Here is the official Canon USA press release for the Canon EOS R3

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
I think quite a few people can pay those prices. Spend 15 minutes on the internet looking at prices for African and Indian safaris, Cruises down the Amazon, Trips to Antarctica, Birding tours in Costa Rica, any National Geographic branded tour etc., all of which are usually booked a year or more in advance and you will see there are plenty of enthusiasts willing to spend a whole lot of money on these experiences. And, you can be sure most are not taking their Rebels with them.
Get real. id venture to say that 80% of these absurdly priced $6k R3 wont even be bought by individuals. They will be bought by companies to give to their employees shooting sports and photojournalism. 95% of the people posting here wont even sniff this camera much less have the money to buy it. One of these things and a couple RF L lenses will set you back $12,000 which is actually beyond absurd. Especially when you consider you can get an a9II and a couple GM lenses for $4,000 less. Hell, I can put together a nice Hasselblad MF kit that costs thousands less than the R3 and RF lenses lol. Canon has lost their minds.
 

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
Canon have had $6K cameras and expensive lenses for a long time. They’ve gained market share.

JDavis, meet Facts. Facts, meet JDavis.

Hopefully the introduction helps, clearly you two were unacquainted. Sadly, I suspect you’re heard of Facts but formed an instant dislike and have ignored them since.
Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,824
4,272
Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs.
Nikon led the market in the 80s. And 90s. Canon didn’t become the market leader until DSLRs took over.

If you were trying to sound like a jerk in addition to a fool, at least you’ve succeeded at something!!

You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later.
It’s obvious you really have no ability to understand facts or reality, but for the benefit of those who can here are the market share data from 2020:

505D1B4C-2389-47A2-991A-7495363561BB.jpeg


Note that Canon dominates the market, with over double the share of Sony, and that Canon had bigger gains last year.

I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass

Canon sold >220,000 more cameras in 2020 than they sold in 2019. You are irrelevant.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.
If you go to B&H and select RF and Sony E lenses and then select FF (to weed out the Sony APS-c lenses) and price High to low, you will see that your argument re Sony glass doesn't hold water. The 400mm and 600mm Big Whites are exactly $1 apart between Sony and Canon. As you go down the list Canon wins some slots and Sony others, but there is no huge discrepancy for high end glass. If you love Tamron and Sigma, your argument has more basis, but remember that Sony owns a fair chunk of Tamron and Sigma has openly joined the L-mound alliance, so If I were Canon, I would be quite cautious about sharing too much info on the inner workings of the RF system with either of those vendors any sooner than necessary, and in a shrinking market handing over business to third parties doesn't make sense. Also, if you think Canon had the market to themselves in the 80's, you must not have been alive then, because Minolta was a very big dog and the first with a working AF system (that sold very well BTW).
 

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
212
226
Gainesville,GA
only you would think that no one else cares i guess it says a lot about you
It absolute does say a lot. It says I’ll buy what I prefer assuming I can afford it and I don’t much care whether someone else agrees with it or not. It also says I think everyone else has the same right, despite whether I agree with what they buy or not.

What I find bothersome however, is someone making it their business to criticize what others choose to spend their hard earned money on.

Like I said before, if you don’t like whatever it is, the don’t buy it that is your choice. Just don’t make it your personal mission to convince everyone else that you are “correct”.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
320
702
Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.

The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are either a Sony troll, or a complete fool.

Nikon was the market leader in the 80's.
Sony lenses are quite expensive as well. To say they are thousands of dollars less is an outright lie.
I assume you know that you can use EF lenses on R system cameras - meaning that you can get pro quality "L" glass used for quite reasonable prices - but you choose to ignore it.
Your statement that you dumped your R6, RP and RF glass makes no sense whatsoever. This apparently means that you already owned RF glass which apparently was within your price range.
 

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are either a Sony troll, or a complete fool.

Nikon was the market leader in the 80's.
Sony lenses are quite expensive as well. To say they are thousands of dollars less is an outright lie.
I assume you know that you can use EF lenses on R system cameras - meaning that you can get pro quality "L" glass used for quite reasonable prices - but you choose to ignore it.
Your statement that you dumped your R6, RP and RF glass makes no sense whatsoever. This apparently means that you already owned RF glass which apparently was within your price range.
I said "arguably better quality cameras and equally good glass for thousands less". That is true. Price an R3 vs an a9II and you're already $1400 in the hole, and every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version. So add in a couple R(O)F L lenses, and you are indeed thousands of dollars more expensive. Oh, use EF glass? You mean with one of those adapters that haven't been in stock for 8 months? Its quite obvious that Canon is intentionally shorting those to force people into buying their absurdly priced RF glass. Besides, why on earth would I want to put 20 year old glass designed for film cameras on my brand new $2500 mirrorless camera? lol. Just stop being a Canon apologist.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,824
4,272
That is true. Price an R3 vs an a9II and you're already $1400 in the hole, and every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version. So add in a couple R(O)F L lenses, and you are indeed thousands of dollars more expensive.
Once you add the vertical grip and an extra battery to the Sony package to match the R3, the a9 II with the f/2.8 ‘trinity’ costs $1500 less than the R3 with the similar trinity (starting at 15mm instead of 16mm). The lenses are $200 more each, and that’s after Canon raised their lens prices by $100.

