I’m pretty certain anybody who has one in their hands at the moment, and I’m sure there are a good number worldwide, are very sensitive to the possibility of leaks and unauthorized images and what that would do to their relationship with Canon.
More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
And not to mention sticking it in the sand too!
You'd be hoping it was securely propped up - I wouldn't fancy handing it back to Canon at the end of the week with sand inside
Hoping for 30+ megapixels. In my own mind, I'm thinking it will be. Heck, by the time I have any money again, the R5 Mark II will probably be out. Whatever they are, one or the other will be my next, and last, body purchase (R3 or R5). I love the R for portraits, but must admit that it is severely lacking in the tracking AF dept., at least with the two EF mount lenses I have.
I think it will be 30 MP.
That does make me wonder what an R7 would be.
If it is 30 MP then I guess an RF mount 90D replacement would have to be higher.
Maybe a UHD 8-bit 4:2:0 8K APS-C camera could still be priced below an R7 with 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 video and 20+ FPS stills.
I was under the impression that the 5ds cameras or whatever were specifically made for astrology, that they didn't have some filter on them that made them better for taking pictures of the stars. Is this incorrect? I don't know a single person that owns a 5ds. I was under the impression that it was a gimped 5d for most general purposes and that it was specifically for astrology. Do you know anyone that even owns one?
I'd be surprised if the R7 isn't more of a 90D type camera than a 7D Mark II type camera, particularly in terms of build quality, durability, and weather resistance. I think competition with other makers has forced Canon to reconsider their past practice of "dumbing down" AF systems for lower tier cameras. With no separate AF focus array, it's no longer a question of hardware cost.
I'm cautiously optimistic we will see an R7 in the future, though I don't think it is by any stretch absolutely guaranteed. I'd be totally surprised if we see an R7 and an Rx0 series (R10, R20, R30, etc.). More likely we'd see an M10, M20, etc. or continuation of the M6 Mark x line than an Rx0 series, but even more likely we won't see either one. I think it is even more likely that we'll never see an Mx00 series. Canon seems to be thinking the Rebel market has died at the hand of the smartphone, though restoring an ISO compliant hot shoe to the cheapest entry level EOS DSLRs might indicate they think a functional hot shoe can attract buyers that would otherwise go with more expensive smartphones (as opposed to a cheaper smartphone and a Rebel that can control cheap, generic flashes).
The only cameras Canon has introduced for astronomy are the 20Da and the 60Da, both APS-C cameras with different infrared filters compared to general purpose cameras that make them unsuitable for shooting in daylight or most artificial lighting conditions.
The 5Ds and 5Ds R are high megapixel versions of the 5-Series cameras intended for more general shooting, not dedicated astronomy cameras. They were introduced in 2015 when the then current 5D Mark III was 22 MP. In 2016 the 30 MP 5D Mark IV was introduced. The 5Ds and 5Ds R are 50 MP cameras that have many of the features of the 5D Mark IV. Due to the larger file sizes involved, they're not quite as fast handling (5 fps) as the 5D Mark III (6 fps) or 5D Mark IV (7 fps), but they're perfectly capable of taking high quality photos of the same subject matter as any other 5-Series camera and doing so in greater detail when the lenses used are up to the challenge.
I know of no camera manufacturer that has created a camera to do astrology. That's more the purview of makers of things like Tarot cards and Ouija boards, and maybe calendar printers.
Last edited:
Yikes! No way would I set that down in sand. Even if it is a pre-production model that will be scrapped in a few months.
There is a difference between astrology and astronomy.
Astrology is to Sony Rumors as astronomy is to Canon Rumors.
An RF mount 90D would be an R10.
There would be no point in calling it R7.
It might make sense to combine the two if Canon can keep the price in line but having two models is more in line with tradition.
Not really. There was no 7D until the the first 7D was the true replacement for the 50D and the 60D was less than the 50D in many respects. The reason they'll call it the R7 is because all of their R series will have single digit model numbers/letters.
Overall there were more models in the recent past than the contracting market will allow in the future. When sales of camera bodies were at about the same levels in the 1990s as sales levels are at today, there were fewer total models in the EOS line than there where during the explosion of digital camera sales between around 2003 and 2010 or so when the smartphone started eating away at the lower end of the market. That lower end had the most models, the fastest replacement cycles, and the vast majority of sales units. That market is gone.
You do make very good points.
However, it would also make sense for all of the APS-C models to be double digits.
Although, 7D deserved its name because it was more capable and comparable in cost to the 6D.
I would guess most people here expect the R7 specs to be higher than the R6.
With all of that aside, there seem to be a number of 7D owners that simply want a mirrorless equivalent.
Naming that camera R7 simply makes sense, but we can only debate on what the specs will be.
If R1 is the King of the Hill and R3 is next, then R5, etc. the R7 would be slightly *below* the R6. The RF replacement might be the R9?
You say 'continue to decline', 'continue to dwindle' but they haven't declined, they've maintained their position if not slightly strengthened it relative to their competitors. Also are they focusing more on entry level? Nothing much new has been released for APS-C in a couple of years, it's all been about (FF) RF.
You keep going on about 'pixel level'. Is that how you view all photographs? Zoom in until they're displayed 1:1?
"Only sharp enough for Instagram" - well if that's where someone is posting and sharing their images, that's how sharp it needs to be.
I've lost track of what point you thought you were making, what are you trying to say? It sounds like you keep moving the goalposts when presented with data that contradicts your previous statements.
Now I think you're just trolling.
Don't forget the Ra!
Actually 98% of my photos will never get printed at all and I think this is true for most photographers. So 1:1 on a monitor is the way I look at them. Of course I also zoom out to see the whole picture, but they should look good at 1:1. My displays still have HD resolution or even less. So defects on a pixel level are visible. I opted against a 4K or even higher resolution display, because I want to see pixel level defects at 1:1.
I don't print* any more, and I check images at maximum magnification for some purposes - culling and fine editing. But I hope you can appreciate that when the vast majority of people view an image, they - view an image? They look at the whole image, they don't zoom in to a small section of it to check the effects of diffraction, motion blur, unsharp mask, etc. I do sometimes on other people's pics, out of curiosity, but most images that look good as a whole have defects viewed too close. It doesn't matter, because that's not what image capture is for, except maybe in a few very technical areas. Think of it this way - you might like or dislike a portrait, but basing that on whether the fine pores are visible 1:1 is esoteric at best. Comparing equipment on that basis is even stranger.
*printing is rather irrelevant to this discussion, but you brought it up. The same principles apply to making an image your desktop or phone wallpaper, viewing it on social media, etc.
If people do not print, I wonder why they ask for 45 or even 86 megapixels. Isn't that just for printing? Most images we see are on the internet and they usually have a resolution of less than two megapixels. That does not mean that cameras should only have two megapixels, but 20 should be more than enough unless you are planning an exhibition with large format prints.
Similar threads
