Here is the Canon EOS R3

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,390
Kentucky, USA
The same way you attach an Arca-Swiss plate to any Canon 1-Series DSLR (or Nikon Dn body). Via the tripod hole on the bottom.

If you want an L-bracket, which also attaches to the tripod hole in the bottom, I'm sure the same folks who make them for the 1D X models will also make them for the R3.

View attachment 196970
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to show the plate & L bracket on this type of body. My comments below are my opinion of that arrangement, but I still want you to know that I very much appreciate your feedback you gave!

OK, but what happens when you do a portrait shot and rotate the camera 90 degrees while keeping your hands in the same position to grip the newly rotated bottom grip? It's now got a huge and awkward plate bolted on it which you're gripping. If you instead rotate your hands to hold onto the original (normal right side) grip in portrait position, then you're using it like an ordinary camera and dumping the use of the 2nd grip. To me this is combination is truly silly, both visually and functionally. I can see people just not using any A.S. plate and saying they handhold it, or else they just screw in a normal (non quick release) monopod or tripod and leave it on for a while. But if people want what you've shown, then good for them, but it I'll pass on that configuration.

This is why I really wish they would have a version of this camera with an integrated bottom grip, and a 2nd version without it.

Now, if they had embedded 2 A.S. grooves into the right side grip and another set into the bottom grip, in such a recessed way as to feel "normal" in your hands then this would have been a brilliant design. You could use it by hand or by hooking up to an A.S. mono- or tripod without adding anything in both landscape & portrait mode without rotating your hands. Then I'd have been quite happy with that design. Also, they could have 2 A.S. grooves recessed into the bottom & left side of a body without the integrated bottom grip so you don't need an add-on plate with removable L bracket with it either (and now you don't have any L plate to interfere with the fully articulating screen).
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: slclick

dcm

It's not the gear.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
895
324
Colorado, USA
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to show the plate & L bracket on this type of body. My comments below are my opinion of that arrangement, but I still want you to know that I very much appreciate your feedback you gave!

OK, but what happens when you do a portrait shot and rotate the camera 90 degrees while keeping your hands in the same position to grip the newly rotated bottom grip? It's now got a huge and awkward plate bolted on it which you're gripping. If you instead rotate your hands to hold onto the original (normal right side) grip in portrait position, then you're using it like an ordinary camera and dumping the use of the 2nd grip. To me this is combination is truly silly, both visually and functionally. I can see people just not using any A.S. plate and saying they handhold it, or else they just screw in a normal (non quick release) monopod or tripod and leave it on for a while. But if people want what you've shown, then good for them, but it I'll pass on that configuration.

This is why I really wish they would have a version of this camera with an integrated bottom grip, and a 2nd version without it.

Now, if they had embedded 2 A.S. grooves into the right side grip and another set into the bottom grip, in such a recessed way as to feel "normal" in your hands then this would have been a brilliant design. You could use it by hand or by hooking up to an A.S. mono- or tripod without adding anything in both landscape & portrait mode without rotating your hands. Then I'd have been quite happy with that design. Also, they could have 2 A.S. grooves recessed into the bottom & left side of a body without the integrated bottom grip so you don't need an add-on plate with removable L bracket with it either (and now you don't have any L plate to interfere with the fully articulating screen).

Been a long time since the integrated plate discussion has come up. Manufacturers (not just Canon) have avoided dealing with this issue since there is no standard. If you support one vendor's QR, you need to support them all. I don't expect that to change.

I generally don't leave a body plate mounted on my 1DXII as I mostly use it handheld or the lens mounted to a tri/mono-pod. This is true for my 6D and R6 as well. I only mount the body plate when I plan to use a tripod with a footless lens for portrait (85/135), landscape (11-24), or macro (100). If I have time to setup a tripod to get these shots, I have time to add the plate. It is quite easy with the integrated hex wrench on the RRS version I have.

Some 1DX plates are better suited for the vertical handheld situation if you choose to leave the plate on. The RRS plate is nicely rounded to provide a reasonably comfortable grip in vertical mode with the plate mounted should you wish to temporarily remove it from the tripod. I don't find it awkward but YMMV.

IMG_1314.jpeg IMG_1315.jpeg IMG_1318.jpeg

If I'm going to use the camera off -pod for any amount of time in vertical mode, I'll just remove the plate. And wonder why I brought the -pod in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,810
4,423
Been a long time since the integrated plate discussion has come up. Manufacturers (not just Canon) have avoided dealing with this issue since there is no standard. If you support one vendor's QR, you need to support them all. I don't expect that to change.

I generally don't leave a body plate mounted on my 1DXII as I mostly use it handheld or the lens mounted to a tri/mono-pod. This is true for my 6D and R6 as well. I only mount the body plate when I plan to use a tripod with a footless lens for portrait (85/135), landscape (11-24), or macro (100). If I have time to setup a tripod to get these shots, I have time to add the plate. It is quite easy with the integrated hex wrench on the RRS version I have.

Some 1DX plates are better suited for the vertical handheld situation if you choose to leave the plate on. The RRS plate is nicely rounded to provide a reasonably comfortable grip in vertical mode with the plate mounted should you wish to temporarily remove it from the tripod. I don't find it awkward but YMMV.

