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

[Del Paso]

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.

Looks like we have a new ship-jumping troll.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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).

View attachment 200589

Great catch, both for you as a photographer and the heron! So you came quite close.

I have a collection of our herons here in the city area of Frankfurt feeding on mice, but those images are a bit brutal, here's one. Our herons normally do not accept that close distances, mainly because not everyone here is nice to them.

 

[bernie_king]

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.

Nikon was the big dog in the 80's with Canon and Minolta scrapping it out for number 2. There were also several other companies (Olympus, Pentax, etc...) that had decent market share. When Sony bought Minolta, they were #3 so they had that head start entering the market. Minolta was late to the DSLR party and started losing maret share. By then Konica (who owned Minolta) had outsourced much of their lens production to Tamron and their own lens production had ground to a slow crawl and much of that was cancelled by Sony when they took over. That was the reason I moved to Canon. Sony opened up their mount to 3rd parties, not to be benevolent to their users, but because they had no choice. Without 3rd parties, they would've had almost no lenses. After that, the toothpaste was out of the tube and there was no way to get it back in. Canon (and I believe Nikon) never opened up their mount to 3rd parties... didn't need to. There are still holes in the Sony lineup that need filled, and it's likely they still outsource significant lens production to Tamron (and Zeiss). As far as comparing prices on lenses, Canon knows that the move to mirrorless will start at the higher end and that those users are willing to pay a few hundred more for better glass. They will have more "affordable" glass eventually, but for now you can just adapt EF glass (and yes, the adapters can be found... it just takes some looking). At the moment Canon sells every MILC and RF lenses as fast as they can make them, so it looks like the strategy is working.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Nikon was the big dog in the 80's with Canon and Minolta scrapping it out for number 2.

A funny twist of history was that originally Canon made the cameras, based on Leica's M39 rangefinder screw mount, and Nikon made the lenses, so they co-operated peacefully for many years after WW II. Then, in the 50s, the famous US photographer David Douglas Duncan learned about Nikon's lenses and realized that they are sharper than Leica's comparable offerings back then. He started to use them and made Nikon known in the US. Quickly, those Japanese lenses grew extremely popular amongst pro's. Later, when Nikon produced their first SLR's and lenses for their new F mount, it was easy for them to swallow market shares from Leica in the pro segment, which was soon realized by engaged amateurs. That was the start of Nikon's success story. But in the 80s and 90s, Nikon was too settled and too slow, so Canon took over with affordable SLRs with new electronic features. In particular, in the 90s, Canon offered the fast USM AF drives, whereas Nikon stuck with their micromotor screw driver sort of in-camera drives. Canon was more free with their clean new designed EF mount to move on.

That said, I still love Nikon's mechanical SLRs like my old FM-2. Those cameras work always, and if the battery for the metering is down, you still can use the sunny 16 sort of rules...

 

[Del Paso]

Great catch, both for you as a photographer and the heron! So you came quite close.

I have a collection of our herons here in the city area of Frankfurt feeding on mice, but those images are a bit brutal, here's one. Our herons normally do not accept that close distances, mainly because not everyone here is nice to them. View attachment 200599

Stunning picture, I really love it!

 

[MiJax]

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.

This is what I consider too much for the intended audience. I can understand why they saw this as a marked improvement, however, I don't see it as terribly good. Let's just say a global shutter has a real value in this type of shooting.