Let’s talk about the Canon EOS R3 [CR2]

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
173
188
Gainesville,GA
The RP is an excellent camera and good value for money but hardly entry level at $1300-1500 with a kit lens .
Entry level is something like the the Rebel SL2 with kit lens at $650 and Canon won't be making any new ones like this .
Cameras like the Monocular Powershot Zoom which pair up with a smartphone have a great future though and I suspect Canon will make a whole range of models like this
True entry level interchangeable lens has become the M series (for Canon anyway). No logical reason to continue two different body types in the aps-c range. The sensor in the 90d and m62 essentially bridges the gap. Very capable system. You want higher end tech results? Jump to full gram and the RF mount.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
296
355
Orewa , New Zealand
I agree, no way anyone will accept that much loss in processing for little to no gain. Takes far more surface area to yield the frame that is current used for 35mm.
27x27mm square is 729mm area
Full frame 24x36mm is 864mm area
Cost of silicon wafer is between $30 and $60 per square inch (625mm) so not a big cost I would think
 
Last edited:

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
173
188
Gainesville,GA
27x27mm square is 729mm area
Full frame 24x38mm is 864mm area
Cost of silicon wafer is between $30 and $60 per square inch (625mm) so not a big cost I would think
I think you had a mistype of 38vs 36 but the area is correct. The thing is a 27mm round sensor will not let you get a 24x36 frame out of it (I don’t think...I’d have to calculate it but it would have to be something greater than 36 mm in diameter. I agree if you were wanting a 27mm square but that isn’t the point of a Roy d sensor is it? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your thought.
The thing is that regardless of what shape you want to use if the circle, the circle cut itself wastes a lot of material in addition to other design costs in the body itself. Even at 30 per square once that adds up quickly when you are talking millions of sensors.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
296
355
Orewa , New Zealand
I think you had a mistype of 38vs 36 but the area is correct. The thing is a 27mm round sensor will not let you get a 24x36 frame out of it (I don’t think...I’d have to calculate it but it would have to be something greater than 36 mm in diameter. I agree if you were wanting a 27mm square but that isn’t the point of a Roy d sensor is it? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your thought.
The thing is that regardless of what shape you want to use if the circle, the circle cut itself wastes a lot of material in addition to other design costs in the body itself. Even at 30 per square once that adds up quickly when you are talking millions of sensors.
I was thinking of a round sensor for aps-c not ff
 

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
173
188
Gainesville,GA
I was thinking of a round sensor for aps-c not ff
Okay understood, but the math is the same regardless of scale. It would not be an efficient use of resources to make a round sensor....so the potential benefit would have to outweigh the additional cost of doing it. That being said, what does a round sensor get you that is over and above a rectangle? In what way does the additional cost of manufacturing become justified? Why would people buy that vs a rectangle at higher cost?
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
296
355
Orewa , New Zealand
Okay understood, but the math is the same regardless of scale. It would not be an efficient use of resources to make a round sensor....so the potential benefit would have to outweigh the additional cost of doing it. That being said, what does a round sensor get you that is over and above a rectangle? In what way does the additional cost of manufacturing become justified? Why would people buy that vs a rectangle at higher cost?
I was thinking of having the round sensor so that you could choose portrait or landscape or square crop by switching between them with a button or dial rather than moving the camera or needing a vertical grip and the camera could keep the chosen crop level at all times too
 
  • Like
Reactions: pape2

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
173
188
Gainesville,GA
I was thinking of having the round sensor so that you could choose portrait or landscape or square crop by switching between them with a button or dial rather than moving the camera or needing a vertical grip and the camera could keep the chosen crop level at all times too
Well that would certainly work for that and be pretty cool. If I’m on the other side of the table though I’m asking how many people would pay x markup just to have that ability without rotating the camera. That number multiplied by the margin per unit, divided by 2...is roughly how much you can afford to spend per camera to accomplish it. There are other costs involved as well but that gives you a base.
My SUSPICION is that the number of willing buyers would rather rotate the camera vs paying more.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,088
3,050
27x27mm square is 729mm area
Full frame 24x36mm is 864mm area
Cost of silicon wafer is between $30 and $60 per square inch (625mm) so not a big cost I would think
The 7- series bodies were overall better spec than the 6-series bodies – better AF, frame rate, metering, durability. Why are 6-series bodies so much more expensive? Same question comparing old 1D-series (APS-H) with 1Ds-series, where the bodies were very similar.

Based on your numbers, a FF sensor has about $50 more silicon than APS-C. That’s a clue that the numbers don’t tell the whole story. As I stated earlier, minimally you’ve got to consider lithography costs and QC. There are randomly distributed artifacts in every finished wafer. With APS-C, 3-4 lost sensors is <2% loss, with FF 3-4 lost sensors is >10% loss. But those factors pale in comparison to market size effects.

Consider it from the other side – why would I buy a camera with a sensor of FF area that only shoots APS-C images.

There are lens issues, too – internal baffles, petal hoods. But I bet fisheye lens owners would love a round sensor. Oh, wait – those have petal hoods, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

pape2

EOS 90D
Mar 19, 2021
117
147
I believe there isnt round sensor just becouse it slows frame rate.
Camera makers always struggling to have same or better frame rate than competitor.
Would think round sensor is cheaper than extra grip.
Would be great to have as big sensor as can fit to mount for extreme BIFs.
You dont need use distorted edges ,can crop them away.
If canon is counting pennyes . I bet someone not so clever economically like nikon does it .
Could put edges of sensor to different reading circuits so can get both options ,old square and big circle.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,690
409
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
457
147
I am not a professional photographer, and I own a 1-series body (and several other bodies, too). If the ‘barrier’ to non-professionals is size, why does Canon sell battery grips (even for Rebel/xxxD models)? If the barrier is cost, there are plenty of well-heeled hobby photographers out there (including me).

I would say the barrier is hand size. I'll never buy a 1-series camera, since my hands are not that large.

The 5D3 was just about perfect; the R5 is a little sharp edged for me, but I guess it will have to do.

How about a left handed grip, for the benefit of the sinister amongst us?
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,350
2,194
I would say the barrier is hand size. I'll never buy a 1-series camera, since my hands are not that large.

The 5D3 was just about perfect; the R5 is a little sharp edged for me, but I guess it will have to do.

How about a left handed grip, for the benefit of the sinister amongst us?
And with mirrorless, there's certainly no reason the viewfinder has to be directly above the lens, either...unless it makes sense ergonomically.

I suspect the current placement does make some sense ergonomically, at least for right handed folks, but at the price of moving the camera lens to follow suit. But now at least from an engineering standpoint they could move the thing around wherever makes sense and even make models for people who are left eye dominant but right handed (and vice versa!), though such might be too thin a market to be anything other than prohibitively expensive.