That would be a pleasant surprise. It’s reported to have, “…an updated version of Dual Pixel CMOS AF.” That could mean many things.
Upvote
0
The Canon EOS R3 will cost €6099, still waiting on USD pricing
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
For me cross-type AF on the R3 would be the icing on the cake. I doubt it would be there, but one never knows. We will know in four more days.
Upvote
0
Psychologically when people see 5,200 or 5,300 they think 5,000.
No way it will be 5,000.
It will probably either be 4,999 or 5X99
That one dollar may seem silly but they price things like that for a reason.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I very much agree! That's why I'm hoping it gets revised downwards. I know Nokishita has an excellent (perfect?) track record, but it seems at least somewhat possible that if they are looking at unpublished data they could be looking at a placeholder number.
I'm trying to hold out hope that it's a mistake.
Upvote
0
Pricing of cameras depends significantly on the silicon chips they contain. Pricing of silicon chips is mostly a cubic function of die area, though fabrication unit, technology node and a couple other elements are lesser factors. All full-frame sensor chips have the same die area, 24mm x 36mm. Hence there is no direct relationship between megapixels and sensor chip cost, nor "SHOULD" there be. Reasons an R3 (or 1Dx Mark III) costs more to produce include a high-end autofocus system, more powerful image processing chips (including better movie support), improved I/O subsystems, and hardware built to higher tolerances than for amateur cameras. Also, pricing has to be higher because R/D costs are spread across far fewer units than for amateur cameras, and typically R/D costs are higher for a more advanced camera.
Additionally, I'll note that the resolution improvement from 24Mp to 55Mp is about 50%, which is not that significant (to double resolution from 24Mp requires approximately a 100Mp sensor). Many amateurs don't adequately stabilize their equipment to fully take advantage of 40Mp+ resolution anyway--nor is that level of resolution useful for most professional publication outlets or for common amateur print sizes around 13" x 19". Even 16" x 24" gallery prints from my old 10Mp camera look great and no one ever complains about their resolution, even today.
Improvements in autofocus, flash control, low-light sensitivity, and burst speed/depth would all be of greater value to me than more megapixels. If I desire more megapixels in landscape work, it is often easier to use a TS-E lens Rogeti-mounted to a tripod for a "perfect stitch" that is effectively like medium format digital cameras on the market but at a tiny fraction of their cost.
Upvote
0
Incidentally, it’s probably relevant to (re)read what a Canon exec said on the matter.
We still consider the EOS-1D X Mark III to be our flagship professional camera due to its extreme reliability and confidence it delivers in the hands of professionals. However, it is true that the EOS R3 exceeds the EOS-1D X Mark III in some specifications, to the extent which, by the conventional definition, you could consider it a flagship camera.
While the RF system is a major evolution of the EF system, we believe that in order to bestow an RF camera with the “1” model designation, we must achieve an even greater level of performance, and we continue to work towards reaching those high standards.
Upvote
0
Listened to some well known international photojournalists. There is still no need to upgrade the MP count,as they often shoot some thousands shots when on scene. So transmitting, editing and so on is faster. And most newspapers, news agencies,... do not need more resolution. The pictures should be able to be sometimes heavily optimized in post and still looking good. And the body has to be reliable and ruggedized. If you see, how the journalists take less care of the equipment and how often, in critical situations the equipent is punched and dropped, they really need an sturdy body and also premium lenses.
Upvote
0
Plus they know what they're doing and have the appropriate lenses for each situation and nearly every shot is properly exposed and in focus and only might need minimal cropping and they won't be messing around with RAW files and Lightroom/Photoshop just using the jpegs straight out of the camera.
20-24mp is more than enough for them especially as it'll wind up in a newspaper photo or a compressed image on the internet.
Sports pros pretty similar and with them they know the probable lighting (usually a well lit stadium) and situations in sports games and they have all the right gear of course : top glass and fast reliable bodies.
Huge files from 45-50mp sensors would be a nuisance for them.
Upvote
0
Well prices in Europe include the tax while in the US it doesn’t.
So you can’t just fly to NYC. You would have to order the camera from out of NY state and have it delivered to where you will be stating in NYC to avoid taxes completely (this changed though right? So you would have to order from B&H since they negate the tax).
Then on your way back, you would have to basically make sure you don’t have the box, and have packed it “used” and pretend that you had bought it in Europe. I have had them check if any of my lenses were bought in Europe or not (though they all have been). So though you are lying if you say you have nothing to declare, 99.9% they don’t actually check the origin of your electronics.
But if you do declare it… yes that 19-21% tax would apply.
Upvote
0
If you don't mind waiting 3 years until the Paris Olympics
In the mean time have a look at the R3
Upvote
0
Similar threads
