The Canon EOS R3 will be $5999 USD

[ncvarsity3]

I'm surprised that anyone's surprised by this price. Canon just raised the price of some of their RF L series lenses and those were already around $300, give or take a $100, more than their EF counter parts. It seems like a cool camera but it's overkill for a large majority of the photographers that are talking about it.

 

[Joules]

While I agree with you on this the Yen it would taken Cannot no effort to switch the name from R1 to R3. Find “1” replace with “3”

But what would be the point?

Suppose it is true that Canon aimed to release the R1 in 2021 and called it R3 at a late stage in development. In that case, what will be called the R1? Likely the successor to this camera, right? And that has to be a full development life cycle away, so multiple years.

So Canon would have created a new line, giving people who are buying it the impression that they'll get a mark II version with similar characteristics in 3 to 5 years. And they gave people who won't buy it the impression that the R1 will be coming in the near future - which can't be true if the R1 is what would originally have been called the R1 II. You can't accelerate development of a professional product that has to be fully fleshed out and reliable by that much.

So the name change would lead to Canon eventually disappointing both those who believe the R3 to be the start of a new line, and those who are holding off to buy the R1 once it comes around. In other words, they reduced the number of short to medium term R3 buyers, and set themselves up to screw over the current buyers in the long term. For what benefit? I don't see how changing the name makes any sense.

Also, why is the price lower than the 1DX III? Even if they could have changed the name in response to the A1, could they also have shaved off what is likely over 1000 bucks of the cost? After all, with the other RF equipment launching at higher prices than their EF counterparts, they surely would not have aimed at undercutting the 1DX III price point from the start if the R3 was to be there absolute top end camera.

 

[canonmike]

In comparison, the R3's price reinforces my opinion that my R6, purchased at $2300 during a CPW promo, was a real bargain. I'm not implying that it is anywhere near as capable as what the R3 will be, however, it takes wonderful photos, great video and doesn't break the bank. I will watch the official announcement specs before ordering but it may just make more sense to pick up a refurb R5 body, now offered at around $3500, which would give me TWO very capable bodies to play with and still come in less than one R3. I'll make that decision after I see the R3 specs on Tues., as well as the much anticipated, hidden in the wings, YT hands on use videos that are sure to follow later the same day, which are sure to enlighten us as to just how capable the R3 actually is. While not surprised at the $6k pricing, before I punch that R3 pre-order button, I need to see if there is enough bling to piss away that much money on what, for me, is just another toy to play with.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

 

[degos]

If it's $5999, what would the price of the rumored R1 be? The Sony A1 costs $500 more ($6500) but comes with a 50 MP stacked & back-illuminated sensor.

The 1D Mark IV was $4999 at release compared with the 1Ds III at $7950. Which would suggest the R1 at about $9000 if they have the same marketing distinction...

 

[djack41]

I would be all in but for the 24 MP sensor. It is a deal killer.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

If it's $5999, what would the price of the rumored R1 be? The Sony A1 costs $500 more ($6500) but comes with a 50 MP stacked & back-illuminated sensor.

The Sony A1 could have 100Mp. It’s still not in the same league as the 1-series and single digit Nikon’s. Compare apples to apples, we have a Z9 coming up and that’s the one for Canon to deliver a R1 against of for the R3 to show it can handle the same extremes as the 1Dx3, D6 and Z9.

 

[Chig]

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.

You're getting mixed up with Leicas I think

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I would be all in but for the 24 MP sensor. It is a deal killer.

Did 20 MP stop you buying a 1dx3? Or were you always going to buy a 5dIV and R5 type body?

24MP and even 6MP hasn’t stopped me making A2 or even A1 sized prints. And even bigger than that you don’t necessarily need more pixels.

 

[dboris]

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.

Saved up 3 years to buy a good "raw shooting hybrid camera", with video making just as an hobby.
But I value the travel video I make more than a few thousand dollars.
My salary is barely above the minimum salary in France.
Lmao.
I can't see how working photographers can't afford to pay their tools when they get my monthly salary in a few days of shooting.

 

[john1970]

Can someone explain to me why only 24 MP is a deal breaker? 24MP is enough pixels for 16x20 print at native resolution and with modern upsampling software one can readily see someone printing significantly larger. Typically I rarely print my photos, but when I do they are typically 8x10 because that is what readily fits in a normal photo album that uses letter size paper.

 

[Berowne]

I am quite happy with my R6, sold nearly all of my old gear and now waiting for the RF 100mm Macro. Those who ever used a 1Dx I-III Body would surely agree, that the pixel count dont matter. It is the sheer quality of the files, which came out of such a camera.

 

[InchMetric]

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.

It game me a chuckle to see all those groups described as “Uber wealthy”. I think the “Uber” threshold is when you don’t use Uber, fly private, and are indifferent to the cost of camera gear.
For me this would be a buy if it had the pixels of the R5. Not even tempting as is. But look forward to this new technology in a higher MP camera when the time comes, if not too big and heavy.

 

[sanj]

Saved up 3 years to buy a good "raw shooting hybrid camera", with video making just as an hobby.
But I value the travel video I make more than a few thousand dollars.
My salary is barely above the minimum salary in France.
Lmao.
I can't see how working photographers can't afford to pay their tools when they get my monthly salary in a few days of shooting.

Very very few working photographers need this camera. A working photographer has overheads. They need to invest in lights, support, etc. etc. Of course, there are some photographers that can benefit from this camera. You can continue LMAO all you want. When a working photographer calculates return on investment (which you do not), the situation changes.

 

[mpmark]

I think you'll need a lot more in Australia! Might as well ask for $20k to be on the safe side.

You do know different countries have different valued currencies right? He asking for 12k US.

 

[Billybob]

I think the largest market will be well off enthusiasts who won't miss the $6k.

Well, I could--I don't consider myself well off, but I have $7k sitting in an account allocated towards photography--but the R3 doesn't push enough buttons. I love the ergonomics, the weight, the stacked sensor, but I really don't want to purchase a sub-30MP camera again. But most importantly, I am not excited by Canon's current ultra-telephoto-lens offerings. Just offering warmed-over EF offerings doesn't thrill me. By contrast, the rumored Nikon 400mm with built-in 1.4TC seems like the perfect birding lens. 2.8 when the light is really dim, and almost 600mm when you need reach all with a simple flip of a switch! So, I'm going to seat on my stash for a touch longer and wait for the Nikon announcements.

 

[tron]

Yes, that's the USA price that Nokishita tweeted.

One way of looking at it is that it's $500 cheaper than the IDX Mark III.

That's hardly squarely between R5 and 1DxIII

 

[lethiferous]

A1 and R5 owner here. I will pick one of these up but the pricing is exactly what I predicted. Unless it's got the AF of the gods with my eye (interesting to see if it works with my glasses) I will simply resell it I play around with it. I get that price hikes are a thing in a chip shortage but 6k is seriously lol. I will reserve judgement until I have the camera, but I do not buy the speed argument of 24rmp and mixed slots, when similar price points (for sure now) doesn't have either of those compromises. The body shape is also not an argument for price. I've had a idx before it's way too huge. I don't get the folks who want to carry the world largest camera when they don't have to. R3 size looks good but I am not opposed to a well sealed body with a battery pack. So far my R5 and A1 both with battery packs have been in the rain etc never had an issue, and I have the flexibility to make the body smaller when I am walking around.

 

[DBounce]

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.

Funny you mention this, as it rumored that Leica will release the long anticipated M11 on November 11th. Granted, very different in many ways, but at the end of the day they both take pictures. While I fully expect the Leica to come in around $9k… I think the Leica is the more affordable option over time. Why?

• Many Leica owners believe you should pick a single lens and then shoot with that lens alone.

• The desire to upgrade is not as strong with a Leica. It’s the type of camera people keep a lifetime.

• Leica cameras, particularly limited edition models often appreciate in value.

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

Well, I could--I don't consider myself well off, but I have $7k sitting in an account allocated towards photography--but the R3 doesn't push enough buttons. I love the ergonomics, the weight, the stacked sensor, but I really don't want to purchase a sub-30MP camera again. But most importantly, I am not excited by Canon's current ultra-telephoto-lens offerings. Just offering warmed-over EF offerings doesn't thrill me. By contrast, the rumored Nikon 400mm with built-in 1.4TC seems like the perfect birding lens. 2.8 when the light is really dim, and almost 600mm when you need reach all with a simple flip of a switch! So, I'm going to seat on my stash for a touch longer and wait for the Nikon announcements.

Give the RF mount some time. There should be some better offerings going forward for super telephoto lenses. They need a product to compare to the Nikon 500pf. Something smaller and with that same IQ and price point. The EF 400 f4 DO II is an underrated lens but it's still bigger and has less focal length than the Nikon 500pf. Canon would be doing themselves a disservice if they didn't try to trailblaze in that area. Of course we are limited by the laws of physics also...