The Canon EOS R3 will be $5999 USD

[JDavis]

They are absolutely appealing! Not sure where your difficulty is. Canon has made the transition easy for those with existing glass (as I had and still have some).
Some lenses are old but a lot are younger then 20 years old especially for the alternatives to current RF lenses.
More EF lenses are available on the second hand market at an even cheaper price as well with people moving to RF.
If you don't like the adapter then pretend that it is welded on and have one for each EF lens. Yes, they can be hard to find in some markets but you asked for a mid range option and then complain that the mid range option is either an old design or that you have to spend USD100 for an adapter.
Using the ND/CPL adapter actually makes the filters cheaper eg for the 11-24mm/4 or EF8-15mm lens than for the external options.
I won't be getting the RF100mm macro or the RF14-35mm/4 lens because the adapted EF version are a great price and are great quality.
It will be a long time before the EF8-15mm/4 is available in RF so my second hand version is perfect for the limited times I use it.

Seriously? Look at how the old EF lenses compare to newer lenses made for mirrorless, its not even close. Most are absolutely terrible. We just never noticed it shooting 12 megapixel DSLRs back in the day. Cant get away with that on 30-45 megapixel cameras with current sensors. Oh yea, just go grab an EF adapter for each of my EF lenses like they are free and growing on trees. You're joking right? These things have been out of stock for EIGHT MONTHS and when they do get stock, they are gone within minutes. You really think Canon can't produce these things and keep them in stock? Of course they can, they don't want to though, because they want you to spend big bucks on their absurdly priced RF lenses. Once again, it all goes back to Canon's greed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As a professional sports photographer and manager with one of the largest sports agencies in the world, I disagree with your statement

I’ll rephrase. You know many things, but none of them are relevant to this discussion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That was beck before Canon got in the $6k camera and $3k lens MILC game. They already lost me as a loyal 17 year customer a few weeks back. Sold my R6, RP and lenses. I was tired of their absurdly priced cameras and lenses and their refusal to allow 3rd party lens makers like Sigma and Tamron to come in and make affordable glass you don't have to mortgage your home to get. I now have plenty of great choices to cover any focal length at multiple price points on Sony's E mount, with some great new releases coming up from Sigma and Tamron that the RF mount will never see.

So why are you here? Is your time so worthless that you can spend it being an annoying troll?

 

[JDavis]

So why are you here? Is your time so worthless that you can spend it being an annoying troll?

Because I wanted to see the R3 announcement and get a chuckle at its absurd $6k price.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Because I wanted to see the R3 announcement and get a chuckle at its absurd $6k price.

And that took a dozen trolling posts over two days? You must be really slow at absorbing new information. Sad.

 

[David - Sydney]

Seriously? Look at how the old EF lenses compare to newer lenses made for mirrorless, its not even close. Most are absolutely terrible. We just never noticed it shooting 12 megapixel DSLRs back in the day. Cant get away with that on 30-45 megapixel cameras with current sensors. Oh yea, just go grab an EF adapter for each of my EF lenses like they are free and growing on trees. You're joking right? These things have been out of stock for EIGHT MONTHS and when they do get stock, they are gone within minutes. You really think Canon can't produce these things and keep them in stock? Of course they can, they don't want to though, because they want you to spend big bucks on their absurdly priced RF lenses. Once again, it all goes back to Canon's greed.

I'm really not sure why you are participating in the group? I can't see how you are adding any value. There are so many holes in your point of view that it isn't worth refuting them all individually.
Canon has official channels for feedback and it would be better use of your time to use them rather than this forum

 

[vegas]

Just give me low noise at high ISO.
1DXii was great. R5 noisy even at 8000.

 

[Maximilian]

7.299,- € is the first price I could find in Germany yet.

Kameras & Fotozubehör günstig kaufen | DIGITFOTO Online Shop

Digitalkameras günstig kaufen ✓ Über 10.000 Kameras und Fotozubehör am Lager ✓ Versandkostenfrei ab 49 Euro ☆ Ihr Onlineshop seit 2005 mit TOP Beratung ☆

www.digitfoto.de

We'll have to wait, if this will be confirmed by other stores or not.

