Here are more images of the Canon EOS R3

[David - Sydney]

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.

Which Fuji model? The XT4 seems to have the same flippy as Canon. The XT3 looks to be tilt only but can tilt through 180 degrees for selfie mode
From B&H...

FUJIFILM​

As mentioned earlier, the X-T3 had a dual-hinged tilt design and the X-T4 switched to a flip-out swivel. The X-Pro3, a gem for street shooting, has one of the more unique tilting designs with a single bottom hinge, with the LCD screen remaining hidden during general use; it can then be revealed for playback or waist-level shooting, but FUJIFILM intuits will want to stick to the viewfinder for this camera. As you go toward the more consumer-friendly mirrorless models, you’ll see that X-T30 has a tilt-screen design and the new (and gorgeous) X-T200 has a flip-out swivel design. Each of these cameras has its rear buttons and controls on the right side of the screen, so one could ask if FUJIFILM just hasn’t figured out what works best or is simply giving its customers welcomed options

 

[privatebydesign]

Which Fuji model? The XT4 seems to have the same flippy as Canon. The XT3 looks to be tilt only but can tilt through 180 degrees for selfie mode
From B&H...

FUJIFILM​

As mentioned earlier, the X-T3 had a dual-hinged tilt design and the X-T4 switched to a flip-out swivel. The X-Pro3, a gem for street shooting, has one of the more unique tilting designs with a single bottom hinge, with the LCD screen remaining hidden during general use; it can then be revealed for playback or waist-level shooting, but FUJIFILM intuits will want to stick to the viewfinder for this camera. As you go toward the more consumer-friendly mirrorless models, you’ll see that X-T30 has a tilt-screen design and the new (and gorgeous) X-T200 has a flip-out swivel design. Each of these cameras has its rear buttons and controls on the right side of the screen, so one could ask if FUJIFILM just hasn’t figured out what works best or is simply giving its customers welcomed options

GFX 100 and GFX 100S

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Therefore, the R1 needs to offer a different purpose rather than an incremental upgrade (eg. Same as R3 but with global shutter) to justify a $7,500+ price that Canon would want for its flagship.

Don’t forget a global shutter is a $2,000 upgrade. I don’t see the R1 having 45mp either and it’s going to have a quad pixel sensor, so AF and anything else they can accomplish with it. There are plenty of differentiating goodies they can put in an R1. Besides, studio shooters spending $7,000+ can get medium format body with 100+ MP and 16 bit files for less than that.

Indeed a $7,999 R1 with a global shutter would be the cheapest video camera Canon make with the feature.

 

[polaris8030]

• Global shutter
• QPAF (Quad Pixel AF)
• Pro price tag

good points .. I forgot about the global shutter and QPAF

I'm going to add one more and I have a question: a 5G mm wave port (sports event pros can transfer those files really fast to a central 5G hub) could be seen in the R1 as we will see wider adoption of 5G by R1's release. I also think 5G ports will start appearing in other cameras - allowing super fast transfer from camera to phone/tablet
and this got me thinking about what's the upper limitation for the fps with a global shutter. is it mechanical (lens aperture opening and closing) or the transfer speed between processor and storage with on-board memory acting as buffer, is it thermals (I think so, the R5 CF express slot heats up real fast) ?
CF express write speed is 1480 MB/s .. if files are 20MB each then its a cool 70+ fps
just thinking a bit out of the box .. but interested in knowing if anyone feels that there is need for > 30 fps

 

[AEWest]

Don’t forget a global shutter is a $2,000 upgrade. I don’t see the R1 having 45mp either and it’s going to have a quad pixel sensor, so AF and anything else they can accomplish with it. There are plenty of differentiating goodies they can put in an R1. Besides, studio shooters spending $7,000+ can get medium format body with 100+ MP and 16 bit files for less than that.

Indeed a $7,999 R1 with a global shutter would be the cheapest video camera Canon make with the feature.