If I'm going to use the camera off -pod for any amount of time in vertical mode, I'll just remove the plate. And wonder why I brought the -pod in the first place.
+1 to all of it, I have exactly the same setup and for those who don’t get it guess what? It isn’t welded to the camera! It is screwed with an Allen key that is always attached to it so changing a configuration is quick and easy.

I do generally leave the body plate on though, I’ll only take it off if I am going out without a tripod.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr
Feb 15, 2020
481
335
You misunderstood then.

The R5 can shoot up to 8K 12 bit RAW, using the full width of the sensor. Of course it is a "crop" in the sense that not the full height of the 3:2 sensor is used in order to get the desired aspect ratio.

Nonetheless, 8192 x 4360 x 12 bit x 30 1/s = 12.86 Gb/s ~ 12.53 Gb/s = 8192 x 5464 x 14 bit x 20 1/s

So video throughput basically equals stills throughput in the R5. For the R3 to deliver higher FPS, either the resolution has to go down (45 MP, 20 FPS happens to be exactly the same throughput as 30 MP, 30 FPS) or the throughput has to go up. I don't think we can judge what will happen at this point, but I would think 30 MP, 30 FPS is a plausible expectation given how conservative resolution in Canon's sports body has been historically.
Thanks for doing the work but your calculations aren’t quite right. When doing 20FPS the R5 is in electronic shutter mode which is only 12bit.
 
Aug 7, 2018
76
50
According to camerasize.com the R3 is quite small compared to the 1D X Mark III. That is a little downside for me. I hope the R1 will get larger.
 

Attachments

  • Canon-EOS-R3-pro-mirrorless-camera-size-comparisons-3.jpeg
    Canon-EOS-R3-pro-mirrorless-camera-size-comparisons-3.jpeg
    199.7 KB · Views: 44

slclick

If Only Campagnolo Made Cameras
Dec 17, 2013
4,416
2,563
According to camerasize.com the R3 is quite small compared to the 1D X Mark III. That is a little downside for me. I hope the R1 will get larger.
This would actually be a dream come true for many. A compromise with more benefits than detriments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bundu

bernie_king

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 30, 2014
62
72
I have a feeling it might be 30-ish MP, the R5 does 45MPx20fps, assuming the Digic is the bottleneck, 30fps would mean 30MP.
Everyone is assuming that this camera will have the Digic X processor like the R5/1DX III. It's very possible this could have either dual-Digic X or maybe it's time for the Digic XI. Certainly Canon has newer processors in the pipeline and with the 1DX III releasing January 2020 that would mean the Digic X is probably at least 2 year old tech. My bet would be on dual Digic X for this one and a newer Digic XI for the R1.
 

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,266
463
According to camerasize.com the R3 is quite small compared to the 1D X Mark III. That is a little downside for me. I hope the R1 will get larger.
Thats quite interesting. I have a 1DXIII and it is quite large and heavy. It will be interesting if ithe R3 sheds some weight too.
The battery looks a similar size which would be useful.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
1,011
1,368
Everyone is assuming that this camera will have the Digic X processor like the R5/1DX III. It's very possible this could have either dual-Digic X or maybe it's time for the Digic XI. Certainly Canon has newer processors in the pipeline and with the 1DX III releasing January 2020 that would mean the Digic X is probably at least 2 year old tech. My bet would be on dual Digic X for this one and a newer Digic XI for the R1.
I thought when canon released the Digic X that they stated it was not going to be exactly the same for each model. The processer would be tweaked to suit the specific requirements for each body it was put in. So if that is the case, even if it has the same name, a 'Digic X' is not just a 'Digic X' so to speak. Am I correct or did I just make that up in a dream?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,405
3,747
Irving, Texas
The 1D4 was a very nice size that I prefer to the 1DX2 but for me weight is more important. Neuro, where have you been or maybe it's been me not hanging around as much?

Jack
He’s the national brain trust. Government has been keeping him very busy.:p I was very happy to see his post. Hoping to see some posts from some others who’ve been missing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,580
1,896
Hamburg, Germany
I thought when canon released the Digic X that they stated it was not going to be exactly the same for each model. The processer would be tweaked to suit the specific requirements for each body it was put in. So if that is the case, even if it has the same name, a 'Digic X' is not just a 'Digic X' so to speak. Am I correct or did I just make that up in a dream?
Your not making things up, I recall that as well from their white papers about the 1DX III.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,747
2,221
Alberta, Canada
Nope, this stuff has been on the drawing board for a long time!
I agree and now that it's unfolding it is obvious that Canon has had a plan all along and what we are seeing is pretty much according to their plan. They do not function oblivious to what's going on and they refrain from knee-jerk reactions knowing that it's the long haul that matters. Perhaps their plan is not perfect but it is well thought out.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
143
163
Gainesville,GA
I agree and now that it's unfolding it is obvious that Canon has had a plan all along and what we are seeing is pretty much according to their plan. They do not function oblivious to what's going on and they refrain from knee-jerk reactions knowing that it's the long haul that matters. Perhaps their plan is not perfect but it is well thought out.

Jack
It’s canons version of a can of whoop a$$
 
<-- start Taboola -->