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

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
129
116
Yeah flash sync at any speed would be a big deal for some, but if the R3 can do 1/250 or maybe 1/500 that would probably be enough for most people. But will those same people want only 20MP or so if they are not sports journalists?
At the last NHL game i shot, I was speaking with a Sony shooter for the wire service and we both agree, you can NOT shoot an entire game at 20 frames per second and actually manage to edit each period and caption and file 6 to 9 images during each intermission. It cant be done. High speed mechanical shutter on the R5 is more than enough. The only time I went 'full speed" was during a shoot out during regular season and I did not even look at all the players who did not score. I jumped straight to the game winning goal and dumped the rest. It is just too much for the vast majority of needs.

I could see using it for certain moments at Tennis, but again, never the entire match.

40 frames per second is niche territory for sure!
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
296
226
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Kind of surprised you paid $700 over retail when you bought the 1Dx.
NYC sales tax... its 8.75%
Yet, it hasn't affected their sales, profits or product development



Canon has said that the R3 will not be its flagship. But, I'm curious why you think it is a gimmick. I have doubts about how effective the eye autofocus might be for sports, although I can see that, depending on how it is implemented, it could be useful for some sports. For those where it isn't, I would just turn it off. Not going to hurt anything
Golf? ;)
You always seem to overlook the fact that you represent a tiny, tiny portion of professional sports photographers. You may shoot professional sports, but there are a lot more of us professionals who shoot non-professional and non top level NCAA teams. Those who shoot high school and small college sports far outnumber you and I'd wager a bet that a great many will find the R3 to be the perfect camera, especially, if as you suggest, an R1 comes in at $8,000. Face it, Canon cares about total sales. Your team may warrant a little extra personal attention from Canon to make you feel valued, but for decisions that actually impact development, Canon is far more interested in the enthusiast and small market professionals, because they represent a much larger share of revenues.
I.dont think our groups are small at all. Sports teams, leagues, tv networks, advertising agencies, production houses, magazines, newspapers, digital content producers, publishing houses, independents. we are a big group and we tend to spend an average well over 100K per employee over the life of a platform. This is before we add broadcast and film production with an average of $250K to $650K per employee.

Canon enjoys our business and the margins and 'the fact' that as we shoot on the sidelines, consumers see this and want the same equipment. We are well pronounced marketing component that reaches millions of consumers.
You are right, Canon's share of the market is..oh wait...it's bigger than anyone else's.
SONY, Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung from where we sit are getting larger spends on platform, glass and electronics in processional setting in studio and remote.
Why do I get the feeling that if and when an R1 is finally announced, you will declare that it is worthless?
If the EVF as planned is next gen and able to work in direct sun and stadium lights without bloom and lag, many will buy-in but it will have have at least double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII
 
  • Like
Reactions: carlosalberto

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
324
273
I have a solution for those that are already feeling the pain of spending upwards of $6,000.00 on an R3 body. Just split your purchase using two or more credit cards. Two expenditures of $3k ea or four of only $1500.00 ea sounds so much cheaper and better than one outlay of $6k. You're spending just as much money, of course but it looks so much better on paper. Gee, I feel better already. Now, let me see how many accessories I can add on, since it's not going to hurt as bad using this new acquisition strategy. :ROFLMAO:
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
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.

The biggest difference, as I see it, is that due to the way the competition is doing it Canon can no longer use AF as the differentiator between the lower priced 5-series and the higher priced 1-series. The R6 and the R5 have pretty much the same AF performance, do they not? Contrast that with the 6D (amateur level AF) vs. 5D Mark III (near 1-Series level AF for 2012) in 2012 and the 6D Mark II (prosumer level AF) vs. the 5D Mark IV (near 1-Series AF for 2016).

Canon now has to find other things to be the differentiators, because Sony and Nikon are giving all of their α7 and Z lines, respectively, the best AF they can put in them.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
I believe the R3 was the original successor of the 1D mark iii. so I think this campera will have around 20 MP. And because of the Z9 and A1 Canon will use the fullframe sensor of the not jet announced canon Cinema C500(??) for a high MP high performance pro camera.

