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

[neuroanatomist]

He actually might know better. A company is only as good as it's employees which are just regular people that don't know everything.

Personally, I’ll believe regular people with actual data to support their decisions over some rando spouting his/her opinion on the internet, every time. Sure, companies make mistakes, and a 24 MP R3 might be one. But again – we’re talking about the data-driven decision of the company that’s dominated the ILC market for nearly two decades compared to a personal opinion. You want to bet on the latter, go for it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's fine to state facts, it's fine to state your *opinion*, it's fine to *disagree* with people.

But why are your posts always so self-righteous and condescending?

You really need to dump that superiority complex.

ri·dic·u·lous /rəˈdikyələs/ adjective
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

Ridiculous statements (such as one individual claiming to know what sensor MP count is desired by ‘the vast majority of people’) engender ridicule.

 

[neurorx]

Lol. I’m not the one making unsupported claims like, “The vast majority of people would rather have higher MP.” I’ve never claimed to have data, but Canon does, and they have (presumably) chosen to launch the R3 with 24 MP.


Ahhh, so that’s why the 60 MP Sony a7R IV costs so much more than the 12 MP a7S III…oh, wait, they both launched at the same $3500 price.

As I stated before, what this boils down to is Canon’s data says their target market will buy the R3 at 24 MP, but you want more and you’re flailing around for reasons why Canon isn’t giving you what you want instead of just accepting the facts as they are.

I am curious and do wonder if the R3 will attract significant 1DX2/3 users. I would think most would want to wait to see what the R1 would offer. They already likely have the glass and an awesome camera...

 

[entoman]

Lol. I’m not the one making unsupported claims like, “The vast majority of people would rather have higher MP.” I’ve never claimed to have data, but Canon does, and they have (presumably) chosen to launch the R3 with 24 MP.


Ahhh, so that’s why the 60 MP Sony a7R IV costs so much more than the 12 MP a7S III…oh, wait, they both launched at the same $3500 price.

As I stated before, what this boils down to is Canon’s data says their target market will buy the R3 at 24 MP, but you want more and you’re flailing around for reasons why Canon isn’t giving you what you want instead of just accepting the facts as they are.

I never stated or implied that megapixel size was the *only* factor in pricing. Sony and Canon pricing, like every other company, takes many factors into account. Production runs, development costs, projected sales, how much they believe the customer is willing to pay, and much more. I'm not going to try and list factors specific to the Sony models you mention, as I don't closely follow the actions of a brand that I have no interest in purchasing. And of course, I don't have access to the data listed above.

But one thing is very clear, and it has been mentioned many times in interviews with various camera company executives on dpreview, Imaging Resource and elsewhere - namely that it costs a lot more to manufacture a high megapixel sensor than a lower resolution one, primarily because yield rates are considerably lower (particularly with larger sensors). Additionally, high megapixel sensors typically require more powerful processors to shift the data, which make a huge difference to cost. So there you have 2 major reasons what a low res camera is a lot cheaper to produce than a high res model, and that is reflected in the selling price.

It may very well be the case that Canon have conducted surveys and been told that their target users for the R3 have stated that they prefer 24MP. But that preference is based on the misconception that lower megapixel cameras produce less noise and have better DR. That was certainly true a decade ago, and the false myth has persisted and still affects people's purchasing decisions. But the myth has been blown:

DPReview TV: Why lower resolution sensors are not better in low light

A common belief in the camera world is that lower resolution cameras – and larger pixels – perform better in low light. In this video we illustrate why you should question that bit of conventional wisdom.

www.dpreview.com

The effect of pixel size on noise

A quick look at why, in most circumstances, a larger sensor will make much more difference to your images quality than the size of your pixels.

www.dpreview.com

People are slowly becoming aware (thanks to dpr) that the deciding factor is *not* the size of the pixels, but the underlying technology and year of design/manufacture. As this knowledge spreads, people will realise there are considerable benefits to opting for a higher MP sensor, and may be willing to spend more to obtain them.

 

[entoman]

Ridiculous statements (such as one individual claiming to know what sensor MP count is desired by ‘the vast majority of people’) engender ridicule.

You persistently adopt a condescending and self-righteous tone when replying to forum posters. I find them embarrassing to read, and I've no doubt that other posters often find them not only unjustified and unnecessary, but offensive. Ridiculing others is a sign of immaturity.

