Let’s Talk EOS R3 Mark II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Why not a High MP gripped camera? Just because it has a grip doesn't mean it's exclusively for sports photographers.
And it's not like they have to design a completely new body. Stick a 45MP or hight sensor in the R3 body. Done!
Some of us don't like "small" camera bodies. I have always purchased the accessory grips because it makes the camera much more user friendly. The second battery is a benefit, but not the sole reason I've always preferred a grip.
There are fashion, portrait, architectural, technical, wedding, (I could keep going) photographers who shoot vertically and like having the grip and controls to duplicate the normal (horizontal) grip's buttons. I have a 100PM medium format (GFX) but I rarely need that much resolution. I have NEVER had a client in 40 years EVER ask for a huge file. Just doesn't happen. We shooters decide that and it's just not necessary 90% of the time. But what IS great about a "gripped" camera like the R3 is this: one big battery that lasts a long time and is quick and easy to change. You don't have to open a door on the bottom of the camera while you turn your rig upside down. You slide it in or out from the side. And you don't have to fumble with changing TWO batteries if you're dealing with a grip battery tray like on the R5. You can standardize on ONE battery and ONE charger instead of carrying one type for you R3 and another for your R5, R7, etc. Less gear to travel with. Les weight. The form factor is relatively small. My R3's are noticeably more compact than my 1Dx's were. It's a great szie. Not too small, not too big. It makes the camera more solid as well as good looking. I hate that "add-on" look. Kind of like converting your garage into another room. Sure it works, but it will always look modified and not as aesthetically pleasing as something integrally designed from the start. If you disagree with having nice looking gear then I question why you're a photographer: we are ALL ABOUT visuals. Looks matter as well a form and function and strength. Adding an external grip to an R5 or other model not only looks kind of stupid and cheap, it's one more area for dirt and dust to enter the camera and it's not going to be as rigid as a one-piece unibody. It's not about Gripped or No-Gripp bodies. It's about engineering a professional piece of equipment that performs at a professional level and does so in a right-sized package. There was the 1D and 1Ds as noted in the article. Just offer an R3S that has a sensor at least twice as large as the 24MP one. Charge another $500 and the only thing they need to do is change the badge on the outside. I wouldn't need or expect a 50+MP body to shoot as fast as the R1. It doesn't have to be a speed demon. Just get me a body built like a tank that doesn't weigh as much as a tank and gives me the option for large files that have more detail or allow more cropping but doesn't require me to also pack my medium format kit on a job or vacation. I just need one more slot in my camera case for that one extra body. It'll use the same lenses, battery, charger, eyecup and my muscle memory will love that it's exactly like my other R3's on the outside except for that "S" on the front.
And it's not like they have to design a completely new body. Stick a 45MP or hight sensor in the R3 body. Done!
Some of us don't like "small" camera bodies. I have always purchased the accessory grips because it makes the camera much more user friendly. The second battery is a benefit, but not the sole reason I've always preferred a grip.
There are fashion, portrait, architectural, technical, wedding, (I could keep going) photographers who shoot vertically and like having the grip and controls to duplicate the normal (horizontal) grip's buttons. I have a 100PM medium format (GFX) but I rarely need that much resolution. I have NEVER had a client in 40 years EVER ask for a huge file. Just doesn't happen. We shooters decide that and it's just not necessary 90% of the time. But what IS great about a "gripped" camera like the R3 is this: one big battery that lasts a long time and is quick and easy to change. You don't have to open a door on the bottom of the camera while you turn your rig upside down. You slide it in or out from the side. And you don't have to fumble with changing TWO batteries if you're dealing with a grip battery tray like on the R5. You can standardize on ONE battery and ONE charger instead of carrying one type for you R3 and another for your R5, R7, etc. Less gear to travel with. Les weight. The form factor is relatively small. My R3's are noticeably more compact than my 1Dx's were. It's a great szie. Not too small, not too big. It makes the camera more solid as well as good looking. I hate that "add-on" look. Kind of like converting your garage into another room. Sure it works, but it will always look modified and not as aesthetically pleasing as something integrally designed from the start. If you disagree with having nice looking gear then I question why you're a photographer: we are ALL ABOUT visuals. Looks matter as well a form and function and strength. Adding an external grip to an R5 or other model not only looks kind of stupid and cheap, it's one more area for dirt and dust to enter the camera and it's not going to be as rigid as a one-piece unibody. It's not about Gripped or No-Gripp bodies. It's about engineering a professional piece of equipment that performs at a professional level and does so in a right-sized package. There was the 1D and 1Ds as noted in the article. Just offer an R3S that has a sensor at least twice as large as the 24MP one. Charge another $500 and the only thing they need to do is change the badge on the outside. I wouldn't need or expect a 50+MP body to shoot as fast as the R1. It doesn't have to be a speed demon. Just get me a body built like a tank that doesn't weigh as much as a tank and gives me the option for large files that have more detail or allow more cropping but doesn't require me to also pack my medium format kit on a job or vacation. I just need one more slot in my camera case for that one extra body. It'll use the same lenses, battery, charger, eyecup and my muscle memory will love that it's exactly like my other R3's on the outside except for that "S" on the front.
