The Canon EOS R3 will cost €6099, still waiting on USD pricing

[neuroanatomist]

I don't understand what you're saying about AF and crosstype. Why would you bring up a type of AF that can only be compared across DSLR models, and then say mirrorless doesn't have that. Mirrorless is literally an entirely different AF...

No, it’s not – they function in the same way. Both DSLRs and Canon MILCs use phase detect AF (PDAF). Mirrorless cameras can also use contrast detect AF, which is substantially slower but can be more accurate.

Canon’s dual pixel AF (DPAF) is the AF technology used in their MILCs (and in Live View on newer DSLRs) and uses split pixels to detect the phase difference, whereas DSLRs in viewfinder shooting use a dedicated AF sensor with paired line sensors. But DPAF is still phase-detect AF, the principle is the same – using the phase difference to determine the magnitude and direction of movement needed to achieve a match in phase (which is ‘in focus’).

With DPAF, the pixels are all split in the same direction, meaning they only detect phase differences in one orientation. Similarly, line-type sensors on a DSLR only detect a single orientation. If you've been in photography for a while, perhaps you remember the split prism in the middle of the focusing screen of a manual focus SLR. The 'split' was horizontal, so you had to look for a vertical feature to focus on for the prism to be effective. That's an analogy for how phase-detect works (except the DPAF pixels are split vertically, meaning they detect horizontal features only).

The dedicated PDAF sensors in very early DSLRs had only one direction of sensitivity like Canon's current MILCs, but soon they added line pairs in the orthogonal direction, first for just the center point, later for other points as well. The two pairs of line sensors at 90° to one another form a cross-type AF point that is sensitive to both horizontal and vertical features, and that's something that the DPAF used in Canon's MILCs cannot do, i.e. it is an advantage of DSLR AF. Even newer/higher end Canon DSLRs added diagonal crosses as well.

On the flip side, those AF point line pairs on a DSLR AF sensor are a fixed distance apart. That distance determines both the maximum lens aperture needed to use the AF point, and also the accuracy of that point. Those aspects are inversely related – the wider the baseline, the larger the lens aperture needed to use the AF point. So, there were f/5.6 AF points that were less accurate but worked with all EF lenses, and there were f/2.8 AF points with a wider baseline and greater accuracy that only worked with fast lenses. With DPAF, since all of the image sensor pixels are effectively AF points, they work with narrower apertures, which is we we're seeing f/8 and even f/11 max aperture lenses for MILCs.

Canon has a patent on a sensor with adjacent pixels split in orthogonal orientations, which will give MILCs cross-type focusing if/when implemented.



But until then (or until quad pixel AF, which would accomplish the same goal by splitting every pixel both horizontally and vertically), cross-type AF and the ability to focus on features of both horizontal and vertical orientation remains an advantage of DSLRs over MILCs, at least in a technical sense. Given that most things in the real world have features that exist in multiple orientations, the single-orientation DPAF focusing will do just fine in most situations.

 

[H. Jones]

I strongly feel like the answer to a lot of questions about "flagship" will be answered when we find out the mechanical shutter of the R3. In the video that was posted by Peter McKinnon, I believe, it sounded like the R3's mechanical shutter was the same as the R5's 12 fps. I would hazard a guess that the R3 only does that same 12 FPS mechanical, and similarly drops to 8-9 FPS when the battery is close to empty. Clearly the selling point of the R3 is the electronic shutter, so my only hope for that is variable FPS to make it more practical. I also worry about anti-flicker shooting, which is huge for sports, but I'm hopeful Canon has a similar micro-adjust shutterspeed feature like the Sony A9 to let you match flickering lights with the electronic shutter.

When the R1 comes out with a quad-pixel global shutter, the flagship definition will be incredibly apparent for that camera.

I don't think Canon is ready to put the flagship definition onto a mirrorless camera until it can beat a DSLR in *every* way, and the lack of cross-type AF and minor electronic shutter warping on the R3 are probably two reasons why the 1DX mark III is still the flagship Canon camera. Neither is a major issue to me, and I will gladly take the R3 over my 1DX mark II, but it's still the nature of the current technology. Battery life is another significant question, and while the R3 seems to have greatly improved battery life over the R5 using a few years old LP-E19s, I'd expect an R1 will come with an upgraded new battery with better technology and life with it.

