Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

[Jack Douglas]

What I like about Sony is that they have not "crippled" their cameras to leave room for improvement. For a while it seemed that they wanted to put any innogvation into their latest cameras to give Canon a hard time. Canon sometimes seems to have new innovations, but saves them for a few cameras later. That is something I always hated about Canon.

This is in some ways debatable but in others, very true and that's why there was such shock over the R5, which finally ticked my boxes. It was repeatedly stated by many that a "pro" camera couldn't have a flip-out screen etc. For me my bit of disgust at Canon came with there being zero value added after the fact features with the 1DX2 - one early bug fix and that was it. Of course that's been amplified by how they are now catering to the R5, so I have mixed emotions. Have they changed their philosophy?

Jack

 

[Sporgon]

What I like about Sony is that they have not "crippled" their cameras to leave room for improvement. For a while it seemed that they wanted to put any innogvation into their latest cameras to give Canon a hard time. Canon sometimes seems to have new innovations, but saves them for a few cameras later. That is something I always hated about Canon.

This isn’t strictly true. Sony do leave or dumb down features in the cheaper models. An example that comes to mind is the EVF in the A7II. Can’t remember if this continued into the A7III.

 

[Ozarker]

Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.

You are completely out of touch. Again, you conflate your personal experience to be identical to that of everyone else in the world. Enthusiasts are the financial base of all these camera companies. All. of. them.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

There are more than 50 million millionaires in the world. If 1% of them are interested in photography, that's a lot of people that have a high budget for their hobby.

 

[canonmike]

This is in some ways debatable but in others, very true and that's why there was such shock over the R5, which finally ticked my boxes. It was repeatedly stated by many that a "pro" camera couldn't have a flip-out screen etc. For me my bit of disgust at Canon came with there being zero value added after the fact features with the 1DX2 - one early bug fix and that was it. Of course that's been amplified by how they are now catering to the R5, so I have mixed emotions. Have they changed their philosophy?

Jack

Concur with some of your commentary, Jack. Even the Canon naysayers romping in Sonyland and other realms, at least the ones in touch with reality, agree that the R5/R6s are very capable cameras. Even Hugh, with TBM&E almost thinks they're good cameras and that's really saying something, for him to go out on that limb. As to Canon's ongoing support for the R5, I think they licked their wounds after being battered around by the defection to Sony talk, real and imagined and came out deciding they would show everyone they could play hardball with the rest and have, somewhat sacrificing any support for the 1Dx2. Just bad timing, even with the 1Dxiii release, a stop gap measure imo to keep their pros happy while they shifted efforts to the R series. Noting that you are a current R5 and 1Dx2 user, I'd be interested in hearing YOUR thoughts and insight about upcoming R3 release.

 

[Del Paso]

I also forgot to mention, “Only 24 MP, so no one will buy it and Canon is d00med.”

And you forgot the naval option: "I'll jump ship".

 

[Jack Douglas]

Concur with some of your commentary, Jack. Even the Canon naysayers romping in Sonyland and other realms, at least the ones in touch with reality, agree that the R5/R6s are very capable cameras. Even Hugh, with TBM&E almost thinks they're good cameras and that's really saying something, for him to go out on that limb. As to Canon's ongoing support for the R5, I think they licked their wounds after being battered around by the defection to Sony talk, real and imagined and came out deciding they would show everyone they could play hardball with the rest and have, somewhat sacrificing any support for the 1Dx2. Just bad timing, even with the 1Dxiii release, a stop gap measure imo to keep their pros happy while they shifted efforts to the R series. Noting that you are a current R5 and 1Dx2 user, I'd be interested in hearing YOUR thoughts and insight about upcoming R3 release.

I agree with your comments. I sold my 1DX2 and only sense a slight loss of AF capability with spot AF (major in the odd circumstance - I was photographing an auto spot paint repair where the final sanding had cut throw to the grey primer and it was ever so visible but a soft dominantly horizontal transition and AF was impossible until I went to portrait orientation). Others have noted the odd AF, more general issue but compare that to the superb animal eye AF with full coverage and I have no desire to have the 1DX2. The R3, fortunately for me, does not have enough resolution, so no GAS, and it was the same with the 1DX3. The only R3 feature my R5 doesn't have that I miss is the size for use with my 400 DO but for other lenses I don't really miss the size.

Grab the R5 and it seems all my fingers fit. In action for AF-ON use etc., my hand must slide down a little and and one finger is below in thin air. I never gripped the 1DX2 in portrait orientation so I don't miss the grip for that because I'm mostly shooting wildlife.

Funny, as others have said, when I heard 24 MP I sighed in relief. Oh, and I have never had a thought of jumping ship - Canon is fine by me.