There is talk of an ultra high MP Canon coming within a year and many assume it will be an R5 based camera. But to me it makes more sense to have it as a $7,500 R1 rather than a $4,000 R5.

Leave the R3 as Canon's sports camera.

 

[canonmike]

My first Canon camera was an A2e, so I have been a long time Canon user. That being said, I have never considered any of the many Canon bodies I have owned, particularly attractive. That's been ok because they just work. That looks to change if the R3 body looks as good as the photos of it. The carbon fiber appearance and sleek design look spectacular and make you want to just hold it in your hands, get a feel for it, attach an L lens to it, then go shoot it until your arms get tired. What a great looking camera. Bring it on Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is talk of an ultra high MP Canon coming within a year and many assume it will be an R5 based camera. But to me it makes more sense to have it as a $7,500 R1 rather than a $4,000 R5.

Leave the R3 as Canon's sports camera.

It may make more sense to you, but it would be entirely inconsistent with Canon’s positioning of the 1-series for the past decade.

 

[DBounce]

and this got me thinking about what's the upper limitation for the fps with a global shutter. is it mechanical (lens aperture opening and closing) or the transfer speed between processor and storage with on-board memory acting as buffer, is it thermals (I think so, the R5 CF express slot heats up real fast) ?
CF express write speed is 1480 MB/s .. if files are 20MB each then its a cool 70+ fps
just thinking a bit out of the box .. but interested in knowing if anyone feels that there is need for > 30 fps

Don’t think canon will have a mechanical shutter on a camera that is global shutter. It seems redundant.

 

[jam05]

For those who said that a pro body had to have a fixed display because of weather sealing. This body clearly dispells that theory. Canon has clearly incorporated the moveable and most likely full touch display into a professional body.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Damn nice looking camera and as long as it's not a gimpy 20MP sensor resoluion and sticks to the 45-50MP range I'll be all over this. What I'm also waiting foir is the actual specs for the next gen 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 or is it a 100/120-300 f/2.8 zoom first.

 

[privatebydesign]

For those who said that a pro body had to have a fixed display because of weather sealing. This body clearly dispells that theory. Canon has clearly incorporated the moveable and most likely full touch display into a professional body.

That was always a a fallacious argument. The Olympus TG-850 P&S had a waterproof (to 10m) tilting screen for $445 7 years ago.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

Damn nice looking camera and as long as it's not a gimpy 20MP sensor resolution and sticks to the 45-50MP range I'll be all over this. What I'm also waiting for is the actual specs for the next gen 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 or is it a 100/120-300 f/2.8 zoom first.

Unfortunately, it looks like the first big whites to come to the RF mount will be the old big whites with adapters pasted on. It is true that the 500 and 300 didn't get Mark III treatments back in the EF days, so perhaps there will be some actual new design to those when they finally surface. A 500mm f/4 III would have been a treat with 20 percent less weight.

The long-yearned-for 600mm DO is the new unicorn, ever since a mock-up was shown in NYC years ago. That on an R3 would be deadly for run-and-gun wildlife. But don't go getting giddy over that sort of thing just yet. Canon is going to have us chew through some Mark III inventory stuck to adapters first.

 

[AEWest]

For those who said that a pro body had to have a fixed display because of weather sealing. This body clearly dispells that theory. Canon has clearly incorporated the moveable and most likely full touch display into a professional body.

I believe that no future MILC will have a fixed display. The reason? Video. All mirrorless cameras need to have reasonable video chops, and a fixed screen is not conducive for video.

 

[AEWest]

It may make more sense to you, but it would be entirely inconsistent with Canon’s positioning of the 1-series for the past decade.

Canon has already upset the apple cart in terms of positioning with the announcement of the R3 - they haven't had a 3 series camera since film camera days (at least 25 lbs ago).

So things do change over time and now may be that time.

 

[Chig]

I would appreciate a larger LCD, but hey, the R3 lookes good.