 

[AlanF]

Yes and no. We have a 2 year warranty, while the US warranty is 1 year. Flying to the US and buying it here would not entitle your to the European warranty.
Here in DK, the VAT is 25% just to add insult to injury. But we do have universal healthcare, which is nice. Just don't go the the dentist. The doctors have managed to convince everyone that if we go to them payment should be covered by the universal healthcare, but if we don't go to an MD, heaven forbid, but someone else (including a dentist) damn you all the way and you need to pay out of your own pocket. (grumble).
€6100 is around +36% on the €4500 for the R5, so here in Denmark that would turn the 36.400DKK into an estimated 49.500DKK (slightly rounded up).
Ouch, but still in line with my guesstimate.

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam here, but here it is again. The cost of healthcare doesn't come into it and neither does the two year warranty- we are being exploited. Here are the figures for the R5.
Cost in USA before tax (if any is paid): B&H $3899 - and pay by their Payboo card and they will pay the sales tax for you at no cost.
Price at WEX in the UK or the UK Canon store: £4299. Deduct 20% VAT and convert to $ = $4944, 27% more than the US.
Price at a very reliable UK grey market dealer (who I use): £3299 which includes a 3-year warranty. Deduct 20% VAT and convert to $ = $3794, slightly less than the US price. Further, CPW in the USA will find you a cheap deal.

 

[Talys]

Why do you take Canon marketing speak as gospel? They also said that the R5 is not a replacement for the 5DIV.

My opinion is that Canon is trying to protect the value of the 1DX3 that many people have bought for $6,500, and now being superceded by a superior camera a year and a half later that will be cheaper.

So they continue to call the 1DX3 the flagship without stating why it is the flagship other than price.

I think that it's pretty safe to hypothesize that on the basis of price alone, R1 > R3 > R5 > R6.

I think that it's equally safe to hypothesize that the R1 won't be more expensive than the R3, and offer absolutely nothing more. It also is likely that the R1 might have a lower specification than R3, R5, or R6 in some aspect that matters to some people.

Most people understand the flagship camera to be the model which the vendor considers its highest end model, which does not mean the highest spec in every category, and certainly doesn't mean best fit, or even a good fit, for any particular use.

 

[raptor3x]

But until then (or until quad pixel AF, which would accomplish the same goal by splitting every pixel both horizontally and vertically), cross-type AF and the ability to focus on features of both horizontal and vertical orientation remains an advantage of DSLRs over MILCs, at least in a technical sense. Given that most things in the real world have features that exist in multiple orientations, the single-orientation DPAF focusing will do just fine in most situations.

Olympus has had cross-type OSPDAF since the E-M1ii and Samsung actually had it even earlier with the NX1.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Olympus has had cross-type OSPDAF since the E-M1ii and Samsung actually had it even earlier with the NX1.

I was discussing Canon cameras, specifically. But I didn't make that clear.

Those manufacturers use a different technology, as does Sony. For those sensors, there are 'traditional' phase-detect AF line sensors embedded in the image sensor (embedded isn't really correct, they're just printed onto the sensor along with the image pixels). So the image sensor is actually a hybrid of an image sensor and a PDAF sensor. There are a fixed number of AF points in fixed locations, just like on a DSLR's PDAF sensor. For example, the Oly OM-D E-M1X has 121 cross-type AF points. Because those AF sensor lines are printed on the image sensor, the areas occupied by them do not provide image data, so those data must be interpolated from neighboring image pixels.

With Canon's DPAF, every image pixel can also be used as an AF pixel, so there are no image data lost that need to be replaced by interpolation, and AF points can be literally anywhere in the central ~80% of the image frame, not tied to specific locations as they are with the other manufacturer's implementation of MILC PDAF.

 

[rbielefeld]

No, it’s not – they function in the same way. Both DSLRs and Canon MILCs use phase detect AF (PDAF). Mirrorless cameras can also use contrast detect AF, which is substantially slower but can be more accurate.

Canon’s dual pixel AF (DPAF) is the AF technology used in their MILCs (and in Live View on newer DSLRs) and uses split pixels to detect the phase difference, whereas DSLRs in viewfinder shooting use a dedicated AF sensor with paired line sensors. But DPAF is still phase-detect AF, the principle is the same – using the phase difference to determine the magnitude and direction of movement needed to achieve a match in phase (which is ‘in focus’).

With DPAF, the pixels are all split in the same direction, meaning they only detect phase differences in one orientation. Similarly, line-type sensors on a DSLR only detect a single orientation. If you've been in photography for a while, perhaps you remember the split prism in the middle of the focusing screen of a manual focus SLR. The 'split' was horizontal, so you had to look for a vertical feature to focus on for the prism to be effective. That's an analogy for how phase-detect works (except the DPAF pixels are split vertically, meaning they detect horizontal features only).

