My point, not an argument because it is entirely factual, is that hinges take up space, as do the bezels and backing for a tilt swivel screen that are not needed at all , or at minimum not as bulky, as those required for a fixed screen. That is just a simple fact. Indeed the back of the swivel screen needs a cover as does the back of the camera, a non swivel screen requires neither of those. All Canon screen hinges so far, and the R3 looks no different, have not been particularly space conscious.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)
do we see bezel-less displays in smartphones with LCD -- I thought it was an OLED screen for phones that allows for bezel-lessWhen are we going to see a bezel-less display, Canon? Not even in 6K camera?
My 3YO phone is using the screen space much better. You can put a bigger screen in the same space!
I try to sum it up in a single sentence, hoping that you understand it a little bit: on this particular body, (which was based on the R5 in the first place), there is no space for a bigger fixed screen properly mounted to the body, and if they do a different body they will use the same exact space to make the camera more durable, rather than stretching the screen as much as possible, whether you are able to take in that information or not.My point, not an argument because it is entirely factual, is that hinges take up space, as do the bezels and backing for a tilt swivel screen that are not needed at all , or at minimum not as bulky, as those required for a fixed screen.
You clearly aren't capable of absorbing the information that the R3 screen hinge could have been omitted and the same space used for a larger fixed screen.I try to sum it up in a single sentence, hoping that you understand it a little bit: on this particular body, (which was based on the R5 in the first place), there is no space for a bigger fixed screen properly mounted to the body, whether you are able to take in that information or not.
Beautiful I like the body - likely to be able to slot in Canon 1D X MK 2-3 batteries along with a high capacity battery for this body.Wasnt expecting articulating screen so thats a pleasant surprise.
Edit: great to see Canon bringing touch sensitive af on button back.
For what it's worth, I think this shows that you're right re the 'argument' that the mounting plate for a fixed sreen takes up less landscape than a hinge for a similar-sized tilty-flippy. But (and here's me expressing a feature preference for a camera I can't afford and whose features I would use to the extent of about 10% if I bought it anyway!) I really really love tilty-flippies ...You clearly aren't capable of absorbing the information that the R3 screen hinge could have been omitted and the same space used for a larger fixed screen.
These are to scale. The distance from the edge of the R3 to the actual screen edge is much larger than the distance from the edge of the 1DX II to the viewable screen edge.
View attachment 197900 View attachment 197901
I love my flippy screen on my R5 and wouldn't go back. Having a tilt only screen is good for street photography but useless for any shooting in portrait mode eg astro when craning your neck to see the screen is particularly difficult.All I was trying to say was that, personally, I'd take a larger screen over a tilt swivel screen any day. Not least of which because I am photo orientated and the Canon swivel screen is better orientated for video use. If I had to choose a moving screen it would be the FujiFilm style arrangement that is much better orientated for photography.
That’s why I say my favorite screen is the FujiFilm type, much prefer it to the Canon swing out to the side to tilt.I love my flippy screen on my R5 and wouldn't go back. Having a tilt only screen is good for street photography but useless for any shooting in portrait mode eg astro when craning your neck to see the screen is particularly difficult.
Interestingly, I was at a wedding (no covid restrictions at all at the time here) and the tog was very tall. He shot (with a 28-70/2 lens) the whole time with the screen out for lower and higher perspectives for both landscape and portrait orientations. Yes, a larger screen is better than a smaller screen but a flippy screen trumps size IMHO.
Another benefit for both photo (with <24mm focal length) and video is selfie orientation which is impossible with a tilt-only or fixed screen.
That said, I am particularly careful with opening/moving my flippy screen. It is clearly not as rugged as a fixed screen but also doesn't need a screen protector as you can turn it face-in for even better protection than a fixed screen.
It will be interesting how the touch-drag focus point selection will work in portrait mode with either a separate grip for the R5/6 or the integrated grip in the R3. I use the right hand side of the R5 screen in landscape mode and it also works in portrait mode as your right thumb is still in the correct location to use the screen.I'm a little surprised they are including it at all, as it seems to me to be a feature best suited for DSLRs that don't have touch control focus point selection through the back screen. Selecting the point using your thumb on the back screen is much more intuitive and controllable in my experience. I suppose they figured they would include it, since they've already paid for the technology, but I doubt I would use it instead of the touch screen.
The reason I believe that is the R3 is likely going to be a great sports camera with 45mp+ and 30fps meeting the needs of most sports photographers.I don’t believe that for a second.