Upvote
0
It could serve dual purposes, if the resolution was high enough and the sensor had dual outputs.
The full sensor could record at modest speeds and a 30MP+ APS-C crop mode could run faster that the R7.
EVFs have eliminated the losses of crops due to their scalable nature.
Upvote
0
They have done it that way too. But I think the name harked back to the EOS-3, at least in part.
Upvote
0
The R5 (and mark II) reportedly has roughly the same resolving power as the 5DsR, even if it has a slightly lower MP count.
Upvote
0
Time will tell, but I doubt we'll see a high MP integrated grip body from Canon in the future. It limits the market, in that an accessory grip can be added and an integrated grip cannot be removed.
FWIW, I am in agreement with your position. When I got my first DSLR (a T1i/500D), I got the battery grip for it, and then for the 7D and 5DII. When the 1D X integrated speed, FF and the gripped form factor, I got that and stuck with it until the R3 then the R1. I far prefer the ergonomics of an integrated grip. But market realities seem to disagree.
Upvote
0
Indeed. Some people conflate MP count and resolution, and some people think a 20-30% increase in MP count makes a big difference.
Upvote
0
no but, the gripped body only helps handheld operation. as soon as a tripod/slider or gimbal is involved, the grip doesnt have much value. I am not sure how much high resolution work is hand held. that said, if r52 had the r3 body and some faster readout that would have been great.
Upvote
0
Agreed... Canon would know the number of grips for R5ii sold but I believe that a Z8/Z9 style versions of the R5ii would have been a better option.
High mp gripped and ungripped options would have muted the objections to the perceived low res R1.
Integrated grip should have better heat management and of course battery life and less inventory items to manage vs 3 different grips for BG-R20 (base model), the BG-R20EP (with Ethernet port), and the CF-R20EP (fan cooling + ethernet) especially with the incremental price of USD460 for the last grip.
Upvote
0
I think Canon has it exactly right. Sports shooters need high speed but small enough file size to get to the editors quickly! Pro sports shooters make enough to afford R1 bodies. Pro events shooters need the high MP counts in the R5 to get fine deal in the wedding dresses and the beauty of the location of the event.
The R3 is for the hobbyist shooting his kids sports teams.
You can mix and match but I love my R5 for events and Bird Photography. The events pay the bills and the birds pay the hobby!
Upvote
0
There are a few possibilities that could result in a gripped high-res body. For a high-res FF body to be interesting to birders, it would need to put at least as many pixels on the bird as an R7 and preferably more. Canon has had a very strong focus on video lately and were the first with 8k with the R5. The next significant step in video resolution is 12k, which calls for a 101 MP sensor (at 3:2). That sensor would also have to be decently fast (in terms of FF readout) to be acceptable for video. Such a camera run in crop mode could make birders very happy. Now to the nitty gritty. Such a sensor (and its supporting circuitry) would almost certainly be a power hog and battery life with an LP-E6 battery would likely be dismal. That alone could dictate a gripped body. Time will tell, but I can see Canon wanting to be first with 12k (even if such high resolution is essentially useless for anything but post cropping).
Upvote
0
The reviewers would certainly punish any Canon attempt for 12k unless it can continuously record for 2 hours without overheating
Upvote
0
I think you're right--there was only one -3 camera in the lineup before, and it was the EOS-3 back in 1998-99. And like the R3, it debuted tech that was new to Canon at the time (45-point focusing sensor, stacked imaging sensor) and had improved eye control focus. If there is an R3 Mark II, it will have some new to Canon tech in it that they want to do a production run on, but not in an established camera series.