 

[unfocused]

It is impossible for anyone on this forum to know what specifications for any camera or lens can be attributed to market research and what specifications are attributable to engineering or financial decisions.

While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions.

Here are a couple of examples. If Canon conducted market research asking potential customers if they would prefer that a 70-200mm f2.8 lens can or cannot take a 1.4 extender, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most customers would have picked the ability to take an extender. Similarly, if Canon polled customers and asked them if they wanted a 100-500 mm lens to have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or f7.1 at the long end, or that such a lens would take an extender through its full range or only from 300mm onward, it's safe to assume most customers would choose the faster lens and the wider zoom range.

But, market research cannot overcome design limitations and the decisions that limited the features of these lenses certainly came down to design issues, balanced against an informed decision about what the downsides might be for marketing the lenses.

Which brings us to the R3. None of us knows which of the features of the R3 were determined by market research and which were determined by design and budget considerations. A 24mp sensor will certainly move data faster than a 45mp sensor. A 24mp sensor will certainly clear the buffer faster than a 45mp sensor. Could a 45mp sensor move data as fast and clear the buffer as quickly as the 1Dx III? I imagine that may very well be a financial decision -- To hit the price point of the R3, which will be below the 1Dx III, I doubt if Canon wanted to invest in design and manufacturing changes that added significant costs over the 1Dx III.

There is also the great unknown -- the rumored R1. No one on this forum has any idea what the features of the R1 will be (or even if there will be an R1). But, we can all assume that the R1, if it materializes, will be "better" than the R3. We just don't know what "better" means, even though everyone has an opinion on that.

All this is a long winded way of saying it might be prudent to dial down the insults a bit since we all are posting from a position of ignorance.

 

[entoman]

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

People are slowly becoming aware (thanks to dpr) that the deciding factor is *not* the size of the pixels, but the underlying technology and year of design/manufacture. As this knowledge spreads, people will realise there are considerable benefits to opting for a higher MP sensor, and may be willing to spend more to obtain them.

Those with a decent level of technical knowledge have known this for a long while. But again, look at Sony where the native ISO range of the 60 MP a7R IV is 100-32,000 and the native ISO range of the 12 MP a7S III is 80-102,400. Real or mythical, it’s people’s perceptions that matter.

Regardless, Canon is in the business making cameras that consumers in the target market want to buy. More MP may be ‘better for them’, but McDonalds customers don’t want low-salt, sugar-free fries even though they’re ‘better for them’.

 

[Stuart]

https://www.photographyshow.com/ - Yeah Canon bring a load along to show off please.

 

[sanj]

It is impossible for anyone on this forum to know what specifications for any camera or lens can be attributed to market research and what specifications are attributable to engineering or financial decisions.

While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions.

Here are a couple of examples. If Canon conducted market research asking potential customers if they would prefer that a 70-200mm f2.8 lens can or cannot take a 1.4 extender, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most customers would have picked the ability to take an extender. Similarly, if Canon polled customers and asked them if they wanted a 100-500 mm lens to have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or f7.1 at the long end, or that such a lens would take an extender through its full range or only from 300mm onward, it's safe to assume most customers would choose the faster lens and the wider zoom range.

But, market research cannot overcome design limitations and the decisions that limited the features of these lenses certainly came down to design issues, balanced against an informed decision about what the downsides might be for marketing the lenses.

Which brings us to the R3. None of us knows which of the features of the R3 were determined by market research and which were determined by design and budget considerations. A 24mp sensor will certainly move data faster than a 45mp sensor. A 24mp sensor will certainly clear the buffer faster than a 45mp sensor. Could a 45mp sensor move data as fast and clear the buffer as quickly as the 1Dx III? I imagine that may very well be a financial decision -- To hit the price point of the R3, which will be below the 1Dx III, I doubt if Canon wanted to invest in design and manufacturing changes that added significant costs over the 1Dx III.

There is also the great unknown -- the rumored R1. No one on this forum has any idea what the features of the R1 will be (or even if there will be an R1). But, we can all assume that the R1, if it materializes, will be "better" than the R3. We just don't know what "better" means, even though everyone has an opinion on that.

All this is a long winded way of saying it might be prudent to dial down the insults a bit since we all are posting from a position of ignorance.