Is $1500 really ‘thousands of dollars more expensive’? Maybe it just seems that way to you. Or maybe your math skills are as abysmal as your factual knowledge.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
I said "arguably better quality cameras and equally good glass for thousands less". That is true. Price an R3 vs an a9II and you're already $1400 in the hole, and every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version. So add in a couple R(O)F L lenses, and you are indeed thousands of dollars more expensive. Oh, use EF glass? You mean with one of those adapters that haven't been in stock for 8 months? Its quite obvious that Canon is intentionally shorting those to force people into buying their absurdly priced RF glass. Besides, why on earth would I want to put 20 year old glass designed for film cameras on my brand new $2500 mirrorless camera? lol. Just stop being a Canon apologist.
I am not going to waste the time to put a spreadsheet together, but this link, starting at top points out that you are simply a liar. $1 is not $300. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...ses,fct_lens-mount_3442:canon-rf|sony-e-mount
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
Congrats, you cherry picked the ONE lens thats close in price. Now try the other 99% and get back to me...
 

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
Once you add the vertical grip and an extra battery to the Sony package to match the R3, the a9 II with the f/2.8 ‘trinity’ costs $1500 less than the R3 with the similar trinity (starting at 15mm instead of 16mm). The lenses are $200 more each, and that’s after Canon raised their lens prices by $100.

Is $1500 really ‘thousands of dollars more expensive’? Maybe it just seems that way to you. Or maybe your math skills are as abysmal as your factual knowledge.
Thats the other reason I left Canon. Many companies are lowering prices. Canon is RAISING prices on lenses, lenses they can't even manufacture in a timely manner, leaving their customers who have ordered them sitting around for months. They have become a joke.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Viggo and H. Jones

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,824
4,272
Thats the other reason I left Canon. Many companies are lowering prices. Canon is RAISING prices on lenses, lenses they can't even manufacture in a timely manner, leaving their customers who have ordered them sitting around for months. They have become a joke.
Your posts are a joke. Why do you think other ILC manufacturers are lowering their prices? Because they have oodles of love for their customers and want to make them happy? Lol. It’s because they are not effectively competing with the market leader – Canon.

Meanwhile, Canon believes they can raise prices and still maintain market dominance. You probably think they’re wrong, but their >18 years of market leadership suggests they know a lot more about selling cameras that some rando on the internet who can’t even get simple facts right.
 

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
212
226
Gainesville,GA
Your posts are a joke. Why do you think other ILC manufacturers are lowering their prices? Because they have oodles of love for their customers and want to make them happy? Lol. It’s because they are not effectively competing with the market leader – Canon.

Meanwhile, Canon believes they can raise prices and still maintain market dominance. You probably think they’re wrong, but their >18 years of market leadership suggests they know a lot more about selling cameras that some rando on the internet who can’t even get simple facts right.
Your first paragraph was my first thought when I read that post.

On another note, I’m not sure I believe Sony actually compensates people to do this “trolling”. I think Sony is a pretty smart company so it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t get better quality argusmenta out there if they were going to pay for the service.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
Congrats, you cherry picked the ONE lens thats close in price. Now try the other 99% and get back to me...
Let's see, the second one is also $1 difference. The Sony 100-400 is $300 cheaper than the 100-500, but for the difference you get another 100mm. The 70-200 f/2.8 is $200 more than the Sony, but also much smaller and lighter and also sharper in the corners. The 70-200 f/4 is $100 more than the Sony, but smaller and lighter. The 15-35 f/2.8 is $200 more than the Sony and for that you get an extra mm on the wide end . The 85mm f/1.8 is $1 more than the Sony. None of that adds up to "all RF lenses are $300 more than their Sony counterparts". The 50mm f/1.2 and the 85 f/1.2 are noticeably more expensive than Sony counterparts, but then Sony don't have an 85 f/1.2 and when they have something special like the 14-24 f/2.8, they are perfectly happy to ask the big bucks. Most of us here would be happy to pay a few dollars more to avoid the miserably awkward Sony UI, but if that is your choice, go for it. In reality, I suspect your problem is that you can't mortgage your tent for enough to buy any FF lens, so you spend your time venting instead of getting a job.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
737
1,438
On another note, I’m not sure I believe Sony actually compensates people to do this “trolling”. I think Sony is a pretty smart company so it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t get better quality argusmenta out there if they were going to pay for the service.

Is there a Sony tipline where I can report JDavis for throwing Sony's money away? If they're paying him they are absolutely not getting their money's worth out of it.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
Thats the other reason I left Canon. Many companies are lowering prices. Canon is RAISING prices on lenses, lenses they can't even manufacture in a timely manner, leaving their customers who have ordered them sitting around for months. They have become a joke.
Any camera company lowering prices in the current inflationary market is having trouble selling their wares (i.e. in danger of losing market share).
 

swkitt

EOS M50
Dec 8, 2015
37
26
In fact, if you shoot birds, even 500mm isn't enough. My standard combo is an EF 500mm + 1.4x TC, which gives 700mm. With my 7D2 is a kind of good compromise between enough "reach", i.e. details for further cropping (if enough light is avaiable), and increasing problems coming with the atmosphere such as haze, dust, thermal blur etc.
This is very depending on the place you live, the kind of birds you shoot, how close you can get and so on. Also your style if you are a bird close up addict or if you want the bird in its environment. Living in Iceland I do not need any longer than 500, and I'm currently shooting most of my good frames between 300 and 400. It's good to have extra reach, but not a necessity IMO.