Upvote
0
I think the R3 line is a perfect body for those that want the grip body, advanced features, but not having to break the bank to get it. Many photographs can easily afford a R63 w/grip for about $3200 USD and R52 w/grip for about $4800. Jumping to an R1($6800) isn’t an option. But an R3M2 at $5000-$5500 might be more manageable. Used R3 are even a better deal! And many may not need 45MP, but with a bump to 32.5MP would be enough. If Canon admits that the R3 was never a "true flagship," then why discontinue it? I think the R3 compliments the R1…greatly! I’m sure many R1 photographers have an R3 as a back up because they don’t need 45MP, or even 32.5MP. The R3’s ability to capture extremely sharp images, hardly any rolling shutter that I’ve seen(unlike in the R6M2), great high ISO performance, and the ability to register 2 AF zones per orientation, which the R6M2 doesn’t do & I presume the R5 line doesn’t either, makes the R3 line a keeper in my book. I use two R3 because the R6 and R62 just didn’t do want I wanted in the field.
Upvote
0
I believe that Canon has the technology now to release a global shutter sensor if they wanted to.
They have multiple patents and the C700 GS was released back in 2017 which admittedly wasn't for stills and was stupendously expensive.
So the cost/effectiveness/forecasted sales triangle isn't there for them yet.
The A9iii was portrayed as having significant dynamic range issues due to front real estate being used for storage vs pixel well depth so maybe Canon is waiting for when they are capable of moving the storage to the backside.
I am sure the Sony has sold a bunch of A9iii anyway. A niche product for a niche number of buyers.
The rest of the well heeled Sony buyers went straight to the A1/A1ii.
Strangely enough, the A1ii and R1 are basically the same price in the US but the A1ii is 15% more expensive than the R1 in Australia at the moment. The R1 pricing is USD5000 (ex tax but including local Canon 5 year warranty).... worth the USD2k trip to Australia to buy it for some??
Upvote
0
I agree, this would be a head-turner in the industry and would make a lot of wildlife people happy if the images are rather clean. Even if the body production run were limited and round-one was more about marketing.
Upvote
0
I think it would be great to see the R3 II be where the R6 II appeared to be headed right up until the III dropped.
In fact, I saw the R6 / R3 as a low/high market pair, and the R5 / R1 as a low/high market value pair. And before people jump on me with the R5 sensor is nothing like an R1, consider that it's probably not bonkers for people spending R5 cash to spend R1 cash, just as those spending R6+grip cash might be be tempted to spend on R3 cash.
Going back to my opening statement, The R6 III is headed in a different direction than the R6 II in my mind. It's a perfectly valid offer, but seems to be more toward video makers and just happens to take nice stills as a bonus. The R6 II felt more like a stills camera that just happened to take nice video as a bonus. Canon has kept both alive, so I think they are also holding their breath a bit to see how the bites happen. (And ditching stock, of course.)
It doesn't make sense to have two R6es, however. So perhaps the spirit of the R6 I and II with grip (and they are nice with the latest grip) makes more sense in a slightly reimagined R3 line. Canon could dumb down the body a smidge for better separation from the R1 -- say, less EVF capability, slower sensor, less DR, less paranoia about the body build (but you know, still nice), consumer-grade SLA / warranty, etc. Given that the R6 III doesn't fit into my use case very well, I'd seriously consider an R3 that carries on with the ultra low-light and clean images, etc. emphasis pre-R6III.
In fact, I saw the R6 / R3 as a low/high market pair, and the R5 / R1 as a low/high market value pair. And before people jump on me with the R5 sensor is nothing like an R1, consider that it's probably not bonkers for people spending R5 cash to spend R1 cash, just as those spending R6+grip cash might be be tempted to spend on R3 cash.
Going back to my opening statement, The R6 III is headed in a different direction than the R6 II in my mind. It's a perfectly valid offer, but seems to be more toward video makers and just happens to take nice stills as a bonus. The R6 II felt more like a stills camera that just happened to take nice video as a bonus. Canon has kept both alive, so I think they are also holding their breath a bit to see how the bites happen. (And ditching stock, of course.)
It doesn't make sense to have two R6es, however. So perhaps the spirit of the R6 I and II with grip (and they are nice with the latest grip) makes more sense in a slightly reimagined R3 line. Canon could dumb down the body a smidge for better separation from the R1 -- say, less EVF capability, slower sensor, less DR, less paranoia about the body build (but you know, still nice), consumer-grade SLA / warranty, etc. Given that the R6 III doesn't fit into my use case very well, I'd seriously consider an R3 that carries on with the ultra low-light and clean images, etc. emphasis pre-R6III.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