The flippy screen means you get a tiny screen

 

[Chig]

I’m really liking the second top dial, like Nikons have had forever. I really like that ability to use a top thumb dial whenever I use a Nikon.

Not a huge fan of the tilt flip screen, not because of the oft over stated ‘durability’, if Olympus can put a flip screen on a cheap waterproof camera I’m pretty sure Canon can do it on a weatherproof pro camera, no my objection to flip screens is they are comparatively big and bulky and yet the screen is much smaller than it could be if it wasn’t a flip screen. But I know I am fighting an uphill battle on that one.

I agree , I'd much rather have a large fixed screen with a tilting evf (maybe 2 tilting viewfinders) or at least the option to replace the standard eyecup with a Hoodman one and also attach an angle viewfinder as I don't think any R series cameras have removable eyecups

 

[Chig]

I sound like a broken record on this, since I said it during the R5 leaks, but I am really hopeful that the viewfinder eyecup comes off. It's far cheaper to replace a swappable eyecup and allows you to mount a rain cover eyepiece on the viewfinder. I get the impression that, since the eye-detection lens is no longer on the plastic eyecup like on the EOS R5, maybe they will finally allow you to take this one off?

It makes really no sense to me Canon randomly decided all R cameras had to have fixed-piece eyecups when every other comparable brand gives you replaceable ones.

I hope so too , I have an eos 30V with the eye controlled focus and fitting a large Hoodman eyecup makes the eye control much more consistent as it holds you eye in a fixed position .
I also use a Canon angle viewfinder B for shooting at ground level with a skimmer and gimbol which means I can kneel in the mud rather than lie down in it.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Unfortunately, it looks like the first big whites to come to the RF mount will be the old big whites with adapters pasted on. It is true that the 500 and 300 didn't get Mark III treatments back in the EF days, so perhaps there will be some actual new design to those when they finally surface. A 500mm f/4 III would have been a treat with 20 percent less weight.

The long-yearned-for 600mm DO is the new unicorn, ever since a mock-up was shown in NYC years ago. That on an R3 would be deadly for run-and-gun wildlife. But don't go getting giddy over that sort of thing just yet. Canon is going to have us chew through some Mark III inventory stuck to adapters first.

Hang on the RF 400 and 600 arer already out, and I was referring to Canon Rumours own post that next year we get 500 f/4 and that the first 300 f/2.8 we might get is a zoom. It also mentioned the 500 f/4 would be much smaller and lighter. Only way I can see that happening is with DO. These shouldn't be lazy efforts like the 400 and 600 that basically just welded on the EF-RF adapter ala Sigma for Sony. They should be designed for RF natively.

 

[maulanawale]

For those who said that a pro body had to have a fixed display because of weather sealing. This body clearly dispells that theory. Canon has clearly incorporated the moveable and most likely full touch display into a professional body.

First message here so I'll take the chance to say Hi!

I know they compete in different categories but the Olympus EM1X, although not regarded as a pro camera by many/most, is basically waterproof and has a tilt flip screen that works a treat. I own it and have put the camera under the tap to clean off mud. That is a 3 year old camera that sells for 1600£ now, so surely all the big brands could implement it if they wanted to. FWIW, to me a flippy-tilty screen makes using the camera that much easier and in fact, there are countless photos I would have struggled to take had I not had it.

I just hope the R3 resolution makes sense for wildlife and it's priced right, cause it sure looks like a proper tool for the job

 

[Chig]

Would not be easier to just make a mechanism to rotate the sensor 90 degrees at a press of a button for portrait mode?
Instead of adding all these extra buttons, dials, grip space, etc? That way would not have to readjust your hand and deal with
the rotated LCD, etc. Or just add a square sensor and then readjust aspect ratio in a fraction of a second.

I know a grip can store a bigger battery but many only need it for portrait mode.

Unfortunately Canon have made the mount interface so that it would obscure the sensor if it was rotated .
An aps-c sensor which is either round (27mm diameter) or rotating would work though