The 1D Mark IV (2009) was the successor to the 1D Mark III (2007). Do you mean the 1D X Mark III (2020)?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
I have an old Tag Heur, for me it isn't the cost of the battery it is the cost of the fitting. New seals and pressure testing make that $5 battery a $100 job that takes three days and two trips to my local big city an hour away.

I have a watch which cost in the low three figures for which I can change the battery myself (It does require the specialty three prong type spanner tool, which I have a low end version of). But changing it is a pain. So I took it to a local Jeweler whose wife I was high school friends with and paid them $10 a couple of times to put a battery in for me. Both times, the battery they installed only lasted about half as long as the batteries I buy for about 4 for $10 on amazon and put in myself. So the real cost difference is more like $20 vs. $2.50 for me.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
If Canon wants to lure some existing or potential Nikon and Sony flagship users by undercutting the price, 500 dollar price difference won't make sense. This would be especially true if R3 is less than 40 MP (I think more likely). My speculation is that R5c will be around 5000 dollars, R3 will be 5500 dollars, and R1 will be 7000 dollars. Irrespective of the price tag R3 will likely outsell both A1 and Z9, provided MP count is not too low.

If by R5c you mean the R5s, it will be closer to $4,500 in the U.S.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
I think that many of us were hoping, like you, for mid $5k pricing for the R3, noting that in Canon's own words, this body will fall in between the R5 and 1Dx iii. We can still hope, can we not? However, at $6 grand, this would kind of signal a 1Dx mirrorless replacement to me. If there is a summer Olympics, will be interesting to see just what kind of presence the R3 will actually have. No idea how many Canon ambassadors would be at any given Olympics. I still don't see the average pro sports photog jumping to mirrorless until the R3/R1 bodies have a proven performance track record.

It's looking more and more like if the Olympics happen, no foreign non-competitors will be allowed in. So all photogs will be Japanese residents.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
If I am carrying 1 lens => 24-105mm. 2 lenses = 16-35mm + 70-200mm or 16-35mm + 100-500mm
The R5's resolution means that I can get away with cropping from 70mm or 100mm down to 35-50mm focal range without too many dramas. If I was using the R6 then it would be more of an issue.
Landscape/seascape is perfect with a 16-35mm + 100-500mm in case of unexpected wildlife.
All the others are specialty for me: 8-15mm (astro and underwater), 14mm (astro), 100mm (macro and portraits), 70-200mm (portrait and indoor event/sports)

Please explain to me how you can shoot with a 70mm or 100mm and crop to get a 35-50mm angle of view. I need to learn that trick!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,690
409
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Will an ETA for the R3 also be available in the next few days ? I was close to purchasing the R5 when the R3 announcement came out. As a bird and wildlife hobbyist photographer I feel I will benefit from the bump from 20fps to 30fps, and certainly benefit from longer battery life and a tougher body.
20fps vs 30 fps is only a benefit if you are a prayer and sprayer. I get great birds in flight and wild life shots with my lowly 6 fps and I've not missed a shot. A lot of my success is about knowing the camera's speed and timing, which is true for 30fps or 6fps. All I can say about 30fps is don't expect a massive resolution with a camera of that frame rate and expect a lot less keeper ratio per shot. Your hard drive is going to fill up real quick with a lot of very similar images. A 3 second burst a 6fps only yields 18 shots. A 3 second burst at 30 fps is a LOT more images.

