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

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
545
1,209
rant
At this point I don't care one way or the other about the R3, but can we please move on from blabbering about it being a pandemic and using that as a sole excuse for the lack of releases or availability?! This isn't a year ago when we were blindsided by this stuff and everything shut down, it's been long enough now that things can be planned around the deficiencies. Yes, we're still dealing with the fallout from the pandemic, I GET IT, but let's stop using that as the end-all-be-all for why something isn't released or why information is scarce.
/rant
Worldwide shortages are much WORSE now than a year ago. Pandemic or not, companies are NOT able to plan around the deficiencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

neurorx

EOS RP
May 12, 2015
217
168
I think the truth is that the target audience for the R3 and R1 would in reality prefer a high MP camera - wildlife and reportage photographers for a start often need to crop heavily, so it's beneficial to start with more MP.

A recent article in dpreview actually blows away (or attempts to) the myth that higher MP results in worse DR and more noise. If both sensors are of the same generation and the processor and algorithms are good enough, there is no IQ advantage to having a lower MP sensor.

And as you point out, for those who truly want a 24MP output, in order to increase buffer capacity and keep file sizes smaller, it's a simple matter to select 24MP (or thereabouts) resolution on a 45MP camera. But there again, we need to consider that most sports pros shoot JPEGs anyway, so for them, high MP presumably isn't a problem any way.

The reality I think, is that the R3 will be the (joke) affordable workhorse, while the R1 will be the high megapixel alternative for agency photographers and affluent amateurs.
Definitely THIS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,550
7,332
I think the truth is that the target audience for the R3 and R1 would in reality prefer a high MP camera - wildlife and reportage photographers for a start often need to crop heavily, so it's beneficial to start with more MP.
You should really tell Canon this, clearly they have no idea.

Rather than repeat myself, I’ll just quote myself and save the keystrokes. One of them is even in response to you. Still waiting to see your extensive market research data. Not going to hold my breath, though.

By all means, show us all the market research that you’ve conducted to support that claim. Or try to convince us the company that has consistently sold more ILCs than any other manufacturer for nearly two decades doesn’t understand their market. Go on…prove how much smarter you are than Canon.

You suggest the idea that 20-24 MP is sufficient for many people is daft, but honestly, how much real market research have you conducted? Sent out surveys to a few thousand CPS members around the world? Canon does that regularly. Tracked the camera and lens buying habits of individuals and organizations via product registrations over decades? Canon does that. Assessed what gear photographers at sporting events around the world use? Canon does that. Logged the equipment that professional photographers of all genres evaluate on loan, compared to the equipment they actually buy? Canon does that.

So please, tell me what market research you've sponsored or personally conducted to provide data on how many MP people would find sufficient. Read a few posts on the internet? You know a few people with cameras? LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,909
4,969
69
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Canon seems to regard their pro sports cameras as their flagship bodies e.g the 1DX line up

Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. The market is changing. The traditional 1 series market is dying. Canon is likely to follow the money and the money is in enthusiasts who are spending $10,000 or more on trips to Africa, Antarctica, Galapagos, etc. These consumers far outnumber the remaining top tier pro sports photographers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,909
4,969
69
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
A recent article in dpreview actually blows away (or attempts to) the myth that higher MP results in worse DR and more noise. If both sensors are of the same generation and the processor and algorithms are good enough, there is no IQ advantage to having a lower MP sensor.
The other side of the coin is the myth that lower MP sensors do not sustain cropping well. For the past year I've used a 1DX III for sports and from personal experience I can say that the 20mp sensor with the newer anti-aliasing filter outresolves previous sensors and makes it possible to crop much more radically than in the past with little loss of quality.

It's really getting to the point where all the old arguments and assumptions about sensors are less and less significant than they were even five years ago.

It is bad for the internet experts, I know. With the dynamic range improvements in Canon sensors, the "shadow noise" warriors lost their rallying cry. Now, it seems the high megapixel = high noise and the low megapixel = loss of detail warriors are both becoming irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
312
336
Wait, wait...I thought Canon hasn't announced the MP of the R3 because they were just waiting to read the responses on CanonRumors before making a final decision. I expect they're waiting until that thread hits 1000 posts, then they'll just count up the votes in there and decide what sensor to use. That's an easy change, so they can just pop the chosen sensor into the cameras as they're produced and I anticipate one will be in my hands by late September. Who knows, maybe they'll decide not to decide and they'll just offer a choice so when people order they just tick a box to choose 24, 30, 45 or 80 MP. Go Canon!

:cool::p;)
Actually, a 100mp sensor with a super secret switch in the firmware that allows them to set the size of the output. You never know…………..!

