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

MiJax

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 30, 2016
56
57
California
www.flickr.com
Yay! I was so disappointed when I learned it would be 24mp. Now that it is officially announced and I see it has 24.1 I am really stoked!
I'm still disappointed about the res, but the rest for me has been a little meh... Obviously, it has good features that aren't on my R5, but all the great features were previously introduced on the A1 or the ancient A9 with the exception of the eye control. This is kinda what I expected from Nikon's Z9, not the R3. The R5 really got my expectations sky high, but Canon grounded me today. Overall, it looks like a fine camera, but not what I was hoping for. However, judging from the rolling shutter, the intended users might give this body a harder time than people think. The distorted soccer balls are a little concerning. Unfortunately the fix is downgrading the speed from what they are used to on the other 1DXs in mechanical shutter.
 
Last edited:

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
Yepp, Canon was, is, and will be do_Oo_O:ped. Good that they still fare quite well, given shrinking camera markets. Canon's most important product is society safety and collective mental health anyway, since they provide an important valve for all the hate steam overpressure that tends to build up on digital photography related sites.

That said, I am pretty sure that even 12k 240 fps full RAW video in such a camera wouldn't (1) improve many people's skills as photographers/videographers substantially and (2) wouldn't stop haters from finding something to hate, since it is ... erm ... a Canon product.

Now two serious comments:
(1) Canon still supports dual CF and SD cards, not XQD. Personally, I like that.
(2) dual pixel, no quad pixel AF, as was discussed here. So you better shoot action in landscape, not portrait, with the R3 I guess...
If they keep up this $6k camera and $3k lens garbage, they will bleed marketshare. They may not care though. They can take the Apple route and prioritize profit over marketshare. But this isn't the smartphone market and $6 cameras and $3k lenses are luxury items. How many people do you think can pay those prices? The absurdly priced $6 R3 makes the a9II look like a steal at only $4500, and many were crying about that being expensive not too long ago. All Canon are doing is pricing themselves out of the market and sending potential customers (and those of us sick of their greed) straight to Sony and Nikon.
 

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
You have the a9 II at $4500 there? Damn. In Europe it's above the equivalent of $6k, with VAT.





If it retails for that price...This better have unlimited buffer, unlike the alpha 1.
Otherwise, Canon may have shot their foot, this time.

...and you can get them for $4k or less used on various forums. Ive seen them going as low as $3,800. The R3 (like everything else RF) is absurdly overpriced.
 
Last edited:

JDavis

EOS M50
Jun 29, 2021
29
29
I looked at the A9ii before I switched to Canon from Sony. If you’re comparing photo specs then sure, there’s an argument to be made, however in my opinion and the reason I switched to Canon is the A9 is a one trick pony and not a serious video camera. It only shoots 4K 30 8 bit color, and is missing Sony’s picture profiles meaning grading video footage is basically non-negotiable. That’s where the R3 can justify the price over the A9ii. 6k 60, 4K 120 with no crop, and 10 bit color with c Log 3 (which is a dream to grade btw).

Ultimately I’ll never own either because the R6 has been more than sufficient for my needs as a hybrid sports shooter (and I lost my tail when I sold my Sony stuff to make the swap) but if I had the money and you put them both on the table I’ll take the R3. So I guess my point is if the R3 is a $4500 camera then the A9ii is a $3500 camera, problem solved.
Im a photographer, couldn't care less about video. If I was a videographer, I would buy a VIDEO camera. Both Sony and Canon have an entire line of them to choose from...
 
  • Like
Reactions: m4ndr4ke

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,121
4,713
If they keep up this $6k camera and $3k lens garbage, they will bleed marketshare.
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.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,418
4,072
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...How many people do you think can pay those prices? ...All Canon are doing is pricing themselves out of the market...

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.
 
Sep 14, 2021
2
4
Im a photographer, couldn't care less about video. If I was a videographer, I would buy a VIDEO camera. Both Sony and Canon have an entire line of them to choose from...
And if you were a hybrid shooter you’d by a hybrid camera which the R3 is and the A9 II isn’t or at least not a serious one. There’s a reason these companies continue to develop high end photography cameras that can be used for production level videos. I clearly said I’m a hybrid shooter so the specs make sense to me. Have a great day.
 
Sep 5, 2021
2
3
Why are people so upset about it being 24 Mp? Are you all printing or posting on Instagram?
I got to play with the camera for a bit and honestly it's a joy to use. I'm pretty objective with cameras since it's my job to not be biased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
526
510
I'm still disappointed about the res, but the rest for me has been a little meh... Obviously, it has good features that aren't on my R5, but all the great features were previously introduced on the A1 or the ancient A9 with the exception of the eye control. This is kinda what I expected from Nikon's Z9, not the R3. The R5 really got my expectations sky high, but Canon grounded me today. Overall, it looks like a fine camera, but not what I was hoping for. However, judging from the rolling shutter, the intended users might give this body a harder time than people think. The distorted soccer balls are a little concerning. Unfortunately the fix is downgrading the speed from what they are used to on the other 1DXs in mechanical shutter.
What rolling shutter? Read Gordon Laing's review.
 

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
589
492
In Australia, AUD8,399.00 (incl GST) - actually a little less than I was expecting given the dire exchange rate - but way too rich for my needs or even realistic wants.
 

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,081
1,553
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
I meant the current 1DXiii's 16fps mechanical shutter. It would be more expensive than the R5's mechanical shutter but is certainly durable.
I get what you meant. And I have no doubt they could have put it in. But why? A stronger, faster, heavier shutter simply puts more load through the camera and if you have 30fps with the ES then you don't really need 16fps mech (it can also do 15 and 3fps ES apparently). Putting in a slightly slower MS will reduce the load the body has to endure (even if only by the smallest amount) which will add to durability. On the 1dx series they had no choice but to put the fastest MS in they possibly could but this time they have that choice. Consider it the equivalent to a rev limiter on an engine to increase the lifespan of the engine.