I've been reading about the speculation of the sensor resolution of this new camera. Sports and press shooters care little about the resolution as they do the frame rate. They generally want low MP so they can select their single shot and upload it quickly to their agency via wifi. 30+mp cameras generally cause press photographers to go into panic & trauma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
20fps vs 30 fps is only a benefit if you are a prayer and sprayer. I get great birds in flight and wild life shots with my lowly 6 fps and I've not missed a shot. A lot of my success is about knowing the camera's speed and timing, which is true for 30fps or 6fps. All I can say about 30fps is don't expect a massive resolution with a camera of that frame rate and expect a lot less keeper ratio per shot. Your hard drive is going to fill up real quick with a lot of very similar images. A 3 second burst a 6fps only yields 18 shots. A 3 second burst at 30 fps is a LOT more images.

I've been reading about the speculation of the sensor resolution of this new camera. Sports and press shooters care little about the resolution as they do the frame rate. They generally want low MP so they can select their single shot and upload it quickly to their agency via wifi. 30+mp cameras generally cause press photographers to go into panic & trauma.

Sadly, the skill of timing sports/action shots is becoming a lost art.

But there does come a point where the camera can beat even the best at it. If I can time the shutter release to within 1/20 second (taking into account how far ahead of release I have to press the shutter button) of when I anticipate the peak action I wish to capture (say bat hitting ball that only lasts for 1/2,000 of one second), then I'm more likely to get the shot (1:100) than someone praying and spraying with a 10-12 fps camera (1:200). But if the camera can shoot at 30fps, the odds go to the prayer and sprayer if they have any ability at all to start the first frame in the burst near the time the ball is arriving at the plate. At 3,000 fps high speed video the odds are even (1:2 or 50/50) that the camera will capture two frames with the bat in contact with the ball and certain to capture at least one frame, assuming the batter manages to make contact with the ball.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
I've been reading about the speculation of the sensor resolution of this new camera. Sports and press shooters care little about the resolution as they do the frame rate. They generally want low MP so they can select their single shot and upload it quickly to their agency via wifi. 30+mp cameras generally cause press photographers to go into panic & trauma.

On the other hand, connection speeds continue to increase at a remarkable rate. What took ten minutes to transmit only ten years ago takes less than 10 seconds today.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,687
1,556
On the other hand, connection speeds continue to increase at a remarkable rate. What took ten minutes to transmit only ten years ago takes less than 10 seconds today.
And for this specific use case: the recent wifi standards (802.11AC and now 'wifi 6') have a lot more options to deal with crowded spots to make it both reliable and fast. But it took Canon more than 10 years to introduce a body with non-A 5GHz support, I hope they jump on the 'wifi 6' bandwagon a lot quicker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark
Feb 15, 2019
3
0
Traveling
As long as Sony is selling their line at an acceptable clip, they won't tap out. What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway?

1. Companies never match each other feature for feature. They don't have to because the desires of consumers are not monolithic.

2. The company in the lead today isn't there perpetually, ever. There's always leapfrogging.

3. Personally, I am committed to Canon. I like the products. It is a fool's game for people to constantly worry that brand X or Y will surpass their chosen brand one way or another. Just shoot. Only complete fool's OR people with gobs of money switch systems everytime the "New Shiny" comes out.
I agree, I've been a user of Canon for more the 50 years I don't jump around I'm very satisfied with Canon cameras, Yes guess lots of folks with more money like the latest brand new shiny thing on the market or bragging rights!....
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
And for this specific use case: the recent wifi standards (802.11AC and now 'wifi 6') have a lot more options to deal with crowded spots to make it both reliable and fast. But it took Canon more than 10 years to introduce a body with non-A 5GHz support, I hope they jump on the 'wifi 6' bandwagon a lot quicker.


Well, most guys I know on the sidelines at large college sporting events transfer from the camera to a tablet, do minimal editing (maybe just cropping and adding captions) and then push the images to the publisher or wire services from the tablet. So as long as the tablet has wifi 6, they should be good to go.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
Yes the perspective will change with focal length. Let me know when a 8-100mm macro lens is available that I can take underwater and we can chat.


That still doesn't explain how I can use a longer focal length lens and crop the image to get the angle of view of a shorter focal length lens.

Perhaps you meant to say the reverse? Shoot with a shorter lens and then crop to the longer focal length AoV?