:giggle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
779
544
40
Philadelphia
They are keeping the megapixels a secret because they fear disappointment. I am sure the marketing team is prepping a glorious staatement about how 24MP is actually great on their new sensor.:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
616
687
www.diossiphotography.com
I was ready for this camera months ago and am actually in need of a 3rd camera body. I've been holding off on a second R5 for this and using my Fuji or M6 Mark II as my 3rd camera...which they have done surprisingly well. I hope these ship in late September or early October for selfish reasons, but I'm eager to have a 3rd camera with an entirely unreal set of capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
150
147
I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.
Wich is gonna be named R2 if Sony is smart enough to launch an A1 mark II just before Canon hits the market with an 45mpix cam. :) Finally some competition, but unfortunately Canon is running behind...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
150
147
Im am affraid that when I buy this 24mpix camera (for probably 6k in euro’s) I am already buying something that is outdated the moment I leave the shop. Who on earth wants 24mpix these days? Is this wat Canon calls development? It just does not make any sense to me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,407
1,176
www.flickr.com
Others will prefer a more compact and lightweight camera that accepts an accessory vertical grip, and they'll also argue that Sony cameras are more electro-efficient, and don't need the extra battery power. Horses for courses.
No argument about it. The A1 battery has about 7% more capacity than the R5 but significantly longer run time (however you want to measure it). No CFe B slot and slower bandwidth would account for some of the efficiency but the A1 does down downsample from 8.2k to 8k for instance on the fly.
I put it down to Sony's extensive PSx sensor experience since most of the processing is all video (AF tracking/EVF/storage etc) based after the sensor itself.
The only other efficiency I can think of is maybe the BSI/stacked sensor is much more efficient than the conventional FSI sensor. The R3 should have significant runtime in any case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,407
1,176
www.flickr.com
Good example is Campells soup in the early 2000s. Lots of press at the time about how sodium was 'killing' people. And yes, sodium in excess is bad for your blood pressure - all well known. Canned soup was an easy target b/c it was high in sodium. Why? Campbells and other soup companies taste test every single product with a wide demographic of people, to have as much certainty as they can that their product will be pleasing to the pallet and people will buy it. Those recipies people chose....all had 'high' amounts of sodium. Campbells caved to the media pressure (akin to if Canon caved in to what forums like these said) and lowered the sodium content of their foods. The result? Sales PLUMMET. A year later....back to the old recipe, and back to the old levels of sales.
I think that you are referring to the Bliss Point for food
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)
It applies to salt/sugar and fat which is why ice cream and in particular salted caramel ice cream is a hit to your brain. Substituting cheaper high fructose corn syrup (high tariffs on imported sugar and US subsidies) for sugar made it even sweeter = 1.5x weight for weight.

That said, it is possible to get used to lower salt/fat/sugar. I don't enjoy anything particularly sweet anymore which can only be good for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,407
1,176
www.flickr.com
It doesn't work like that at all. If they waited to see how the R3 does on the market before developing an A9III, it would end up being released around the same time as the R3 MkII. It takes years to bring product to market.

Nikon, Sony, Canon don't wait until a competitors product is announced to being developing a product in response. I don't know when the A9II was released, but rest assured that it's successor was already on the drawing board whatever that date was. Likewise, the R5 MkII & R6 MiII are already well into the pipeline - and the MkIII versions are at least on the drawing board, too.
agreed. What Sony could do is cripple (see how I did that!!) the A9iii so that it was just slightly better than the R3. Alternatively, they could postpone ie. redirect R&D resources elsewhere for any planned firmware features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,407
1,176
www.flickr.com
Really hope there's a battery war, Canon seems to ahve screwed up with the RP, R5 and R6 battery life. Its surprising when a EF batter is 3 times better and takes 3 times more shots than a new modern day battery and you're expected to pay a lot more for an R5 and R6 with a crap battery.

I'd love an R3, but will probably hold out for the affordable RF camera they're working on, put into a 5D type body that hopefully surpasses the 5D3, which hopefully uses an LP-E6 battery.
"Battery war"? For roughly the same physical size, the Sony A1 battery has about 7% more capacity than the R5 but has significantly better CIPA and real life runtime. The issue is not battery technology but sensor/processor technology and how it is implemented.

I am not sure that you understand the fundamental differences between an OVF vs EVF (including IBIS) and the power draw for them. If you run your 5Diii in live view all the time, it will give you an idea of the battery life. Noting that the LP-E6 has already had 2 capacity upgrades to LP-E6N and now LP-E6N over time.

An affordable RF body is likely to be small - at least the size of the RP or maybe similar to the Sigma fp. The battery will be even smaller than the LP-E6xx

Rent a R5/6 for a day and see how your battery life goes for your type of shooting. I don't tend to get a day's shooting when doing sports (pre-lockdown) any longer but my R5 is lighter and it is easy to carry a spare. Perhaps buy a grip if battery life is critical for your shooting.

At least you can use a LP-E6NH in your 5Diii and get even longer runtime :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Copland

I'm New Here
Jun 28, 2021
9
8
Who cares when it only has 24 MP!?
In 2019 it would have been "a date", but in 2021 it is a lame duck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 9, 2020
3
0
24 MP will not cut it, allthough I expect it's a great camera . Don't be be fooled by the everlasting (Canon) marketing trick : Let Canon hang the 1st version around your eager neck and then let them come up with a 40mp version of mirrorless one year later , i.e. the R1 ( I know , With a direct price tag off course..)
 

dboris

EOS M50
May 11, 2015
41
38
People bought the A7SIII because it's only 12 mpx.
It's THE feature.
Yet smart people here think 24 mpx is a handicap.
Yeah sure. Will probably blow the R5 sensor on DR/sensitivity/readout times, which is require for sports AND video, and more relevant than having blurry 50mp images.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users