Jack

 

[Michael Clark]

It does seem really drawn out. Also, what I find odd is that we haven't seen a solid leak on the outstanding issues yet. Nothing from Nokishita. I don't see EXIF data from the olympics as being enough to tell me that the camera is 24mp (although it very well may be) as this could represent a crop mode. It could actually have multiple crop modes for all we know. With that being said, I need a fast camera. The R5 just doesn't cut it for moving objects for me. Yeah, once I get something locked, it's great, but I've lost several shots because I couldn't get a lock and others because I couldn't get enough shutter without destroying the image with high ISO noise. In the DSLR world I was more than happy shooting my 1DX II @ 20mp instead of the 36 on the 5D IV for the same reason (as I'm sure many other wildlife photographers were) so if it's 24, I'll be fine. I still have my R5 for extreme cropping.

Where can I get one of those 36MP 5D Mark IV bodies? Mine is only 30MP.

 

[Michael Clark]

What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?

Because the R3 is the official sports model? The R1 looks more and more like it will be a 1Ds type camera. Higher resolution but not as fast for non-sports shooters who do studio/fashion/portrait work.

 

[Chig]

Because the R3 is the official sports model? The R1 looks more and more like it will be a 1Ds type camera. Higher resolution but not as fast for non-sports shooters who do studio/fashion/portrait work.

Canon have repeatedly stated that the R3 is not their flagship replacement for the 1DXiii which is their Flagship model and is a sports focused body.
Where do you get this idea that the R1 will be anything other than a flagship pro sports replacement for the 1DXiii ?
There's a rumoured high mp version of the R5 which would make a lot more sense and it would fit in well with what Canon has done previously with their DSLRs :

• 1DX line - low mp fast action high fps aimed at sports pros
• 5Div 30mp - medium fps aimed at all round pros
• 5Ds & 5Dsr 50mp - low fps high resolution aimed at landscape , etc.

Mirrorless

• R3 & R1 - low mp fast action high fps aimed at sports pros
• R5 45mp - medium fps aimed at all round pros
• R5s 80mp? - low fps high resolution aimed at landscape , etc.

 

[Michael Clark]

Where do you get this idea that the R1 will be anything other than a flagship pro sports replacement for the 1DXiii ?

From Canon's history.

Before the 1D X was introduced in 2012 for over a decade there were both the APS-H lower resolution fast sports 1D series and the FF higher resolution slower 1Ds series. The 1Ds models ran about $2K more than the 1D sports models.

When Canon introduced the 1D X in 2012 they claimed to be combining the two lines.

But at the same time they upgraded the 5-Series from a high resolution FF camera with a dismal consumer grade AF system to a high resolution FF camera with the same AF system as the 1D X, better build quality and weather resistance, etc. It became a 1-series body in all but name and integrated grip with bigger battery. A LOT of the 1Ds shooters transitioned to the 5D-series, but a LOT more of other folks also bought 5D Mark III/IV bodies, particularly for shooting primarily stills (Many folks bought 5D II bodies for video), than bought 5D and 5D Mark II bodies.

At the time Canon apparently rightly reasoned that they could produce 5D Mark III bodies (and the 5D Mark IV bodies that followed in 2016) at enough of a lower cost compared to a 1-Series body with the same sensor and performance to sell them at a similar or even slightly lower profit and sell so many more of them that they would have higher net profits than if they had continued making their highest resolution bodies in a 1-series enclosure.

The world has changed since 2012 in significant ways. The types of buyers who are now buying the most expensive cameras are not the same.

Canon apparently has reasoned that they can make more money selling a body with high resolution in a 1-series enclosure than they can selling an equally capable body in a 5-series enclosure.

The difference seems to be that with fewer and fewer people making a good enough living doing full time photography to update to the latest body every time it comes out, and with fewer and fewer agencies with legions of staff photographers to outfit, the buyers of such cameras are now rich enthusiasts who would be more likely to pay $8K for a body with a "1" in the name because it is the "top of the line" than to pay $4K for a body with the same image quality performance in a 5-series type body.

 

[Michael Clark]

unfocused - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say above, with one exception:

I don't think there's any doubt that there *will* be an R1, because Canon have stated several times that the R3 is not their top of range model. The 1DXiii will retain that position after the R3 is launched, although 1Dx series owners will gradually switch over to R3 or R1.

I think we can take it for granted that there will never be a "1Dxiv", as Canon have stated that RF is the future. So, a high megapixel R1, that can compete against the Z9 and future Sony models, is inevitable.

Earlier in this thread I suggested that the R1 will ideally have 45MP (or a little more) to compete with the Z9 and a1, but I added the caveat that an ultrafast 36MP might be a possibility. I think this is very possible, because a minimum of 33MP is needed for 8K, and I can't see the R1 being launched without 8K capability. Keeping the resolution down to 33-36MP would presumably enable greater buffer capacity, faster burst rates, and CR3 files not much greater in size than those from a Sony a9ii.