The dedicated PDAF sensors in very early DSLRs had only one direction of sensitivity like Canon's current MILCs, but soon they added line pairs in the orthogonal direction, first for just the center point, later for other points as well. The two pairs of line sensors at 90° to one another form a cross-type AF point that is sensitive to both horizontal and vertical features, and that's something that the DPAF used in Canon's MILCs cannot do, i.e. it is an advantage of DSLR AF. Even newer/higher end Canon DSLRs added diagonal crosses as well.

On the flip side, those AF point line pairs on a DSLR AF sensor are a fixed distance apart. That distance determines both the maximum lens aperture needed to use the AF point, and also the accuracy of that point. Those aspects are inversely related – the wider the baseline, the larger the lens aperture needed to use the AF point. So, there were f/5.6 AF points that were less accurate but worked with all EF lenses, and there were f/2.8 AF points with a wider baseline and greater accuracy that only worked with fast lenses. With DPAF, since all of the image sensor pixels are effectively AF points, they work with narrower apertures, which is we we're seeing f/8 and even f/11 max aperture lenses for MILCs.

Canon has a patent on a sensor with pixels split in orthogonal orientations, which will give MILCs cross-type focusing if/when implemented.

View attachment 200117

But until then (or until quad pixel AF, which would accomplish the same goal by splitting every pixel both horizontally and vertically), cross-type AF and the ability to focus on features of both horizontal and vertical orientation remains an advantage of DSLRs over MILCs, at least in a technical sense. Given that most things in the real world have features that exist in multiple orientations, the single-orientation DPAF focusing will do just fine in most situations.

Excellent!

 

[John Wilde]

Z9>R3 - at a similar price!!

Similar price? Nikon Germany lists the Nikon D6 at 7,299-euros. Since the Z9 is a flagship, it will be priced at least as high as the D6. As a practical matter, the Z9 apparently isn't even close to shipping.

 

[Joules]

With Canon's DPAF, every image pixel can also be used as an AF pixel, so there are no image data lost that need to be replaced by interpolation, and AF points can be literally anywhere in the central ~80% of the image frame, not tied to specific locations as they are with the other manufacturer's implementation of MILC PDAF.

Strictly speaking it is even better than 80 % now. From the official R5 specsheet:

"100% horizontal and 100% vertical with Face + Tracking and Auto Selection modes 100% horizontal and 90% vertical with manual selection and large zone modes (The AF area available vary depending on the lens use)"

Also, DPAF has some interesting applications that Canon hasn't really put much energy into. But there may come a time when they'll get serious with stuff like making use of the extra stop of highlight detail in the Dual Pixel RAW files, or the distance based lighting and landscape processing that one can play with in the R5. That's stuff that can't be done with a simple PDAF array.

 

[fred]

So you have tested them in real life. What was better about the Z9?

45MP

 

[AEWest]

I think that it's pretty safe to hypothesize that on the basis of price alone, R1 > R3 > R5 > R6.

I think that it's equally safe to hypothesize that the R1 won't be more expensive than the R3, and offer absolutely nothing more. It also is likely that the R1 might have a lower specification than R3, R5, or R6 in some aspect that matters to some people.

Most people understand the flagship camera to be the model which the vendor considers its highest end model, which does not mean the highest spec in every category, and certainly doesn't mean best fit, or even a good fit, for any particular use.

I don’t know what the R1 will offer.

But in terms of the R3 vs the 1DX3, the R3 offers considerable upgrades in most important areas like sensor, fps, mount, etc. Therefore I agree with Jared Polin that the R3 will be Canon's flagship until the R1 is introduced.

 

[John Wilde]

I don’t know what the R1 will offer.

But in terms of the R3 vs the 1DX3, the R3 offers considerable upgrades in most important areas like sensor, fps, mount, etc. Therefore I agree with Jared Polin that the R3 will be Canon's flagship until the R1 is introduced.

The important thing about Canon calling the R3 a non-flagship is that it gives them an opportunity to price it lower than the current price of the 1DX3.

 

[Cyborx]

I told you… 6k

 

[neuroanatomist]

Therefore I agree with Jared Polin that the R3 will be Canon's flagship until the R1 is introduced.

At the risk of being pedantic, it's really not our call. Consider the meaning of the term, literally the ship that carries the flag, naval parlance for the command ship in a fleet. The ship carrying the admiral. The navy gets to choose which ship that is, if they want to put the admiral on a frigate instead of the aircraft carrier, the frigate is the flagship. In this case, the R3 is just a smaller aircraft carrier...a newer ship, in many ways a more capable ship, but Canon says the admiral isn't on it.

 

[justaCanonuser]

What currency site are they using, jesus!!

Today $5500 is 4,648.6215 Euros as per https://www.xe.com/

or if we take your rumoured price of €6099, thats 7,215.7485 US Dollars.

