More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged

[EOS 4 Life]

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?

There is a difference between astrology and astronomy.
Astrology is to Sony Rumors as astronomy is to Canon Rumors.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

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?

 

[scyrene]

Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline if they focus less on FF (especially mirrorless) and more on entry level to "maintain their position." Much of Canon's market dominance has come from brand loyalty and notoriety; both of those will continue to dwindle if the competition continues to put out products that are PERCEIVED to be better and at a lower price point.

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.

 

[scyrene]

Cell phones can't take sharp photos at all. They are only sharp enough for Instagram. 16 megapixels is the best resolultion for photos. Enough megapixels for even bigger posters and for stock agencies, but still sharp on a pixel level. 20 megapixel or even 24 are still okay to give you some room for cropping to different formats. From there on evey additional megapixel is a downside. The photos of a 150 megapixel camera from Phase One do not really look well on a pixel level. And that camera costs $40,000. Imagine Phase One offered a 20 megapixel version. Those pixels would be huge and the image would look super clean. I would not buy it anyway, as I do not have $40,000 to spare, but a low megapixel medium format camera would be cool.

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.

 

[scyrene]

Yes I own/owned a 1DXiii, 5Div, 5D3, 7D, R5. Are you really trying to compare a mirrorless camera to an old dlsr and trying to say they are the same generation of camera?

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.

are you seriously trying to throw a specialty astrology camera into the mix? LOL

Now I think you're just trolling.

 

[scyrene]

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.

Don't forget the Ra!

 

[Skyscraperfan]

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.

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.

 

[scyrene]

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.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

Don't forget the Ra!

Too late, I already did.

 

[usern4cr]

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?

Do you mean "astronomy" instead of "astrology"? If so, then I'm glad to mention it so that the rest of us don't get the wrong impression of your intent. Best regards.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

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.

YES - in a word.

In more words: there are always use cases for being able to crop further in, albeit electronically, before presenting your shots on the birds in flight or bird portrait threads

 

[Ozarker]

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.

It is not just for printing. Not. Just. For. Printing.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is not just for printing. Not. Just. For. Printing.

Then what do you need 50+ mp for? Even an 8k screen, which very few of us have, is only 33mp, if people aren’t printing with all those pixels why do they need them? To display on a screen that can’t resolve them?

 

[usern4cr]

Then what do you need 50+ mp for? Even an 8k screen, which very few of us have, is only 33mp, if people aren’t printing with all those pixels why do they need them? To display on a screen that can’t resolve them?

Cropping is as important as printing, to me. But I think that the 30MP(assumed) R3 will have a better image quality than the 45MP R5. If a future body had a 30MP QP sensor then I'd prefer it over an 80MP DP sensor as I value the best eye AF much more than the diminishing returns of ever tinier pixels with questionable matching lens resolutions. So it's more about the image quality than the MP (and that is a much harder thing to quantify).

 

[Ozarker]

Then what do you need 50+ mp for? Even an 8k screen, which very few of us have, is only 33mp, if people aren’t printing with all those pixels why do they need them? To display on a screen that can’t resolve them?

1. I never said I needed it. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it. It is not just for prints. That's a fact.
2. People like the extra leeway for cropping or even getting more than one composition from the same photo. More versatility. I know I have very much enjoyed the extra mp of my R over my former 5D Mark III. Especially when photographing birds in my backyard. Not all of us can afford a super-tele.
3. "Need" is something of a subjective thing. You might say they don't need it. You might be correct. However, a person doesn't need to justify to you or anyone else what they think they need.
4. Canon obviously believes there is a need out there, or Canon wouldn't be pushing the count so far.

*I've never said I needed 50+mp. However, there are people here who want it or think they have a reason for it. That's their business. I find it bad form to try and second guess what others (who we don't know at all) want or need based on our own use cases... and then use that to try and tell them they are "wrong" for wanting or needing. Sometimes "need" is moot. The fact is, many of us are hobbyists. It is want, not just need.

 

[privatebydesign]

1. I never said I needed it. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it. It is not just for prints. That's a fact.
2. People like the extra leeway for cropping or even getting more than one composition from the same photo. More versatility. I know I have very much enjoyed the extra mp of my R over my former 5D Mark III.
3. "Need" is something of a subjective thing. You might say they don't need it. You might be correct. However, a person doesn't need to justify to you or anyone else what they think they need.
4. Canon obviously believes there is a need out there, or Canon wouldn't be pushing the count so far.

All right let me rephrase it even though I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, what is 50mp needed for if not for print?

I see two caveats, enough to crop for aspect ratio changes and leveling horizons etc, and the focal length limited scenario where ‘pixels on duck’ does make a difference.

I didn’t say people didn’t need it, I asked what they think it is needed for. You know from my posting history I have repeatedly said people don’t need a reason to want or use something, just feeling good about something is plenty good enough justification were any needed. I’m just interested in why people think they need it. Personally I believe it is good marketing that has convinced the majority of buyers that ‘more is better’ and I haven’t seen much in the way of practical uses to change that thinking.