The Canon EOS R3 is out in the wild

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
Come on Canon don't gimp the camera, no crap 20MP sensor. I know the fan boys will be outraged, but couldn't care less, anything under 30MP will be bitterly disappointing. With a price only slightly under the A1, I'll take 50MP any day of the year for a $500 more. If the AF is outstanding, and it can decidedly beat the A1 I could live with 24MP, just. Would love to see it have equal res to the R5 and offer 8K free of heat issues.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
505
Orewa , New Zealand
I just can’t understand why Canon is keeping the wraps on the MP count. With the R3 already in the hands of some “pros” I just don’t get it.
Since switching from the original A9 then A9ll to the R5 having those 45mp has been a game changer for me, the ability to crop and now not have to shoot as tight. I mostly Shoot Alpine ski racing
R7 crop sensor might be better for you if it's like the R3 but with a cropped stacked sensor of say 30-35mp
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
95
138
Houston
I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.
I see your point but the situation is maybe not as dire as you portray it to be. For sure there are folks on this site that have serious (pro) needs and/or seriously deep pockets, but there are average joes here too. Another respondent does make the point that the diminishing population of people willing to carry a separate camera is pushing prices up some, but all is not Rolls Royce and Lamborghinis. I settled on the RP to get my toes wet in mirrorless, and there are already well-priced pre-owned or refurbished units out there to soften the blow. The non-L lenses are better in quality than their equivalents in EF, and the cameras are performing real-time corrections for such lenses as well. $1,000 may not be totally realistic but at $1,500 you have choices that may not cover full-fledged 4K video but do very well for full-frame stills. Second-hand FD lenses open up budget-oriented options for creative shooting as well. New mirrorless lens mounts have spurred manufacturers to re-think their offerings and these are exciting times. Think about the 600mm and 800mm f:11 lenses as an example. Even if you are not buying now, the insights of fellow light-chasers into creative uses of new or older glass and equipment can inspire creativity on prior-generation gear, pending winning the state lottery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
Wow, I can't remember the last time I saw an opinion I respect less than yours. Canon has INDEED replaced the OVF, and hasn't made an OVF camera--or lens for one--in years. And you clearly have no understanding of the incredible photographs being made with the RF or other mirrorless camera lines.


Seriously you might as well argue that only film cameras are real cameras. That would sound as intelligent as what you're saying.
The problem I have with OVFs is more philosphical. There is a value of seeing something with your own eyes. That's why I also to not like drone photography. The photos may look amazing, but they are "virtual" because nobody was actually up there with the drone and looking through the viewfinder. That is the basic idea of photography for me: You see something with your won eyes and capture that moment. Of course the exact moment you capture can't be seen because of the viewfinder blackout, but it is still a large difference to an EVF.

We probably live hundreds of kilometres apart, if you live in Switzerland, but technically I could have an R5, do a video with it, send you the video and you watch that video with your viewfinder. Then you would see exactly what I saw. For you it would look exactly as real as for me. That is the problem with a copy. It is not the original thing.

In 2015 the Queen visited my hometown. She passed by with her car, had her window down and waved. Prince Philip was sitting next to her. I was able to take some photos when they passed and saw both of them through my OVF. If I had an EVF back then, I would only have seen a digital copy of them. The same digital copy that I could send somebody else who then watches it on a screen or in another EVF. I am not so much into celebrities, but it was important for me to see them with my own eyes. I had the same feeling on the Olympic closing ceremony on Rio de Janeiro. I was very happy that I got a ticket and watched most of the show through my OVF to take tons of photos. Even if EVFS look more and more like reality, you know that they are not real. At some point in future they might build robots that look and behave like humans, but they will still be robots.

As I mainly shoot still subjects like buildings, I don't really see how a mirrorless camera can help me produce images a DSLR can't. Do the new optical formulas really make such a difference?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Yes, Canon provides a EF-RF adapter to prevent people from realising that EOS EF -> EOS RF is a moment that they can consider choosing Sony/Nikon.

EF lenses can be made to work on RF cameras but the equivalent RF lenses will work better - for example, faster and more reliable autofocus.

You left out the part about more expensive for the same focal length(s) and maximum apertures...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
While I recognize this is the reality it doesn’t seem like the best business model. Lower cost of entry for people would get more people excited and wanting to buy equipment. It feels like the big 3 are almost pushing many people away and telling them they can have their iPhones. If they keep raising the prices so much, even enthusiasts like myself will eventually be tapped out. The pro photography world isn’t large enough to support the market on it’s own.

The only thing the mass market are excited about when it comes to taking pictures is whether the hottest new smartphone with the "best" camera is an iPhone or an Android phone. Canon (or Nikon, or Sony, or Panasonic, or Olympus...) didn't push those folks away - they left to answer the siren call of the smartphone that can allow them to take better photos (including processing photos to make them look a lot better than they really look) without knowing anything about operating a camera, and then share those photos instantly with anyone in the world using a device they always have in their pocket already.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Two things, first, they tried that business model and it failed because of the camera phone model. And second, most pros have a lot less money to spend on gear than ‘enthusiasts’.

One reason pros these days have less money to spend on gear than they did in the past is because many well heeled "enthusiasts" are willing to do for nothing, other than sideline access and/or seeing their credited images published by media outlets, the same work pros once did for a living.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
The R3 will get in the right hands well before the Olympics. Last thing you want is the best photographers in the world not knowing their way around a new camera for a major sporting event.

