The Canon EOS R3 pricing to undercut the competition [CR3]

DBounce

EOS RP
May 3, 2016
350
381
I just completed my trinity kit this weekend...it was soooo incredibly painful. Worth it in the long run, but incredibly painful today.
I’ve had my RF trinity kit and then some for years. I just haven’t had a body to put them on. I gave away my Eos R and returned my R5. My Red Komodo 6K does not have Canon levels of AF. So here I sit, awaiting the fabled “pro” body. I know I’ll buy the R1... but the R3 came out of left field. It remains an unknown.
 

TravelerNick

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 4, 2020
91
55
What is the competition? Serious question.

If Canon claims this is a new market niche below the flagship what really fits that description? The A1 and the Z9 are both aimed at the flagship market.

The only real competition is the R5 with a grip :devilish:
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
316
334
Well I personally consider the entire cost of any upgrade, that includes the cost of a grip/WFT/cards/card readers/batteries/chargers etc and if any of that is backwards/forwards compatible.

It looks like the R3 could take the current 1 series battery, irrelevant for many but for me it means I have forward/backward compatibility and I only need to travel with one charger.
As they look at the long term future of the gripped cameras, I think they will change batteries if they can reduce the size while improving the performance. Canon tends to take the long view and I believe they will change the battery if it reduces overall manufacturing costs while maintaining or improving performance. I am willing to take that hit even though I kept all of my extra batteries when I sold the 1dx II. I treat it as another cost of the decision to move to the R platform. I think the constraining factor is where or not they can cram equal or more power into a smaller form factor battery. I know Canon did not take this approach with the R5, but I think they were happy with the size and didn't feel a need to further reduce battery size. I made a complete switch to the R5 from EOS DSLR / EF lenses. If you use the R5/R6 as a backup, you will still need to carry two chargers unless they can create a super, duper R3 battery in the LP E6NH format.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,552
3,867
Obviously the cheaper the better. Practically, a lower R3 cost means I may buy more RF lenses sooner.

It looks like the R3 could take the current 1 series battery, irrelevant for many but for me it means I have forward/backward compatibility and I only need to travel with one charger.
Hopefully that one travel charger can be the 96 W USB-C adapter for my 16” MacBook Pro laptops, and the R3 can charge its battery in-camera.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,438
5,657
As they look at the long term future of the gripped cameras, I think they will change batteries if they can reduce the size while improving the performance. Canon tends to take the long view and I believe they will change the battery if it reduces overall manufacturing costs while maintaining or improving performance. I am willing to take that hit even though I kept all of my extra batteries when I sold the 1dx II. I treat it as another cost of the decision to move to the R platform. I think the constraining factor is where or not they can cram equal or more power into a smaller form factor battery. I know Canon did not take this approach with the R5, but I think they were happy with the size and didn't feel a need to further reduce battery size. I made a complete switch to the R5 from EOS DSLR / EF lenses. If you use the R5/R6 as a backup, you will still need to carry two chargers unless they can create a super, duper R3 battery in the LP E6NH format.
I did a layover of the 1DX III and the R3 for another thread and the batteries, just by the front edge, are exactly the same size and shape.

Canon stuck with the NP-E2/NP-E3 for years across non gripped and gripped 1 series bodies. The LP-E4/LP-E4N/LP-E19 have been an improving mainstay for years now, besides, what are they going to use today that is better than the Lithium-Ion they are using?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lglass12189
What is the competition? Serious question.

If Canon claims this is a new market niche below the flagship what really fits that description? The A1 and the Z9 are both aimed at the flagship market.

The only real competition is the R5 with a grip :devilish:
My best guess is the competition is really the A9II. My gut has been telling me from the beginning that this won't be a high MP camera like Z9 or A1. I think the R1 will end up being high MP and will price even higher than the A1 and Z9. I think the Z9 will match the A1 at $6500. I think the R3 will be more like $5-5.5K. $6K seems like a lot unless the future R1 will be $7500 or something??