33MP only works for 8K if the sensor is 16:9 instead of 3:2. You need 39MP in a 3:2 sensor to do DCP 8K after cropping the aspect ratio to 16:9 at full width.

 

[Michael Clark]

Thanks for the well thought out list, I think you're at least 50% correct.
My guess (my preferences in blue) would be:

• More than 33MP (for 8K), less than 50MP. Most likely 45MP like the R5.
• 30-40fps electronic, 20fps mechanical.
• One CF-Express B slot, one SD slot (2 CF-Express B would be preferred though).
• Focus acquisition, subject recognition and tracking equal or superior to Sony a1, a9ii and Canon R5.
• New twin Digic processors.
• Eye controlled AF, backed up by 1Dxiii-style focus point selector.
• Body shell identical in styling to R3, but beefed up and slightly larger.
• Pro-capture buffering (as per Olympus).
• High speed file automatic transfer.
• Flash sync at 1/500 with electronic shutter, if they can get a fast enough readout.

I wouldn't expect to get high speed focus stacking, as the number of individual frames stacked often runs to 60+ with macro work.
High speed automated HDR using 3-5 frames shot at maximum burst to minimise camera/subject movement is a probability.
A Nikon-style button to toggle exposure bracketing on/off would be nice!
Possibly there could be some advanced AI-driven digital zoom/crop function.

If my above guesses prove mostly accurate, it would make a superb wildlife camera...

The R1 ain't gonna' be a wildlife camera.

 

[Michael Clark]

So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.

Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?

Maybe it's a case of the shift in the market.

Fifteen years ago I never saw a white lens at a youth sports event or high school game (unless a PJ from a paper shooting Canon was there - my hometown paper was a Nikon shop). Now they're everywhere.

The market for f/2.8 zooms back then was largely limited to full time working pros, many of them shooting sports were younger males who didn't mind heavy lenses.

Now the few working pros left are many of the same men who are now 40 years older and DO mind heavy lenses. The rest are weekend warriors and "soccer moms" who don't want heavy lenses in 2021.

Just last week at a HS football game a (mostly retired) grizzled old-timer looked at me, laughed, and said, "I haven't carried three bodies at the same time in at least ten years." (I typically carry two, but I'm playing with a Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sport in addition to my normal setup). Back in the day, he'd have been on the sideline of major college football with a 400/2.8, a 70-200/2.8, and a wider lens on that third body.

 

[AEWest]

Canon have repeatedly stated that the R3 is not their flagship replacement for the 1DXiii which is their Flagship model and is a sports focused body.
Where do you get this idea that the R1 will be anything other than a flagship pro sports replacement for the 1DXiii ?
There's a rumoured high mp version of the R5 which would make a lot more sense and it would fit in well with what Canon has done previously with their DSLRs :

• 1DX line - low mp fast action high fps aimed at sports pros
• 5Div 30mp - medium fps aimed at all round pros
• 5Ds & 5Dsr 50mp - low fps high resolution aimed at landscape , etc.

Mirrorless

• R3 & R1 - low mp fast action high fps aimed at sports pros
• R5 45mp - medium fps aimed at all round pros
• R5s 80mp? - low fps high resolution aimed at landscape , etc.

You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.

Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.

Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.

Global shutter, quad-pixel AF and yes, the R3 may be a one-off like the EOS 3 (film).

 

[Jack Douglas]

You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.

Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.

Good question but we don't have an answer yet. Interesting times.

Jack

 

[JohnC]

You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.

Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.

This is a question I have as well.

 

[Chig]

You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.

Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.

I think the R3 is a test bed for the R1 and only the most reliable features (and most popular with sports pros) will make it into the R1
They did the same thing with the film cameras : the eos 3 tested new features like the eye controlled focus and 45 point AF system before they launched their eos 1v Pro sports body and the eye controlled af didn't make the cut but the 45 point AF did.
The eos 3 was the same shape and layout but a bit plastically vs the eos 1v was magnesium bodied and full on pro build

 

[AEWest]

I think the R3 is a test bed for the R1 and only the most reliable features (and most popular with sports pros) will make it into the R1
They did the same thing with the film cameras : the eos 3 tested new features like the eye controlled focus and 45 point AF system before they launched their eos 1v Pro sports body and the eye controlled af didn't make the cut but the 45 point AF did.
The eos 3 was the same shape and layout but a bit plastically vs the eos 1v was magnesium bodied and full on pro build

Okay. But the R3 will have a pro build. So I can't see there being enough daylight between a low mp R1 and an R3 in terms of features to warrant a large price difference. Not to mention the problem of self competition.
Therefore, the low mp R1 would only make sense to me if the R3 were discontinued.
Oh, and I agree with Jared Polin in his most recent video - the R3 is Canon's new flagship, not the 1DX3.