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

[AlanF]

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 Sony 200-600mm is £1599 in the UK as opposed to £2979 for the RF 100-500mm, so you get an extra 100mm for £1380 less from Sony (and an f/6.3). Choose your arguments carefully. I'm a very happy 100-500mm user, not a troll. I just can't stand these stupid Canon-Sony wars.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The Sony 200-600mm is £1599 in the UK as opposed to £2979 for the RF 100-500mm, so you get an extra 100mm for £1380 less from Sony (and an f/6.3). Choose your arguments carefully. I'm a very happy 100-500mm user, not a troll. I just can't stand these stupid Canon-Sony wars.

Me too, it becomes embarrassingly childish. That's my thought relative to the actual gear.

However, it is challenging to have to be exposed to nonsense and say nothing - it takes a lot of willpower. Think of it this way, if everyone gets to lie and never gets challenged society will fracture. Hmm, I guess the virus illustrates this pretty well (at least here in Alberta). Not to mention a Canadian election, where lying is an art.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Me too, it becomes embarrassingly childish. That's my thought relative to the actual gear.

However, it is challenging to have to be exposed to nonsense and say nothing - it takes a lot of willpower. Think of it this way, if everyone gets to lie and never gets challenged society will fracture. Hmm, I guess the virus illustrates this pretty well (at least here in Alberta). Not to mention a Canadian election, where lying is an art.

Jack

Trouble is, there are those who when you try and lay out the facts will redouble their efforts and never back down. I have a few rules for myself: I'll comment only when I have my own direct first-hand experience; when I know the theoretical basis in optics and physics; when there are reliable evidential data available; or those I trust have relayed equivalently reliable evidence. If people can get so worked up about camera brands, I wonder what they can get up to in the name of politics, religion etc...

 

[Dragon]

The Sony 200-600mm is £1599 in the UK as opposed to £2979 for the RF 100-500mm, so you get an extra 100mm for £1380 less from Sony (and an f/6.3). Choose your arguments carefully. I'm a very happy 100-500mm user, not a troll. I just can't stand these stupid Canon-Sony wars.

Interesting. The 200-600 is $1998 in the US and the 100-500 is $2799, so "only" $800 difference. I, too hate the troll wars, but if you follow the thread back, I was jut trying to establish that the all-inclusive statements that the original troll was making were patent BS.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Interesting. The 200-600 is $1998 in the US and the 100-500 is $2799, so "only" $800 difference. I, too hate the troll wars, but if you follow the thread back, I was jut trying to establish that the all-inclusive statements that the original troll was making were patent BS.

Also, the original statement ws, "Every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version," and the Sony 200-600mm is not a GM lens (though from the Optical Limits review, it seems it's as-good-as, has weather sealing, etc., all-in-all an excellent lens).

 

[AlanF]

Interesting. The 200-600 is $1998 in the US and the 100-500 is $2799, so "only" $800 difference. I, too hate the troll wars, but if you follow the thread back, I was jut trying to establish that the all-inclusive statements that the original troll was making were patent BS.

Ido appreciate that you were responding. It's very annoying in the UK that Canon is charging us about 15% more than it does the rest of Europe - the price in euros is close to the price in GBP for these new products and we have the same warranty requirements. Nikon and Sony have very similar pricing in the EU and UK. Taking the tax off the 100-500mm and converting the tax free price to USD gives $3400, that's $600 or 21% more. Do the same calculations with the Sony 200-600mm gives a tax-free price here in USD of $1825, which is lower than the US price.

 

[Michael Clark]

The price is reflective of the customer base they are selling to and totally ignoring competition. We have a supply chain shortage and enough folks who won't touch anything else, don't want to change systems, head in the sand, whatever other reasons for Canon to sell as many as they are able to make for the time being. I will buy this camera because I still own most of my RF line up and I have GAS issues, but unless it has some GODLY AF eye control etc, I do not see how it is worth 6 grand by any means. Like I have posted before, my R5, A1 both take grips and haven't had issues getting wet with them. Also pretty sure 2 e6nh batteries last longer than 1 e19. The integrated grip is more ergos than anything else. You will end up needing more than 1 battery.

11V will still drive heavy AF lens elements faster than 7.2V will. That was one of the main advantages of the 1D series over the 5D series.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

What companies still issue thousands of bodies to thousands of employees? Now the vast majority of them pay independent freelancers (i.e. their former employees) to shoot using their own equipment for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made when using the company's gear.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Actually, Nikon had about 75% of the pro market (among those pros who shot 135 format film) in the 1980s. It wasn't until the introduction of the Ultra Sonic Motor in the original EF 300mm f/2.8 that made autofocus faster and at least as equally accurate than seasoned pros could manually focus which caused many pros to abandon Nikon for Canon in the 1990s.

 

[Michael Clark]

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!!


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:

View attachment 200270

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



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

Canon actually overtook Nikon's market share among pros shooting 135 format about half a decade after the introduction of the all electronic EOS mount and USM lenses beginning with the EF 300mm f/2.8 in 1987, and then the EOS-1 in 1989. But many pros at the time were shooting MF and LF and continued to use Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Sinars, etc.