I t would literally be cheaper for every european photographer to fly to NY and buy it there and stick in luggage.

I am pretty sure they will give you a .0015 Euro rebate

 

[Czardoom]

All the arguments about what is the "flagship" and what isn't. Forum dwellers, as they so often do, trying to prove they're smarter than the next. Well, this camera is better than that so it must be the flagship, etc. etc.

Of course, as Neuro points out (as he often does) that's not how it works. Many times when a new camera is released it will surpass all other models in one feature or another. Was the R5 the flagship because it did things no other Canon camera does? So, does that mean the flagship can continually change? I guess so, by so many people's reasoning. Canon has designated their "1" series camera as the flagship. They know that there will be a 1 series mirrorless camera released at some point. It matters not one iota whether the R3 is the "best" camera now. Why is that too complicated for so many to understand?

 

[justaCanonuser]

turning back to the original post about the R3's price, I have to say, that I am not surpriced

 

[raptor3x]

I was discussing Canon cameras, specifically. But I didn't make that clear.

Those manufacturers use a different technology, as does Sony. For those sensors, there are 'traditional' phase-detect AF line sensors embedded in the image sensor (embedded isn't really correct, they're just printed onto the sensor along with the image pixels). So the image sensor is actually a hybrid of an image sensor and a PDAF sensor. There are a fixed number of AF points in fixed locations, just like on a DSLR's PDAF sensor. For example, the Oly OM-D E-M1X has 121 cross-type AF points. Because those AF sensor lines are printed on the image sensor, the areas occupied by them do not provide image data, so those data must be interpolated from neighboring image pixels.

With Canon's DPAF, every image pixel can also be used as an AF pixel, so there are no image data lost that need to be replaced by interpolation, and AF points can be literally anywhere in the central ~80% of the image frame, not tied to specific locations as they are with the other manufacturer's implementation of MILC PDAF.

Most of this is correct, the only thing that I think can be refined is "There are a fixed number of AF points in fixed locations, just like on a DSLR's PDAF sensor." It's not quite that simple. On a DSLR the discrete AF points generally correspond to a single AF sensor, or pair/group of sensors, on the PDAF sensor. On the mirrorless bodies it works a bit different as you have PDAF pixels scattered pretty evenly throughout the entire sensor, or at least some fraction of the sensor. Technically the PDAF pixels themselves are identical, it's only the CFA array that has a metal mask covering one side of the grid for that pixel that is different. The camera then uses the readings from many different PDAF pixels to build the AF point that the user selects. On the Olympus bodies, as an example, there are many thousands of actual PDAF AF points scattered across the sensor, you can pretty easily see this through a number of means (direct optical inspect, defocused off-axis lighting conditions, numerical analysis of the RAW sensor data in the blue channel). You also see this behavior as while in the traditional fixed pattern modes the camera only operates on the 121 AF point grid in the tracking modes the camera starts selecting AF points that aren't available to user in between the selectable grid. The Canon bodies are very similar here, IIRC the R5 has around 6000 AF points but this is purely a firmware construct rather than an actual hardware feature.

 

[canonmike]

For me, I am hoping for a buffer that clears faster, closer to the 1DXIII's nearly unlimited buffer. Smaller file size should mean I can download images faster and get to editing when I'm on deadline. The reduced viewfinder lag will make some of my studio shooting easier.

But my main reason is to consolidate everything into one lens mount. Even if I take a hit on the 1Dx III, I can sell my EF lenses and come out about even. But more importantly, I am damn tired of lugging around duplicate lenses when I need to use both bodies.

But more importantly, I am damn tired of lugging around duplicate lenses when I need to use both bodies

I couldn't agree more. I have an EF500 F4L is, an EF70-200 F2.8L is and more that I can use on my R6 via adapter but it is a little frustrating that I cannot use my RF100-500, RF100 macro, RF800 tele, RF14-35, etc. on any of my EF DSLR or M50 bodies. You can only carry so much gear around, so now I almost always make a conscious decision to take either my R6 and RF gear or my 6Dii,and EF gear, for instance but not both. The acquisition of the RF100-500 tele has caused me to mostly leave my EF500 F4L and Robus tripod behind these days. Due to SAWC, I take only my M series gear when hiking and/or backpack camping, making sure I have rain cover in hand, since the M series bodies and lenses are not weather sealed.

 

[canonmike]

Cost SHOULD be $100 per megapixel. Want $5,500 from me?--produce this camera with a 55MP sensor.

At the current rumors, this is double the value...to me.

Wow! $2400 for an R3 body. My friend, you are going to be waiting awhile, a long while......