"A 24mp sensor will certainly move data faster than a 45mp sensor. A 24mp sensor will certainly clear the buffer faster than a 45mp sensor. Could a 45mp sensor move data as fast and clear the buffer as quickly as the 1Dx III? I imagine that may very well be a financial decision -- To hit the price point of the R3, which will be below the 1Dx III, I doubt if Canon wanted to invest in design and manufacturing changes that added significant costs over the 1Dx III." I tend to believe this is the true reason why R3 is 24 mpx.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions.

Here are a couple of examples. If Canon conducted market research asking potential customers if they would prefer that a 70-200mm f2.8 lens can or cannot take a 1.4 extender, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most customers would have picked the ability to take an extender.

I’m not a rocket scientist. But if the choice was between extender compatibility and a more compact lens (as seems to have been the case), which would most customers have picked? Canon did not ask me, but I’d have chosen the latter. So I suggest that even ignoring the necessary considerations of technical constraints and cost concerns, it’s not really as simple as you’re suggesting.

Also, market research is about more than just asking people what they want. For example, if Canon’s product registration data show that of users with an EF 70-200mm as their only extender-compatible lens, only a very small fraction had purchased an extender, that could certainly make extender compatibility for the RF versions a very low priority in the design considerations.

 

[entoman]

https://www.photographyshow.com/ - Yeah Canon bring a load along to show off please.

The Photography Show isn't one of the bigger events in the calendar, so would seem an unusual place to launch the R3.

However, it seems likely that if the official announcement is a week earlier (as predicted by CR), that an untouchable R3 stuck inside a locked glass cabinet would be on display for all to ogle.

A mock-up of an R1 unfortunately is less likely!

 

[Chig]

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.

I disagree as I think the new Canon R1 flagship will be focused on pro sports and will likely feature :

• 24-30mp at most
• 40-50fps or more
• Twin CF express slots
• New focus acquisition AF superior to the best DSLRs
• New twin Digic processors - maybe next generation ARM chips?
• Eye controlled AF - provided this is a popular feature in the R3 amongst professionals
• May have the handle style (pass through) integrated grip as featured in recent patent
• High speed focus stacking in camera
• Other radical new computational features similar to the latest smartphones ?
• Sim card and apps similar to a smartphone
• High speed automatic file transfer

Just my thoughts and hopefully Canon will also release a high mp wildlife camera based on the R3 maybe an R2 ?

 

[entoman]

I’m not a rocket scientist. But if the choice was between extender compatibility and a more compact lens (as seems to have been the case), which would most customers have picked? Canon did not ask me, but I’d have chosen the latter. So I suggest that even ignoring the necessary considerations of technical constraints and cost concerns, it’s not really as simple as you’re suggesting.

Also, market research is about more than just asking people what they want. For example, if Canon’s product registration data show that of users with an EF 70-200mm as their only extender-compatible lens, only a very small fraction had purchased an extender, that could certainly make extender compatibility for the RF versions a very low priority in the design considerations.

Most would probably agree that the ideal lens would be compact *and* able to take extenders.

But if I had to make the choice, I'd forego the extender and choose the compact option. If we assume that build quality and optical performance are excellent, my next priorities would be compactness (providing it's not at the expense of ergonomics e.g. focus and zoom rings being too narrow or too close together), and a "macro" ratio of at least 1:4 at the tele end.

Others may of course ave entirely different priorities - some will demand that the lenses are compatible with extenders, some will consider bokeh hugely important, and some will fear that a lens that extends while zooming or focusing will suck in dust and moisture. Nikon Z users will be happy...

All lenses (and cameras) are a compromise, so we never get everything we want unless we're very easily satisfied. Most people will buy the lens or camera that comes closest to their ideal, and then, like me, they'll whinge on forums about the perceived shortcomings, in the hope that those with direct access to Canon (etc) will pick up the complaints and pass them on. We'll also make constructive complaints and suggest possible "remedies" directly to Canon. Most of them fall on deaf ears, as "Canon knows best", but if *enough* people make the same comment, improvements will come, via firmware updates and design amendments to future cameras.

 

[unfocused]

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.

I certainly believe there will be an R1. But, my point was that we cannot "know" that.

I am less certain about the demise of the DSLR. I believe it will ultimately be determined by the conversion rate from DSLR to R and that Canon is very likely watching sales very closely to determine what percentage of DSLR users will switch to mirrorless. I don't believe they want to leave a sizable portion of their existing customer base on the table. I suspect they have a "magic number" in mind. Are they willing to write off 10% of their customer base? 20%, 30%?