 

[Michael Clark]

And my Renault Espace III got me 300000 troublefree kilometers before I sold it (still running!).
My sister's current Clio III: 234000 km. with only a leaking rear brake caliper, that's it! She sold her first one, only defect a coolant thermostat, at 240000 km., car got scrapped at km. 315000...

Meanwhile, the last car I sold was a Toyota Corolla with over 300,000 miles (483,000 km) on the odometer and it was still going strong...

 

[Michael Clark]

I disagreed with Gordon's assessment of the rolling shutter actually. Here he is saying, "look, no rolling shutter" while the pole is clearly leaning, but I do understand it isn't terrible. Check out Polin's review, it shows a couple of kicked soccer balls showcasing the distortion. This has got to have some of the intended audience a little uncomfortable to use the eShutter and not very happy to slow down to 12 fps when perfect geometry is needed. For wildlife I think that level of rolling shutter would be fine, but for a baseball, golf or a soccer photographer that's going to be a problem. Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.

Mechanical shutters do not provide perfect geometry, either. If one looks at images from the 1DX Mark III taken using the mechanical shutter just as critically as one looks at images taken with electronic shutter, there's not that much difference between the R3 with ES and the 1D X Mark III with MS.

 

[Michael Clark]

I disagreed with Gordon's assessment of the rolling shutter actually. Here he is saying, "look, no rolling shutter" while the pole is clearly leaning, but I do understand it isn't terrible. Check out Polin's review, it shows a couple of kicked soccer balls showcasing the distortion. This has got to have some of the intended audience a little uncomfortable to use the eShutter and not very happy to slow down to 12 fps when perfect geometry is needed. For wildlife I think that level of rolling shutter would be fine, but for a baseball, golf or a soccer photographer that's going to be a problem. Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.

There's also the possibility that they've designed a new shutter that has a faster transit time at the expense of a slower reset time... possibly by reducing wear and tear enough during reset it can have a longer shutter life rating even though the faster transit time increases wear and tear during exposure over previous designs?

 

[Michael Clark]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There no valid argument where you "protect" an $8,000 camera by dumbing down the capabilities of a $6,000 one. If you find yourself legitimately doing that, the design process went astray somewhere. I'll accept the need have a lower res differentiate the two, but to hamper the very people the camera was designed specifically for (professional sports photographers) is odd. There are very few things this group puts a premium on, and fps is one of them. I suspect some have already switched to the R5, so this will not be terribly jarring for those, but the others...hmmm. They may not like that their new body needs to be shot at speeds slower than they had 10 years ago in the original 1DX. Either way, don't let my opinion color your view of the camera, I'm sure its good. Canon seldom gets it wrong, but this one has more compromises than I would have liked for the premium price tag.

At 12 fps it matches the 2012 1D X when refocusing or remetering between each frame is required. To get 14 fps with the 1D X one had to leave the mirror locked up with fixed focus and exposure for the entire sequence.

Ten years ago in 2011 the fastest fps rate in Canon land was the 16.1 MP APS-H 1D Mark IV that had a buffer limited to 28 raw and 121 large fine JPEGs. Oh, and only 10 fps.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

They probably do pay trolls who are actually good at it.

Imagine being a troll and not being a good enough troll to be able to get Sony to pay you, though?

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

They're not paying him. He doesn't troll up to their standards. Imagine how that must make him feel?

 

[Del Paso]

Meanwhile, the last car I sold was a Toyota Corolla with over 300,000 miles (483,000 km) on the odometer and it was still going strong...

Impressed...
Yet, a friend of mine scrapped his Renault Megane 2 with the original 1,5 litre diesel at 880,000 kms.
Unfortunately the newer tiny turbocharged engine are no longer designed to last that long, whether Toyota or Moskvitch .
Thanks God, there's still Canon...

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

Ah, in Iceland you can get closer to some birds, that's true. But I still used my 500mm quite frequently. I love to catch many details or even bird a portrait, if possible. Here is one example of a great norther diver who suddenly surfaced in front of us at Myvatn, distance maybe 10 meters. Catched this image with my EF 500mm F/4.5 + 1.4x Extender Mk III, that time on my old 5D3. I just had that combo attached because I was shooting flying terns at that lucky moment.

Btw you are really lucky to live in Iceland - but unfortunately there is now too much cheapo mass tourism now. Twenty years ago, it was much nicer to travel around in Iceland.

 

[JohnC]

They probably do pay trolls who are actually good at it.

Imagine being a troll and not being a good enough troll to be able to get Sony to pay you, though?

I suspect there might be a person or two here feeling picked on right about now .

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ah, in Iceland you can get closer to some birds, that's true. But I still used my 500mm quite frequently. I love to catch many details or even bird a portrait, if possible. Here is one example of a great norther diver who suddenly surfaced in front of us at Myvatn, distance maybe 10 meters. Catched this image with my EF 500mm F/4.5 + 1.4x Extender Mk III, that time on my old 5D3. I just had that combo attached because I was shooting flying terns at that lucky moment.

Btw you are really lucky to live in Iceland - but unfortunately there is now too much cheapo mass tourism now. Twenty years ago, it was much nicer to travel around in Iceland.View attachment 200587

Lovely shot. Yes, some places and some species allow much closer approaches. This was with the EOS M2 and EF-M 55-200mm (at 200mm).