same size as well, but with slightly less resolution)

The focal length used is irrelevant, the distance from subject to sensor plane is relevant but not much in a two dimensional 'face on' picture of a basically flat surface.

And you are still ignoring my other point, whatever the size screen used if it wasn't a flip screen a bigger screen could be used in the same space.

 

[padam]

The focal length used is irrelevant, the distance from subject to sensor plane is relevant but not much in a two dimensional 'face on' picture of a basically flat surface.

And you are still ignoring my other point, whatever the size screen used if it wasn't a flip screen a bigger screen could be used in the same space.

It does not matter, it will not use an inferior LCD to the R5, most likely it will be the same, as the internal structure is probably based on the R5 but expanded, whilst the R1 may use a completely new body for maximum durability with a fixed screen.

And again, all the 1DX cameras use fixed LCDs but it is not any bigger at all in either of them, even though those cameras are bigger. So it wouldn't be bigger here either just by being a fixed one, only if they design everything differently from the ground-up, which may happen in the R1.

 

[Joules]

And you are still ignoring my other point, whatever the size screen used if it wasn't a flip screen a bigger screen could be used in the same space.

It could be, you are absolutely right about that. But it is Canon we're talking about, so it wouldn't be. Of they can share a part across models, they will do so.

 

[privatebydesign]

It does not matter, it will not use an inferior LCD to the R5, most likely it will be the same, as the internal structure is probably based on the R5 but expanded, whilst the R1 may use a completely new body for maximum durability with a fixed screen.

And again, all the 1DX cameras use fixed LCDs but it is not any bigger at all in either of them, even though those cameras are bigger. So it wouldn't be bigger here either just by being a fixed one, only if they design everything differently from the ground-up, which may happen in the R1.

And again you ignore the point. Forget anything else, if a screen moves the hinge mechanism takes up space a larger screen could fit into if it didn't move.
That was my point.

 

[padam]

And again you ignore the point. Forget anything else, if a screen moves the hinge mechanism takes up space a larger screen could fit into if it didn't move.
That was my point.

Again, you completely ignore how a 1DX is actually constructed. Here it is:


As you can see, the screen is mounted to its own 'fixed frame', increasing rigidity but it basically needs the same space.
That is how they are going to do it on the R1 as well.

So no, it does not require more space, it is just not as durable.

 

[privatebydesign]

Again, you completely ignore how a 1DX is actually constructed. Here it is:
View attachment 197893

As you can see, the screen is mounted to its own 'fixed frame', increasing rigidity but it basically needs the same space.
That is how they are going to do it on the R1 as well.

So no, it does not require more space, it is just not as durable.

You are now just being obtuse, clearly you aren’t stupid so you are doing it on purpose. Have at it....

 

[navastronia]

In almost 3 years on this forum, I've never said this before about a camera, but the R3 looks absolutely gorgeous. What a dream!

 

[paul]

One disappointing aspect of this camera is that there are only four ways in which you can adjust the AF point

-Eye sensor
-Multi-controller (2x)
-Joystick (2x)
-Touch & Drag

For a Pro camera, this is simply not enough. Hopefully the R1 can do better than that.

Should be mind controlled..

 

[R1-7D]

I am still surprised that no one is commenting on the memory card door. It looks as if it's the same one used on the R5 - ie: slide-to-open. This is quite different than what's used on the 1D series - ie: release-catch with rubber sealing around the door.

Surely Canon must have some weather sealing around the door that's superior to the R5's to ensure the camera is as weather resistant as the 1DX Mark III.

 

[David Hull]

I am glad that they showed a picture of the back. Glad to see there is an articulating screen and the optical AF selector from the 1DX Mk3. I would still like to know the MP, dual card slots configuration, spot meter linked to AF point, and cost.

Just out of curiosity, how does the optical AF button work? What does it bring to the game?

 

[frjmacias]

the Canon battery and charging tech is quite a ways behind what is available on phones. the battery pack itself is not keeping up with the pace of technology available in the smartphone space.
this website shows what's inside the LP-E6 battery : https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Canon+LP-E6+battery+pack+Teardown/133243
these are 2 Panasonic batteries in series (~8.4V) .. digging around will reveal that the battery tech is from 2010
It's a 2Ah battery but the charger is rated at 1.2A (or < 1C as they say in the battery world).

In-body fast charging is bound to create heat so I don't know what's an acceptable charging current, but I do want to see fast (> 1C ) charging brought to the adapters. Not a battery expert .. but If my smartphone can charge 0 to 80% for a 2Ah battery in about 10 minutes, I think it can be done for camera batteries.
writing this - I wonder if such a fast charger is available on the market.

Thanks for the info, and I agree completely. I would love it if they made fast charging adapters. Would help tremendously.

 

[slclick]

Your phone screen is glued to the frame and doesn't flip out. A bezel helps maintain rigidity and also protects the screen edges.

Complaining about bezels, is this what humanity has been reduced to?

 

[djack41]

Continue reading...

Would love to see it feature "Zebras" for still photography. Sony offers this feature and it is quicker and more accurate when setting image exposure.

 

[padam]

You are now just being obtuse, clearly you aren’t stupid so you are doing it on purpose. Have at it....

Your argument had no basis at all in the first place using scaling for pictures that have a different perspective.

To have any basis for your argument, you would have needed to provide real-world examples where the screen actually got smaller because of the change.

Let's compare the 6D and the 6D Mark II for instance: the same footprint, yet the LCD remained exactly the same despite being changed a swivel screen.
There is an even smaller camera with the same screen called the EOS RP. Clearly they could make an even small camera like this, without making the screen smaller.
If they do a fixed screen like on a 5D IV or a 1DX they do it because it makes the camera more rigid. But they need space for that, it still needs borders.
You don't just cram in an LCD without ignoring how it should be mounted on the chassis itself. That is just bad design. So if there is any difference, it is negligible, it might need a bit more thickness but again as I showed, if rigidity is important, they will lift it slightly towards the back.

So I tried to explain why it was wrong using common sense, but it is just a lost cause, and it was a waste of time in the first place,
I am sure you could design a camera so much better (at least in your head, ignoring everybody else who is of course can only be obtuse)