More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged

I had planned to ditch the last of my sony gear for canon once the R3 was released(right now I am part sony(a9ii), and part canon - (R5)). If this camera is less than 36mp, there's no point in upgrading, and especially paying $6000 to upgrade to a camera that is less of a camera than the R5. Who really needs 30fps. The R5's speed is plenty. If the R3 doesn't come near the R5's resolution, canon really dropped the ball. I will be extremely disappointed.
But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?

I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.

Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?

I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.

If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jan 30, 2020
410
513
But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?

I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.

Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?

I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.

If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
Many are judging the R3 by MP count alone. Yet the 1DX3 only has 20mp for $6500, and the 5D4 has 30 mp for $3,500 and they didn't flinch at the price difference.

The R3 will definitely be a step up from the R5 in terms of AF, frame rate, build, connectivity, sensor, grip etc, justifying a higher price even if it has a lower MP count.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?

I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.

Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?

I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.

If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
Canon has never been the one to "target" specific users. Sony does that. I HATE that. Canon makes cameras that appeal to all users. For example, the 1Dx cameras appealed to wedding photographers AND sports photographers, etc. I've always loved that about canon. With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something. If they do target this specific genre of photographer, they will be breaking from what they've always done. It will be extremely disappointing and they will have lost a permeant canon mirrorless convert.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Canon has never been the one to "target" specific users. Sony does that. I HATE that. Canon makes cameras that appeal to all users. For example, the 1Dx cameras appealed to wedding photographers AND sports photographers, etc. I've always loved that about canon. With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something. If they do target this specific genre of photographer, they will be breaking from what they've always done. It will be extremely disappointing and they will have lost a permeant canon mirrorless convert.
Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense to me. Every company has a target user in mind when they develop a product. Otherwise they would just make 1 product in total right? Segmentation within a product lineup is of course something that Canon employs. But please correct me if I have mis understood what you are getting at?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
Canon always had problems with noise. If you try to recover shadows even from a 1D X at ISO 100, it still looks noisy. So anything that increases noise on a pixel level even more, is bad news.
There are no issues with noise in modern Canon sensors though. 90D, M6 II, 1DX III, R6 and R5 all use sensors where you can recover shadows to your hearts content.
The main advantage of a full frame sensor for me are the large pixels. If you increase the resolution at the same time, the advantage of the larger pixels is gone.
You are not giving up anything in terms of low light performance due to a higher resolution. The R5 isn't lacking compared to the 1DX III / R6 or Sony:


And this is especially true with the R3, which will feature backside illumination.
I do not want a cheap camera.
If you have an issue spending too little on camera gear, you can always buy your gear twice and donate the additional one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
1,035
931
Frankfurt, Germany
Basically, any architecture/real estate photographer needs this feature to expose a room and also capture the view out the window, so it's not actually that esoteric.
I know exactly what you mean, but I have seen a lot of beautiful artistic images working even with the shortcomings of film in such settings. Sometimes it is much more rewarding if you are restricted in your technical options, in particular in photography. Caution: this reply is written by the artist amongst my multiple personalities, not the geek (who was told to shut up) ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,100
12,864
Basically, any architecture/real estate photographer needs this feature to expose a room and also capture the view out the window, so it's not actually that esoteric.
I think 'needs' is incorrect. Architecture/real estate photographers capture such images today, and that feature doesn't yet exist.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,100
12,864
Fair enough, it might not be quite a need, but it should be able to speed up work quite a bit compared to the alternatives.
I think that depends on the implementation. Actually taking the multiple exposures really doesn't take long, with current cameras' ability to set up exposure bracketing, it's really just a press-and-hold of the shutter button. If you're envisioning an in-camera combination of the resulting multiple exposures, then that would save time to the extent that the camera does a good job at that combination...somehow, I doubt in-camera will come anywhere close to proper exposure blending or luminosity masking (certainly, current 'in-camera' HDR features are not that great), but maybe it will be 'good enough'. If it's not good enough, then honestly the feature will not make a meaningful difference for things like architecture/real estate.

