Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Completely agree. In my case, I keep hoping for that RF 10-24 L to materialize, even though I know the EF 12-24 coupled to Canon's EF-RF drop-in-filter adapter is a formidable combo and not obtainable in the RF version. At least, not yet. I'm trying to go all in on RF.
Upvote
0
I can understand that and a big part of me agrees. Canon wants to make sure the R3 is 'flawless' in that I mean, minimized issues. The R5 had major heating issues in video mode. The R3 needs to have little issues, that the buyer can say, "I can live with that." Canon should have addressed the heating issue in the R5 before release, and now they're gun-shy of making an announcement too soon. I'll be sticking with Canon RF series, because they have the lenses I want/need right now. Sony and Nikon have very little.
Upvote
0
Yes, that is a similar effect. But people better leave my icecream alone! lol. I lived through the soup thing as a highly interested observer as I was in the food industry at the time, and our company also made soup products.
Upvote
0
I think they will differentiate the R1 with following:
1. 40+ MP
2. Quad Pixel Auto focus
3. 8K video
4. Next generation DIGIX processor with slightly higher fps and less heat generation
5. Dual CF Express card slots
6. Best Battery life
7. Higher resolution EVF and touch screen
8. A few ergonomics tweaks based on any feedback they get on R3 body
Canon will need to do enough to warrant a a $2000k + price difference from R3 and for people wanting a 40+ MP sensor enough reasons to choose an R1 over an R5, and justify what will likely be a ~$3500 price difference.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I remember the missing 24P in video mode issue, Canon did finally release a firmware update adding that. I wonder what the threshold is for getting such things added back, it might make organizing campains a bit easier
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I don't see any likelihood of that happening, as the R5 covers that resolution. Although it's by no means perfect, it covers almost all applications and is built well enough for anything other than extreme conditions.
It's possible that the R1 might have 45MP, but my guess is around 36MP.
... and Canon are known to have a high MP camera in the pipeline - initially rumoured
to be 90MP. But Sony will almost certainly beat that with the "a7Rv", and Canon will be keen to retake the high MP crown, so who knows what they'll come up with?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
R3 is for much more than sports.
IMO it's designed to be an all-rounder - a tough workhorse for sports, wildlife, reportage, event, wedding and just about anything else that doesn't require higher resolution.
I view it as a mirrorless 5DMkiv with an integrated vertical grip, and I'm guessing that it will be priced between $4500-5000.
R1 at the moment is a mystery, but will have to compete with Sony a1 and Nikon Z9, so ideally it would have 45MP or more, although an ultrafast 36MP is an alternative.
I don't think either camera are aimed at the "commercial" market, by which I mean architectural, studio, product, fine art, landscape and other high-resolution applications - these will be the realm of the rumoured 90MP (or more) model, i.e. the mirrorless replacement for the 5DSR.
Just my opinion.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)