5.999,- € price in Germany at several stores.

 

[Michael Clark]

They really should have called this the R1.

Why not? Modest bump in resolution over the 1DXIII, same ergonomics, same weather sealing. They could even come up with some marketing reason to excuse the mismatched card slots.

At the end of the day, it's too expensive to not be the flagship

The vast majority of 1-series bodies with two card slots have had mismatched slots. Only the 1 D X and the 1D X Mark III had two matching card slots. The 1D X Mark II, 1D Mark IV, 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark III, 1Ds Mark II etc, all had disparate card slots.

 

[Michael Clark]

All I really wanted is really an R6 in a large and heavy 1D X Mark III form factor and at least one non-SD memory card, as I hate SD cards. The R6 with the battery grip that does not really align well looks very ugly. At the moment I do not really see many advantages of the R3 over the R6. At least not any that would justify a €3,600 higher price.

If I am not mistaken, the R5 already was by far the most expensive non-flagship camera so far by Canon. In the DSLR world the most expensive not flagship model (5D Mark IV) was about €4,000 when it came out. Now over €6,000 for a non-flaship camera. Many will pay that price, bit it is quite a shocking rise.

I don't know about Europe, but here in the U.S. the 5Ds R was about $400 more at introduction than the 5D mark IV was a couple of years later, and the same $3,899 as the R5. Seems like the 5Ds was $3,599 at intro.

 

[Michael Clark]

Flagship camera price for a 24mp non flagship device thats merely a backup to the R5? At least the Sony A1 was released at 50mp even with EVF blackouts. The R5 is fast enough to do what is needed for sporting events. Jeff Cable proved that in Tokyo.

Neil Leifer and Walter Ioss, Jr. proved 2 fps was enough back in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[Michael Clark]

I can see a lot of doctors, IT professionals, surgeons, lawyers etc buying this camera. Not a lot of photographers...it's a great camera for the uber-wealthy.

These days there seem to be a lot more doctors, IT administrators, lawyers, etc. buying cameras than there are working photographers (period).

 

[Michael Clark]

I agree with most of your argument, but I’m not sure about Canon wanting their ‘second-string’ R3 representing them on the sidelines of major events once the R1 is their flagship.

They didn't seem to have much of problem with it when the 1D Mark IV was selling for $5k when the 1Ds Mark III was going for $7.5K. Just as long as they're hooked to big white lenses Canon is happy.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah, I have no clue (admitting that all we do here is guess anyway).

What confuses me would be if the R1 is going to follow the traditional path of the 1 series, it should have a conservative resolution. But, would they really offer two gripped bodies with a 24mp and say a 30 mp sensor? Doesn't seem likely to me. But, if they go with 45 or more mp, they are breaking with tradition and I'm not sure that's what the traditional audience would want (if we are to believe Canon's longstanding policy of making their flagship camera lower resolution to accommodate those working under deadlines.)

I do tend to agree with you that those predicting a high-MP body are hoping for wish fulfillment and I also agree that most will never buy one, but simply in my opinion, want to be able to say to their Sony and Nikon frenemies that Canon has a higher resolution body.

For me personally, I'll be racing you to hit the preorder button. I'm sure you will beat me to it because I'm on central time and I don't intend to be setting an alarm clock or anything. I'm not quite that crazy. Close, but not quite.

During the 1Ds era, it was always the highest resolution EOS body and commanded a pretty good price premium over the faster but lower resolution APS-H 1D series.

The 1Ds Mark II was 16.1 MP at the same time the 5D was 12.8 MP and the APS-H 1D Mark II/IIN was 8.2 MP. The APS-C 20D and 30D were also 8.2 MP.