Where it might make a meaningful difference is with moving subjects, e.g. a bird against a bright sky, where you may want cloud detail and detail on the underside of the bird, an ultrafast pair of exposures with a few stops difference could make shots possible that aren't, with current technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
Canon can sell a billion entry-level cameras that help them lead in market share and none of those folks could buy another Canon camera (which would be brand loyalty).
Why, if someone has a Canon camera and they buy another one, is this necessarily 'brand loyalty' ? I use Canon as my working cameras and I wanted a (jacket) pocketable APS-c compact. I have no brand loyalty at all, and I looked at the Ricoh GRIII and Fujica X100V, but the best one for me was the Canon G1XIII. Brand loyalty had nothing to do with it, it's a case of Canon coming up with the best camera.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something.
Why wouldn't a wedding photographer, who may shoot six to eight hundred images in a session, be interested in a camera that is lower than 36 mp ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Why wouldn't a wedding photographer, who may shoot six to eight hundred images in a session, be interested in a camera that is lower than 36 mp ?
Indeed. I have shot a decent numbers of weddings and never with a >20mp camera and never once have I been asked for more.

What having more mp does is allow for other inadequacies, particularly focal length, but certainly is not a necessity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Canon has never been the one to "target" specific users. Sony does that. I HATE that. Canon makes cameras that appeal to all users. For example, the 1Dx cameras appealed to wedding photographers AND sports photographers, etc. I've always loved that about canon. With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something. If they do target this specific genre of photographer, they will be breaking from what they've always done. It will be extremely disappointing and they will have lost a permeant canon mirrorless convert.
I've highlighted part of your response - because that is effectively what I am suggesting: I don't think Canon would be saying the R3 is the camera for wedding photographers, given the way they are setting it up in their press releases.

Now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't perhaps be a great camera for all sorts of uses - not just sport/wildlife/news PJs - and even perhaps for those wedding 'togs that prefer lower mp over higher too. But if the R5 does what some need, then Canon doesn't have to say the R3 is a replacement for it, rather a different tool for those with different needs/desires.

Cheers.
 
Upvote 0

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
64
80
Why, if someone has a Canon camera and they buy another one, is this necessarily 'brand loyalty' ? I use Canon as my working cameras and I wanted a (jacket) pocketable APS-c compact. I have no brand loyalty at all, and I looked at the Ricoh GRIII and Fujica X100V, but the best one for me was the Canon G1XIII. Brand loyalty had nothing to do with it, it's a case of Canon coming up with the best camera.
You dug too deep. Obviously some people buy cameras on a case-by-case basis and will go with whatever brand. My comment was in general, and generally once people buy into a brand, they'll stick with that brand. This goes beyond cameras.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The EVF seems very very protruding compared to the 1DXmkIII.
I'm not a pro nor user of such a body, but could be an issue to store it intoa bag no?

How many pros using this type of body have you ever seen storing such a camera in a bag? If traveling via air they use hard cases. Otherwise, the ones I know tend to carry them on their person or throw them, unbagged, on the passenger seat or in the trunks of their cars.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Long form video is very popular. Set the camera for an interview or wildlife scene etc and let it run, then edit out the good bits. Indeed in interviews getting the camera and gear handling out of the equation is very important, nothing breaks the flow of things quite like somebody saying cut I have to reset the camera!

On the other hand, when shooting such long form video, where focus is set and remains unchanged, far less capable cameras can do just as well of a job.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
*Most* of the things I've needed to record over the pandemic (which got me into videography) have been longer than 30 minutes.
Interviews
Weddings (like a documentary recording)
Church Services/Sermon recordings
Conference presentations

I realize there are lots of things that don't need long-form recording capability, but there are lots of things that do, and I've found cameras with artificial record time limits are more trouble than they're worth in those situations.

It was enough of an issue that I went and bought a used C300.

And C300 bodies, or even older and less capable dedicated video cameras, work well in those situations where high performance AF and other advanced features are not required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Anyone notice there is no wireless file transfer port? Makes you wonder if this new hot shoe will have the WFT antenna up on top as one of the Canon branded accessories.

View attachment 198034

Or the WFT module will attach to the new hot shoe with integrated data an power connections?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I would really love that! In that case it could also be 45 to 50Mp. A R3 that is a superset of R5 (don't mind the video) would interest me a lot!

DiG!C X isn't a single chip like previous iterations, it's an architecture. So increased data throughput wouldn't be described as "Dual DiG!C X".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0