Of course there is the chance that the R3 is higher MP and then at $6K price would be justified and could be in competition with he A1/Z9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,340
542
I think it all depends on whether the R3 is generally better than the IDXIII.
It would be hard to see it being priced lower than the IDXIII if it is.
It should have more MP and better focusing - two key things.
The IDXIII is probably only going to be better in terms of battery life. It looks physically bigger - so heavier.
I have a 1DXIII and its a good camera but I always thought that Canon poorly chose to put a 20MP sensor in it.
30MP would have been a much better choice and the camera would be all the better for it.
I'll really be interested in the R3 ability to track items and keep focus.
The 1DXIII was an improvement but still struggles with small moving objects like birds. It's very good with bigger objects.
I await to see what an R3 can do, mirrorless promises so much in terms of focusing but little birds are still tricky.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,438
5,657
I think it all depends on whether the R3 is generally better than the IDXIII.
It would be hard to see it being priced lower than the IDXIII if it is.
It should have more MP and better focusing - two key things.
The IDXIII is probably only going to be better in terms of battery life. It looks physically bigger - so heavier.
I have a 1DXIII and its a good camera but I always thought that Canon poorly chose to put a 20MP sensor in it.
30MP would have been a much better choice and the camera would be all the better for it.
I'll really be interested in the R3 ability to track items and keep focus.
The 1DXIII was an improvement but still struggles with small moving objects like birds. It's very good with bigger objects.
I await to see what an R3 can do, mirrorless promises so much in terms of focusing but little birds are still tricky.
But that isn’t what history tells us. The 5D’s were generally as well specked as the 1 series that came out a year or so before them in all but AF.

The move to the R system is going to involve shifts in model positions, I don’t see why we don’t end up with an R type entry level camera in time, an R6, R5, R3 and R1 in the same way we used to have EOS 1V, 3, 5, and then a series of Rebels in the film days.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,438
5,657
Well, according to Canon, the R3 is not a flagship camera. So it should cost less than the 1dx3 as it slots in below it based on their own press release.
But according the Canon the R5 is a replacement for the 5D IV, the R5 is $3,899, the 5D IV was $3,200 the majority of its life.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
224
465
I just completed my trinity kit this weekend...it was soooo incredibly painful. Worth it in the long run, but incredibly painful today.
Does a 15-35, 70-200, and 100-500 count as a trinity? If so, then I'm there as well. ;)

I've always have had tremendous resistance to 24-70 lenses, and have found that these three--plus primes--do the job for me.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2014
477
146
54
My best guess is the competition is really the A9II. My gut has been telling me from the beginning that this won't be a high MP camera like Z9 or A1. I think the R1 will end up being high MP and will price even higher than the A1 and Z9. I think the Z9 will match the A1 at $6500. I think the R3 will be more like $5-5.5K. $6K seems like a lot unless the future R1 will be $7500 or something??

Of course there is the chance that the R3 is higher MP and then at $6K price would be justified and could be in competition with he A1/Z9.
My guess is it will come in between $4,999.99 and $5,499.99 USD. Canon seems to follow they're own drumbeat - to a certain extent - in pricing their cameras. I was spot on with my prediction of where the R5 would be priced. Many thought, or were concerned (probably more appropriate), that the R5 would be priced higher than it was. I never thought it would be. Canon is quite reliable in where (and how) they price their products.
 

MiJax

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 30, 2016
55
57
California
www.flickr.com
Canon has up-ended the industry's model line ups. Sony will need to revamp their line up soon, or simply stay out of sync with Canon. The R5 - A9 match up is weird, the R5 - A7 match up is equally odd (although being both company's general all rounder bodies). The R5 - A7r is close, but not expected to hold up when Canon releases a high MP body. And I haven't even touched on the R5 - A1... Sony's line is a mess for direct comparison. Nikon isn't a lot different, but its set to compete a little more squarely, as far as the lines go... but their feature set and competence is not quite there. And then... there's the $8000 true flagship (R1) that is likely being prepped. What is Sony going to do? Tap out, and simply stay out of that realm? Or rename their entire line up? Who knows, maybe they want an offset line-up, in which case, they are being undercut by products that offer more value. IMO, Sony is in for lots of changes over the next couple of years. They make great products, so they'll be fine, but I can see a real marketing issue developing.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
224
465
I’ve been thinking that the price would be just about between the R5 and the 1DxmkIII. Maybe $5,000. It doesn’t make sense that this would be $6,000. Canon has had a flagship at $6,000 before, which is why it doesn’t make sense to me. If they then come out with an R1, how much would that cost? What would the market bear these days? I believe Canon would be pushing their luck if it cost too much.

how much would anyone here pay for an R1, no matter how good it would be? Seriously? $7,000, $7,500, $8,000, more?

if the R3 were $6,000, how much would Canon NEED to charge for a flagship in order to differentiate between the two? $500, $1,000, more?

to me, the idea of this costing $6,000 causes problems.
Doesn't it depend on the difference in feature set? If the R1 has global shutter and QPAF and these additions provide significantly better performance than obtainiable from the R3, then I suspect $7000 would be the target--an incremental increase from the previous flagship price--with $7500 possible on the high end.