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

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,311
1,087
www.flickr.com
I think they will differentiate the R1 with following:

1. 40+ MP
3. 8K video
UHD 8K is 7680 × 4320. Its 16;9 and the resolution of most 8K TVs.
DCI 8K is 8192 x 4320 and is more of a standard for the movie industry.
Canon offers both in the R5 and hence 45mp (8192 x 5464) in 3:2 aspect ratio
I would expect that any future 8K capable camera from Canon will have 45mp. I find it unusual that Sony went for 50mp which is potentially 8.6k native but only allows downsampling to 8k and 5.7k cropped vs the R5's( mathematically easy) 4k line skipped and downsampled 8k->4k->UHD resolutions.
For a high resolution body R5s then the next mathematically logical video step is 12k (12288 x 6480) which gives 80mp frame grabs and 122288 x 8192 for 100mp still shooting at 3:2. Rolling shutter would probably be average but imagine 10fps eshutter at this res!!
Bring it on Canon :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,820
4,801
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Nothing better to discuss while we are waiting for the R3, I think an R1 will have:

Two CFExpress slots (no brainer);
An "unlimited" buffer like the 1DX III (This could limit sensor resolution, but with processing improvements, they may be able to accomplish this with 45 or more mp.);
Eye control focus will depend on how successful it is in the R3. If it succeeds, it will be included. If it is the 2021 version of the touch bar, then not likely;
DSLR style autofocus acquisition rather than the annoying focus hunting of the R5 (I actually hope they fix this in the R3);
8K video (Not a video person, but everyone seems to want this and it will sell more cameras);
Higher flash sync;
Marginal ISO and Dynamic Range improvements.

Beyond that I don't know or care. (Actually, I don't really care about any of this, as I am hoping that the R3 will be my last sports body.)

I would still argue that many of the features will depend on what Canon believes enthusiasts want, because, as I've said many times before, I think this will be a high-end enthusiast body, not a sports or photojournalism body, because one market is growing and one market is dying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
60
77
Worldwide shortages are much WORSE now than a year ago. Pandemic or not, companies are NOT able to plan around the deficiencies.
My point is, companies now KNOW there are deficiencies, so don't announce a camera that then can't be released due to deficiencies that are well known. Dragging out a development announcement for months is silly to me, emphasis on TO ME. People can say all they want Canon knows what they're doing and that they have a marketing department that has tons of data to support their decisions, but one would be naive to think that Canon knocks every pitch out the park. No company is perfect, mistakes are made and I personally think they could have waited a bit on all the R3 hype until they could have at least did the official announcement. But I also think it's silly to propose to someone and then wait 2, 3, 4 years before actually getting married. Just wait until you're ready to get married haha. I digress. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,311
1,087
www.flickr.com
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.
Virtually all RF lenses have pushed new features over their EF counterparts. Only Canon would know how much the new RF mount contributed to easier optics for a compact lens but the RF70-200mm/2.8 out performs the EF version in all areas except for the ability to handle extenders.
It is a reasonable commercial decision for Canon to gently direct RF users to get a RF100-500mm and worth a few customer grumbles.
I had the ef70-200mm/2.8 and both EF extenders and didn't buy the EF100-400mm as the set was cheaper and smaller but was slower and image quality @ 400mm wasn't paramount. The lack of extenders with the RF70-200mm pushed me to the RF100-500mm and I haven't looked back :)
Canon still allows you to user adapted EF lenses so there is no downside - right?

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.
Customers would always welcome new features and Canon could provide all of them at a cost. The old engineering conundrum... size, cost, features => pick 2
If Canon asked... we already have the EF100-400mm that can take extenders and can be adapted to to R mount. What different features and constraints would you want to see and accept in an RF version?
Lower weight and size = tick
Effectively an integrated 1.4x extender by increasing the focal range to 100-500mm = tick
Same focus speed and minimum focus distance = accept
Same front element/filter ring size but slower than f5.6 @ 500mm which is practically the same as EF version + 1.4x to keep cost/weight from being too high = accept
Compromise that to get past 500mm that you are constrained by the 1.4/2x extenders to start from 300mm = accept
New cost is higher than EF version = accept or use current EF version.

I recall a Simpsons episode where Homer gets to design a car with everything he wants in it but bankrupts the company in the process.

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.
Our position of ignorance is correct but we all have opinions that hopefully we can logically justify our own stance. That said, wish lists are fun.
Insults aren't cool but making making generalisations assuming that they have a coveted position of knowledge.
We would love to have a contributor with that knowledge commentating!!
Hopefully, participants in Canon Rumors can learn from each other as I certainly have by others challenging my posts :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
480
408
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.
Some good input and food for thought, unfocused. Shortly, we should be able to solve half of the riddle, that being the much anticipated official announcement of the much hyped R3 body. With that announcement, we can end our speculation on same and finally see just what the camera can and cannot do. Then, we can work on our very own R1 rumor wish and dream list. This year has been and next year, apparently will be very hazardous for our CC's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,301
1,003
Davidson, NC
That backorder situation is the same everywhere, even in India most camera products are back ordered.
I have been in some danger of making an impulse purchase of a 24mm TS-E lens or of the new Fujifilm medium format camera (or both). Fortunately, they are on back order, and therefore not qualifying as an impulse purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,678
6,114
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.
Some of us have been saying that for a decade.

 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,820
4,801
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Virtually all RF lenses have pushed new features over their EF counterparts. Only Canon would know how much the new RF mount contributed to easier optics for a compact lens but the RF70-200mm/2.8 out performs the EF version in all areas except for the ability to handle extenders...Canon still allows you to user adapted EF lenses so there is no downside - right?


Customers would always welcome new features and Canon could provide all of them at a cost. The old engineering conundrum... size, cost, features => pick 2
If Canon asked... we already have the EF100-400mm that can take extenders and can be adapted to to R mount. What different features and constraints would you want to see and accept in an RF version?...

I think you misunderstood my point, which I may not have properly articulated.

I was reacting to a series of insults from one forum participant toward another participant. The argument could be boiled down to one individual's view that the rumored 24 mp sensor in the R3 was a cost cutting decision rather than a decision based on what the market preferred. The other participant seemed to me to be arguing that the sensor resolution was a product of research into what the market wanted.

No one on this forum can possibly know what Canon's market research shows. I was pointing out that attacking another forum participant for suggesting it might be a cost saving design decision was inappropriate.

Some decisions are driven by design limitations. It would be ridiculous to say that Canon chose not to offer the ability to use a tele extender with the 70-200 because that's what customers wanted. Likewise, no customer would request a 7.1 lens over a 5.6 lens or request a lens that limits the tele extender to less than half the range of the lens, just for the sake of having a slower lens or a less versatile lens. Those features exist because of design limitations not because there was a groundswell of demand from consumers for more limited features. That's not to say that Canon didn't do market research, it just means they looked at their options and determined that cutting out these features in order to meet other design constraints would do the least damage to their sales.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,255
6,797
I've responded in detail to almost all of the points he made. Which did I miss?
Consider that when challenged on your repeated claim that, “Most people would prefer a higher MP camera,” your answer was, “I don’t have any market research data to support that but you need to show me your market research data to refute my claim.”

That ‘response in detail’ reminds me of my young son’s detailed response to my not letting him stay up until midnight eating ice cream: “Daddy, you hafta bcuz I wanna stay up and I love ice cream plus it’s dairy so it’s healthy!” Ummm…no.
 

Ph0t0

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 27, 2015
61
35
Virtually all RF lenses have pushed new features over their EF counterparts. Only Canon would know how much the new RF mount contributed to easier optics for a compact lens but the RF70-200mm/2.8 out performs the EF version in all areas except for the ability to handle extenders.
Well I haven't really noticed a big improvement in sharpness. Meanwhile I have noticed the new 70-200mm has a lot more vignetting, which downgrades IQ in the periphery . So making the lens smaller did have some other negative consequences other than the lack of ability to handle extenders.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,820
4,801
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Well I haven't really noticed a big improvement in sharpness...

Yeah, I thought that most everyone agreed that it would be virtually impossible to improve on the sharpness of the EF versions II or III. In fact, I think that Canon essentially conceded that when they released a III version (which I own) that had no significant design changes from the II.
 

Ph0t0

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 27, 2015
61
35
Yeah, I thought that most everyone agreed that it would be virtually impossible to improve on the sharpness of the EF versions II or III. In fact, I think that Canon essentially conceded that when they released a III version (which I own) that had no significant design changes from the II.
My point was that there are other downsides other than lack of extender compatibility.

As for your comment about sharpness: I don't know what is possible and what not. But people have been saying that for a lot of lenses, that have been later replaced by better ones. I for one won't complain if the next version is sharper when wide open. If you compare it with good primes, you can see that there is still room for improvement concerning sharpness and vignetting. And since a lot of todays zooms have reached and surpassed the quality of older primes I hope maybe some future zooms will reach the quality of todays primes.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,118
993
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.
I would have picked compact too.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
427
369
I would have picked compact too.
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,118
2,147
Yeah, I thought that most everyone agreed that it would be virtually impossible to improve on the sharpness of the EF versions II or III. In fact, I think that Canon essentially conceded that when they released a III version (which I own) that had no significant design changes from the II.
Come on, a different colour of paint on the outside is a significant design change! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

maulanawale

EOS M6 Mark II
May 25, 2021
88
153
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...
I like your thinking and would happily sell my car to buy that.
However (and this is pure speculation just for fun) such a camera would be too good to be practical in terms of future upgrade paths.
As much as market research, R&D, and all the other points raised earlier that make up the design process, leaving room for improvements has to be one too. Just like lightbulbs and printers and planned obsolescence, making the perfect product is sadly not a viable business model.
Not sure if I'm making sense, but it just feels like if your list was accurate, it would be 50-50 a huge success for Canon as well as a self inflicted shot on their foot.
They'd probably bring in the guy with the cripple hammer to the last meeting pre launch to make sure the R1 is not the last camera everyone will ever buy.
 

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
169
172
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.

Just add the poster to whom you were quoting to your ignore list and you'll find your reading of comments on CR forums a much healthier experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,118
993
Nothing better to discuss while we are waiting for the R3, I think an R1 will have:

Two CFExpress slots (no brainer);
An "unlimited" buffer like the 1DX III (This could limit sensor resolution, but with processing improvements, they may be able to accomplish this with 45 or more mp.);
Eye control focus will depend on how successful it is in the R3. If it succeeds, it will be included. If it is the 2021 version of the touch bar, then not likely;
DSLR style autofocus acquisition rather than the annoying focus hunting of the R5 (I actually hope they fix this in the R3);
8K video (Not a video person, but everyone seems to want this and it will sell more cameras);
Higher flash sync;
Marginal ISO and Dynamic Range improvements.

Beyond that I don't know or care. (Actually, I don't really care about any of this, as I am hoping that the R3 will be my last sports body.)

I would still argue that many of the features will depend on what Canon believes enthusiasts want, because, as I've said many times before, I think this will be a high-end enthusiast body, not a sports or photojournalism body, because one market is growing and one market is dying.
I like your wish list.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,118
993
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.
His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge. :) So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Alam

EOS M50
Dec 24, 2019
40
20
Your sarcastic "clearly Canon has no idea" is misplaced. They quite obviously do market research, they send out prototypes to field test, and they get direct feedback from you and me. But the only reason they get that feedback is because e.g. sometimes they "forget" to include a demanded feature, or some aspect of the design (e.g. the swipe bar on the R) is condemned by users.

They have chosen 24MP for the R3, but NOT because it is the ideal resolution. Like everything, it is a compromise. In this case they probably wanted to keep the cost of the camera lower in the hope that it would become the standard "affordable" workhorse.

A higher resolution would be beneficial to almost all users, as it allows an option to crop quite heavily - and that is particularly valuable to the sports, wildlife and reportage users who are likely the target market. A higher resolution has no DR penalties, and for a given print size has no noise penalties either. It's widely accepted that most sports and reportage photographers shoot JPEGs to minimise file sizes, minimise processing and minimise transmission times, so for *most* of them, buffering isn't an issue either.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people would rather have higher MP, so long as there is an option to select a lower resolution when needed. And no, I can't support that with data, but you can't dismiss it, as you have no alternative data.

If there were two versions of the R3, one with 24MP, and the other 45MP (with an option to select a lower res when needed), and both bodies were the same price, only a fool would buy the 24MP version. Clearly the reason why Canon have limited it to 24MP is to keep the price down.

Now please show me *your* extensive market research that proves otherwise. I wait with bated breath.
I think 24mpix is ideal, for now
At 30fps you generate about 1Gb files per second and only one will be used, the rest is trash

The whole idea of high shutter is to keep shooting during crucial moment and the filed where it's required demand the files to fly asap

What's the point if you need to slow down the fps to reserve storage or transfering the huge files
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users