We still don’t know the buffer speed as the 1Dxiii is “buffer-less” only restricted by battery and card speed/space. Until we confirm the R3 is also “buffer-less”, the 1Dxiii will remain flagship with its fancy latch-release ultra-weathersealed card door compared to the R3/5’s.Canon also said at introduction that the R5 was NOT a replacement for the 5DIV, and yet it is.
They want to protect the 1Dx3's market value by calling it the flagship, but how can a camera with an obsolete mount be considered a flagship? The R3 will beat the 1Dx3 in almost every way, so it will be the flagship until the R1 arrives.
True, and we will find out shortly. But the way Canon had been marketing the camera with its focus on speed,for sports including auto racing, I would have a hard time believing the camera wouldn't have a massive if not unlimited buffer. A small buffer would kill the performance of it.We still don’t know the buffer speed as the 1Dxiii is “buffer-less” only restricted by battery and card speed/space. Until we confirm the R3 is also “buffer-less”, the 1Dxiii will remain flagship with its fancy latch-release ultra-weathersealed card door compared to the R3/5’s.
I thought you were wanting to have a serious conversation, but I guess I should have known better. Smaller can be better, but I choose the 1dx3 even over my own R5 in inclement weather for instance. I also choose it over the R5 for recording longer videos. To say the original R has better auto focus than the 1dx3 is laughable. The 1dx also can shoot many more frames per second. The uncropped video from the 1dx3 is head and shoulders above the R. I will admit RF lenses are nice and the 85mm 1.2 is superb, but I mostly shoot landscape and wildlife, so I really don't have a need for it. I am interested in the 100-500 and even the 600 and 800 f11 lenses. I will take the 1dx3 all day every day over a box of Canon R's. The R is a great camera no doubt, but it does not compare to the 1dx3 for what I do.You can say it, Reeferboy, but it doesn't make it true.
Smaller and lighter, as you cite, are already advantages. I really can't bear to watch you argue this "no advantages"--"here are some advantages"--"no advantages" line of argument. It's like I'm reading comments by someone with multiple personality disorder.
50% more MP is an advantage.
AF is an advantage.
Mounting RF lenses is a big-ass advantage. The RF 50mm/1.2 is literally ten times sharper than the EF, for instance. (It's 30lp/mm curves show higher contrast than the EF's 10lp/mm. This means you can multiple over 3x more vertically, and over 3x more horizontally, and still get the same microcontrast.)
Really the only shooter for which you're correct for, is one who doesn't care how big or heavy their outfit is, nor what their photos look like. It's puzzling why you don't just stick to your iPhone if you don't care about IQ. I'm puzzled why you're even on this forum, as your system is absolutely dead, with not a single lens or camera from Canon in years. This forum is for people interested in new products. You're not going to GET new products.
Now I'm thinking about selling my 1DX mkiii and picking up the R3 this summer but do I hold out for a R1...? It has to at least have specs this great.Fingers crossed for a reasonable selling price. After forking out for the 1dx mkiii last year the chances of persuading the boss that this is a must have could be difficult especially if its over £5k.
If it’s downsampled it isn’t RAW anymore, per definition.
Many of your posts are nonsensical, but this one makes you look more foolish than most.nonsense
Well we can only guess, and my guess is:Not if there is also an R5c.
I think R1 would have to be at least 60MP to differentiate.
I know R6 and 1DX Mark III have the same sensor but they are in different leagues.
Why sell one camera when you can sell two? You are looking at this from your personal needs and perspective while Canon is looking at their marketing research and customer buying patterns. Time will tell if they have made a mistake. I fought these issues while in tech, knowing that a company had the solution I wanted in the labs but were not releasing based on sales/marketing strategy. I never claimed I liked the approach, but it is way large companies work and does fall in the "market segmentation" approach that companies use to drive sales/profits. Canon will gain/loose customers on this approach but has apparently determined that delivering the R3 with the later pickup of the R1 sales is the best strategy. Naturally, there will be folks like you that don't feel the product meets their needs. To another thread, there is not doubt this camera will b sold out for months of production as they get ready to release the follow on R1 or R5s to meet the request for higher megapixel. As a wildlife shooter (not focused on birds), this camera will be probably be a very nice solution with better high ISO. I have the R5 as a backup camera in the event I want higher resolution. As far as multiple bodies at the same time, supply chains are stressed to the max at the current time and it wouldn't do any good to ramp up sales on products you can't deliver. Is a one camera that can do all things for all people the perfect consumer scenario, certainly. I personally never liked "Swiss Army knife" type solutions because there are always tradeoffs. Maybe you should consider other brands if they they do such a better job across all your needs.or gosh, maybe it's YOU who do not understand market segmentation?
If Canon is releasing two cameras, they can target each at a specific segment, as in EOS-1D and EOS-1Dx: one for the fast/lower-IQ crowd and one for the slow/higher-IQ crowd.
But if there's only one camera, then segmenting narrowly leaves a segment unserved.
The proposal is that it'd make sense to have a sock with some elastic in it, that's one-size-fits-all. You're arguing we should instead have socks that only fit one specific foot size, and gosh, it just happens to be YOUR FOOT that you propose as the size it should fit.
Canon obviously wouldn't purposefully leave half the high-end shooters unserved were it avoidable, and limiting a body's appeal via a "market segmentation" strategy would be doing so purposefully if you couldn't afford to cater to all segments. Clearly they'd offer a slow/higher-IQ model if they could afford two models at once, and thus serve both high-end market segments. Failing that, they'd offer a single body useable by both market segments if they could engineer it to be affordable. (EG, an 80MP camera that could produce 20MP raw files if you wanted, thus giving low-IQ shooters a fast workflow while giving high-IQ shooters their MP.) Since they're not doing that, we have to conclude it'd cost too much. Which leaves Canon ignoring half the high-end shooters, but due to technical limitations, not due to some marketing strategy.
Or more than full retail price. Just look at Ebay "WELL" over MSRP pricing on lenses in short supply now, like the RF 28-70 F2L and RF 100-500If they are in very short supply with months-long waiting lists, there could be demand for a like new one at full retail price.
Let's not forget impact of higher MP on noise.Technology, AND physics (!!, where do you get this shit) would trivially allow a high MP camera to produce a low MP file. For instance cutting height and width by half doesn't even require multiplies or divides, just addition and a bit shift. What law of physics would that break, exactly?
The reason not to do it isn't that technology or physics prevents Canon from doing so, but for business/economics/manufacturing reasons. (EG, since Canon is just starting to make backside sensors they're starting with 30MP not 120MP as a learning curve. Or they could do 120MP but it would be too expensive for the fast/low-IQ shooters. Or would take too long time to market.)
It's tricky to explain things to the "Hard of thinking"Many of your posts are nonsensical, but this one makes you look more foolish than most.
Downsampling means removing information from an image, a RAW image contains the original data from each pixel on the sensor.
Perhaps you're confusing downsampling with compression, they are not the same.
When you downsample a RAW image, it is no longer RAW. Period.