The 1Ds Mark III (2007) was 21.1 MP and then the 5D Mark II came along a year later also at 21.1 MP. The APS-H 1D Mark III was 10.1 MP and the 1D Mark IV, released halfway through the 1Ds Mark III's tenure, was 16.1 MP. The APS-C 2007 40D was 10.1 MP and the 2008 50D was 16.1 MP.

 

[Aussie shooter]

It has nothing to do with chip shortages. Everyone is facing the same chip shortages, yet Canon is the only one raising prices on lenses. It has everything to do with their insane greed, like this stupidly priced $6k camera. Keep it up Canon, you are pricing yourself right out of the market. Sony and Nikon are celebrating right now.

Why is it that every time canon releases a new camera then all of a sudden there aae a few 'I'm new here' members that post like crazy bashing Canon as much as possible? It seems to happen too often to be coincidence.

 

[neuroanatomist]

During the 1Ds era, it was always the highest resolution EOS body and commanded a pretty good price premium over the faster but lower resolution APS-H 1D series.

The 1Ds Mark II was 16.1 MP at the same time the 5D was 12.8 MP and the APS-H 1D Mark II/IIN was 8.2 MP. The APS-C 20D and 30D were also 8.2 MP.

The 1Ds Mark III (2007) was 21.1 MP and then the 5D Mark II came along a year later also at 21.1 MP. The APS-H 1D Mark III was 10.1 MP and the 1D Mark IV, released halfway through the 1Ds Mark III's tenure, was 16.1 MP. The APS-C 2007 40D was 10.1 MP and the 2008 50D was 16.1 MP.

That was then. This is now, when the 5-series has 45-50 MP sensors (and the 5D had an ‘s’ version after the dropped that from the 1-series).

 

[neuroanatomist]

They didn't seem to have much of problem with it when the 1D Mark IV was selling for $5k when the 1Ds Mark III was going for $7.5K. Just as long as they're hooked to big white lenses Canon is happy.

Both were 1-series cameras. The R3 isn’t.

 

[unfocused]

During the 1Ds era, it was always the highest resolution EOS body and commanded a pretty good price premium over the faster but lower resolution APS-H 1D series.

The 1Ds Mark II was 16.1 MP at the same time the 5D was 12.8 MP and the APS-H 1D Mark II/IIN was 8.2 MP. The APS-C 20D and 30D were also 8.2 MP.

The 1Ds Mark III (2007) was 21.1 MP and then the 5D Mark II came along a year later also at 21.1 MP. The APS-H 1D Mark III was 10.1 MP and the 1D Mark IV, released halfway through the 1Ds Mark III's tenure, was 16.1 MP. The APS-C 2007 40D was 10.1 MP and the 2008 50D was 16.1 MP.

I'm not sure the pre-1Dx releases have much relevance today. Both the market and technology have changed so radically. In those days, there were actual newspapers and magazines and many actually had photography staffs. The cost of sensors alone constituted a much more significant portion of the total camera cost, thus the advantages of APS-H for Canon. Things are so radically different today, it would be like predicting a new Ford vehicle based on their Model A.

 

[JohnC]

I'm not sure the pre-1Dx releases have much relevance today. Both the market and technology have changed so radically. In those days, there were actual newspapers and magazines and many actually had photography staffs. The cost of sensors alone constituted a much more significant portion of the total camera cost, thus the advantages of APS-H for Canon. Things are so radically different today, it would be like predicting a new Ford vehicle based on their Model A.

This is so true. I see a lot of complaints regarding the rising costs of these image taking computers. The things is the collectively we demand higher and higher performance, then question the prices that come with that performance. The technology doesn't fall off trees, it has to be developed. There is a significant cost associated with that development.

 

[Czardoom]

Why is it that every time canon releases a new camera then all of a sudden there aae a few 'I'm new here' members that post like crazy bashing Canon as much as possible? It seems to happen too often to be coincidence.

It is not a coincidence. The Sony troll network is clearly well organized and very vocal. Not sure what will happen with the R3, but many previous Canon releases were met within a day or two with numerous negative reviews (both written and YouTube videos) that often used the same or very similar language and sometimes repeated the same incorrect information.