Unless they are residents of Japan, it looks more and more like the "best photographers in the world" will not be at the Tokyo Olympics if the only foreigners allowed in are the athletes and no one else.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I have very small hands so the smaller R5 form factor has been great for me BUT the teeny, tiny back buttons that I use for different back button focus options are not so great for me because I do most of my shooting in cold weather with thick gloves which means it's almost impossible for me to discriminate the buttons by feel because of their small size. My solution has been to build them up with moldable silicone to be able to feel them through my gloves. The camera was great unmodified when I was not wearing gloves.
Catherine
View attachment 198286

That hinky cover might have something to do with it. Even if you cut out holes for the buttons, they still feel shorter due to the thickness of the cover.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
R3 will be the R6 on steroids. The R1 will be the R5 on steroids. Would be a shame if same censors or MP.

Since no current Canon stills camera has a BSI sensor and the R3 does, it won't be the same sensor. One would assume the R1 will also be a new BSI sensor.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I just can’t understand why Canon is keeping the wraps on the MP count. With the R3 already in the hands of some “pros” I just don’t get it.
Since switching from the original A9 then A9ll to the R5 having those 45mp has been a game changer for me, the ability to crop and now not have to shoot as tight. I mostly Shoot Alpine ski racing

Because Canon almost always reserves any information regarding resolution until the official release announcement. It's the way they've always done it.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Wow, I can't remember the last time I saw an opinion I respect less than yours. Canon has INDEED replaced the OVF, and hasn't made an OVF camera--or lens for one--in years. And you clearly have no understanding of the incredible photographs being made with the RF or other mirrorless camera lines.


Seriously you might as well argue that only film cameras are real cameras. That would sound as intelligent as what you're saying.

The 1D X Mark III would like to have a word with you.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tron

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Come on Canon don't gimp the camera, no crap 20MP sensor. I know the fan boys will be outraged, but couldn't care less, anything under 30MP will be bitterly disappointing. With a price only slightly under the A1, I'll take 50MP any day of the year for a $500 more. If the AF is outstanding, and it can decidedly beat the A1 I could live with 24MP, just. Would love to see it have equal res to the R5 and offer 8K free of heat issues.

There's practically no functional difference between 20 MP and 24 MP. If 20 MP isn't enough, you need to go to around 30 MP to notice any significant difference.
 
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
I still hope that one day Canon will let us choose between two or three different sensors and also between different memory card slots. At least in those two points cameras should become modular. That does not mean that one option has to be cheaper than the other one. Just let us choose between 20 MP and 60 MP or something like that! That would make everyone happy.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,860
1,787
[..]
I really wish they'd add "motion trigger" ability to video (or high FPS continuous stills) so that you could leave a camera on a tripod and have it only record with sufficient motion happening (like a hummingbird landing on a feeder). Then you'd only have small bits of video or stills to worry about in post instead of gazillions of "nothing" to store and wade through in post.
If they add such a thing, I hope they add software focus limiters as well. The past few days I've been trying to film damselflies shedding their larval skin, which they tend to do on reeds which are swinging in the wind. The AF on the R5 is good enough to track motion, but if a hard gust blows it out of the frame, I don't want the lens to focus on the other side of the pond.

First attempt, with an R5 + 180mm L macro:

The 180mm has glacial AF, I really hope Canon releases an RF version with quad-nano-USM-turbo AF.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
853
699
Frankfurt, Germany
I guess Boris Johnson was used as an AF tracking test subject when he took a plunge in the sea after the G7 meeting was finished (he did, German news broadcasted a video yesterday). Well, he shouldn't be a challenge for any AF system ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
853
699
Frankfurt, Germany
I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.
Smartphones are really good for most needs to shoot images and videos. So, if you were the typical user of cheaper ILC cameras with one kit zoom that you never changed, it really makes sense to say good-bye. Interchangeable lens cameras nowadays are mostly an interesting option for people with more special needs which forces them to use special lenses.

One example are tele lenses. Smartphone cameras are limited to a maximum focal lenghts that would be about 100mm in FF equivalent, (1) because of the small space available in a smartphone, and (2) because longer focal lenghts result in even smaller sensors in those mini-cameras. So, if you need a longer tele for your photography, you will always need a bigger system. Another area is shooting with very fast lenses to get a shallow depth-of field to isolate e.g. a portrait from background an get a nice bokeh. Today's better smartphones imitate this effect with their multi-cameras, time-of-flight laser sensors for precise distance metering, plus massive algorithms. But those algorithms produce errors and artifacts, e.g. by smearing out contours of haircuts, you may know this effect in a very stark pronounced way from video chats in which your partner has activated a virtual background. Good smartphones are much better already, but on a bigger print you'd see those artifacts.

All this sums up to the fact, that it is logical for camera makers to concentrate on a smaller, more premium market for enthusiasts and pros. The classical point & shoot market is mostly eaten by smartphones, which represent a disruptive tech. The great thing about a smartphone is that you always have it in your pocket. Plus, if you use it in the street, nobody gets paranoid about it, because everyone is offender by her- or himself, using frequently their own smartphones. But if you today use a classical camera for street photography, even a vintage analogue one with not any connection to social networks, you easily attract aggression.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr