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

[sanj]

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?

Probably technology made this now possible.

 

[dilbert]

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.

Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.

 

[dilbert]

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?

70-200 is almost a 3x zoom (well, 70-210 would be), as is 24-70 (24-72).

Somehow putting a 24-70 together with a 70-200 gets you an almost 9* zoom.

 

[AlanF]

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

24mpx at 30 fps generates only 0.45Gb CRAW files or 0.2Gb jpegs per second. A factor of two is the same as going from 24mpx to 48mpx, which is what Canon has achieved with its CRAW technology that appears to have close to zero effect on IQ.

 

[AlanF]

I would have picked compact too.

I use the 100-500mm daily, and very often with the RF 2x. So, a 200-1000mm f/9-f/14 with TC would have been my choice at the minimal expense of 2cm or so in length. Anyway, I have another theory of the why the RF TCs extend so far into the lens - it was designed by the prime team who had converted the EF 400 and 60omm IIIs to the RF versions by bolting on an extension ring. Those lenses weren't so good with the EF extenders and so they had to design RF extenders that went inside the new extension ring, and this was done a couple of years ago and they forgot to tell the zoom design team, or simply ignored them. Anyway, whatever the reason why really is, the restricted zoom range imposed by the RF TCs is an annoyance for me.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

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.

Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.

 

[kaihp]

Canon will need to do enough to warrant a a $2000k + price difference

For $2M you should be getting a lot more

 

[sanj]

Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.

Oh no no no. These are real, true, great advantages. You seem to be the type, if I am not mistaken, who resisted digital when it started replacing film. Am I right?

 

[sanj]

Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.

Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.

 

[dilbert]

Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.

I see you called my troll, maybe lets leave it there - no need to fill this forum with useless talk about politics.

 

[kaihp]

Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.

Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.

Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth

No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about

 

[sanj]

Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth

No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about

On the other hand, rumours are slow these days...

 

[AlanF]

Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.

You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.

 

[Joules]

Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.

No doubt that it is a change. But you can't call it a step backwards without either mentioning the metrics that you use to determine that, or acknowledge that it is just your personal preference.

In terms of power consumption or delay it is a downgrade. In all other aspects, it is either a question of personal taste or an objective improvement.

Seeing the digital image is arguably closer to what the camera actually perceives and therefore more relevant to the final digital output. Of course one can still prefer the OVF image, although that is also just a (analogue) copy of reality and not an authentic representation, changing for example the brightness and depth of field.

For Canon and the broader market, the objective benefits seem to outweigh the previous points:

Constant exposure of the sensor based focus system to light, allowing far greater AF coverage, greater subject recognition, enhanced focus at narrow apertures and dim conditions, higher framerate due to elimination of the need to rotate the mirror up and down frequently.

No mismatch between viewfinder image and sensor plane/position, allowing powerful IBIS implementation without risking user frustration due to differences in the viewfinder composition and actual image.

No need for AFMA due to alignment issues.

True DoF preview.

No clipping of bokeh balls due to the mirror box.

Enhanced lens design flexibility due to no restriction on back focus distance.

And so on...

 

[entoman]

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.

I didn't think there was any point in answering a rhetorical question. You and I both know that I don't have access to the extensive market research data which would be necessary to prove anything. You and I also know that you don't have access to data that would repudiate my "claim". I think everyone here knows and accepts that what *both* of us have expressed are our *opinions*.

 

[entoman]

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.

I see your point but I'm not sure. If a camera is going to be competitive, it has to offer at least as much, if not more than the current "opposition", so it would make sense for the manufacturer to stuff every conceivable feature into each model (given cost restraints). This is what Nikon always does - look e.g. at the spec of the D850 compared to the 5DMkiv.

Canon has traditionally been very conservative, and very astute in terms of product segmentation and marketing, so their bodies have tended to be "under-specified". They've traditionaly been sold primarily on the basis of build quality, styling, ergonomics, service and lens compatibility.

But even Canon are now cramming everything they can into their bodies, spurred on by intense competition from Sony. Hence the R5 which pretty much out-specified (and out-performed) everything else on the market at the time it was released. Even now, a year later, it is the model that most people probably aspire to, with the exception of the Sony a1 which is twice the price.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.

Even if you count the eye as digital, it would still mean only copy more. Analogue light converted into digital data, then again into in analogue light (in the EVF) and then again into digital data in your brain. So an OVF needs two conversions less. Just a copy instead of a copy of a copy of a copy.

Of course colours are an illusion anyway. There is nothing like red or blue light in the real world. Just different wavelength and our brain turns them into colours.

 

[entoman]

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.

Hi dilbert, I don't have an ignore list, I prefer to give people a second chance. I've had intense disagreements with certain individuals trolling on dpreview, and I've even fallen once or twice into the trap of returning insults, but it just leads to further unpleasantness. In the end I got so fed up with reading some of the comments, that I resigned from the dpreview comments pages, and since then I've tended to spend more time here, where *most* people are very reasonable.

If someone who is initially unpleasant, later proves that they can overcome the "internet warrior" mentality and later responds in an intelligent and polite manner, all parties feel better and get their points across. I'll jump on trolls or on people without manners, and if they continue to be objectionable I ignore them. People use forums to vent frustration and that is part of their purpose. Hopefully by responding politely myself, I can nudge those who overstep the mark to become more reasonable.

 

[scyrene]

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:

If I may observe, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that some types of professional photography (chiefly sport) rely on speed of delivery and the end result is rarely cropped much, nor often reproduced at high magnification. Plenty people have laboured under the misapprehension that low res = lower noise etc, despite plenty of us showing it to be largely untrue (with caveats) - DPR is rather late to the game in that regard. But I don't think Canon's choice is based on that. You keep asserting pretty much everyone benefits from higher res, but that's not true and especially so for a primary target audience for this sort of camera.

 

[entoman]

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

If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.

The choice is between buying a 24MP camera, and being stuck with a maximum of 24MP, with consequent disadvantages when it comes to cropping.
... or buying a 50MP camera that offers a choice of shooting 50MP, 25MP or 12MP (these figures are not precise - they'll vary from model to model) simply by twiddling a dial or selecting the appropriate option in the menu.

I can absolutely understand why someone would be happy with a 24MP camera, or even a 12MP camera, if all they wanted was to post images on the internet, shoot video, or to make smallish prints. But there will nearly always be situations when you can't get close enough or have the wrong lens on the camera when an amazing photo opportunity arises, and then the cropping advantages of a high MP camera really pay off in a big way. For wildlife photography in particular, the ability to crop tightly and still get a really high quality image is a huge advantage. I could shoot on a 400mm F2.8, crop the image to 600mm equivalent, and still have an image as good or better than I'd get with a 600mm F4, at a fraction of the cost and weight.

As far as I can see, there are no negative aspects to buying a high megapixel body, other than the greater initial cost. Bigger sensors have lower yield rates in manufacturing, and they require more powerful processors, which pushes up the price of the cameras. Personally I'm willing to pay the extra cost to get all the benefits, but I totally accept that some others have different priorities.