There is probably a tipping point which will determine the future of DSLRs, which will take into consideration the cost of continuing DSLR development and production (which might be quite low), the profits that can be earned from future DSLR sales and the competitive environment, which might be non-existent if Nikon reverses their earlier statements and abandons DSLRs.

 

[SteveC]

You persistently adopt a condescending and self-righteous tone when replying to forum posters. I find them embarrassing to read, and I've no doubt that other posters often find them not only unjustified and unnecessary, but offensive. Ridiculing others is a sign of immaturity.

And yet, you've never actually responded to his point.

Complaining about his tone is certainly one way to dodge doing so.

 

[AEWest]

I disagree as I think the new Canon R1 flagship will be focused on pro sports and will likely feature :

• 24-30mp at most
• 40-50fps or more
• Twin CF express slots
• New focus acquisition AF superior to the best DSLRs
• New twin Digic processors - maybe next generation ARM chips?
• Eye controlled AF - provided this is a popular feature in the R3 amongst professionals
• May have the handle style (pass through) integrated grip as featured in recent patent
• High speed focus stacking in camera
• Other radical new computational features similar to the latest smartphones ?
• Sim card and apps similar to a smartphone
• High speed automatic file transfer

Just my thoughts and hopefully Canon will also release a high mp wildlife camera based on the R3 maybe an R2 ?

How would a low mp R1 differentiate itself enough from the R3 to warrant an extra $2K? Seems to me that Canon would be competing with itself for the same market.

On the other hand, a 70mp, 16 bit sensor with only 15 fps in the R1 would provide substantial product differentiation from the R3 and R5.

 

[entoman]

I disagree as I think the new Canon R1 flagship will be focused on pro sports and will likely feature :

• 24-30mp at most
• 40-50fps or more
• Twin CF express slots
• New focus acquisition AF superior to the best DSLRs
• New twin Digic processors - maybe next generation ARM chips?
• Eye controlled AF - provided this is a popular feature in the R3 amongst professionals
• May have the handle style (pass through) integrated grip as featured in recent patent
• High speed focus stacking in camera
• Other radical new computational features similar to the latest smartphones ?
• Sim card and apps similar to a smartphone
• High speed automatic file transfer

Just my thoughts and hopefully Canon will also release a high mp wildlife camera based on the R3 maybe an R2 ?

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...

 

[entoman]

And yet, you've never actually responded to his point.

Complaining about his tone is certainly one way to dodge doing so.

I've responded in detail to almost all of the points he made. Which did I miss?

 

[entoman]

I certainly believe there will be an R1. But, my point was that we cannot "know" that.

I am less certain about the demise of the DSLR. I believe it will ultimately be determined by the conversion rate from DSLR to R and that Canon is very likely watching sales very closely to determine what percentage of DSLR users will switch to mirrorless. I don't believe they want to leave a sizable portion of their existing customer base on the table. I suspect they have a "magic number" in mind. Are they willing to write off 10% of their customer base? 20%, 30%?

There is probably a tipping point which will determine the future of DSLRs, which will take into consideration the cost of continuing DSLR development and production (which might be quite low), the profits that can be earned from future DSLR sales and the competitive environment, which might be non-existent if Nikon reverses their earlier statements and abandons DSLRs.

I very much prefer the DSLR optical viewfinder experience, and I was a real DSLR die hard, pitting my willpower against the MILC onslaught for several years, so I empathise entirely.

However the clatter and vibration, and the weight, together with Canon's decision to discontinue the 5D series, was enough to convince me to switch to an R5, and since the day I bought it, back in February, my 5DMkiv has remained in a cupboard, and I sold my 5DS. I suspect that most existing FF DSLR users will follow a similar pattern.

Apart from the 1Dxiii and the Nikon D6, pro DSLRs have been discontinued by Canon and Nikon, leaving only Pentax in the frame. Canon and Nikon have made their FF MILCs fully compatible with their DSLR lenses, as part of the drive to convert people to RF (leading in the longer term to massive sales of RF lenses, from which they probably make more money than bodies). I think the performance of the Z9 and ultimately the R1 will vastly exceed the capabilities of the pro DSLRs. I may be wrong of course, but I think the D6 and 1Dxiii will be the last of the breed, although I expect a few more novice/budget APS bodies are still to come. The good news is that those 1Dxiii and D6 bodies will continue to function and perform superbly for several years, so existing users have little to worry about.