Update: The Canon EOS R3 will be officially announced on June 29th

[2Cents]

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.

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.

 

[John Wilde]

Nikon is apparently scheduled to announce a retro APS-C camera on June 28th. The June 29th announcement of the R3 is kind of a buzz kill for Nikon's marketing department.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If it’s downsampled it isn’t RAW anymore, per definition.

nonsense

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.

 

[entoman]

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.

Well we can only guess, and my guess is:

"R5c" - 90MP, 5fps mechanical, 4K 120p, possible with a tilting screen as it will be a stills orientated body.

R1 - 50MP, 30fps electronic, possibly a global shutter but unlikely, unlimited 8K, hybrid stills/video pro battleship.

 

[Danglin52]

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.

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.

BTWj - The sock comparison was apples and oranges. You took a simplistic, low cost product and compared it to a highly sophisticated product at 1000's of times the cost to produce and buy. Completely different markets, concepts, development, and production requirements.

 

[canonmike]

If they are in very short supply with months-long waiting lists, there could be demand for a like new one at full retail price.

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 100-500

 

[Danglin52]

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.)

Let's not forget impact of higher MP on noise.

 

[Chig]

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.

It's tricky to explain things to the "Hard of thinking"

 

[CanonGrunt]

I might keep one kidney. We’ll see.

I'm selling everything except one or two lenses to get this!

 

[Hector1970]

Looks a very promising camera. Thankfully not 20 MP. The reviews will be interesting. I really looking to see what focusing performance is especially for moving birds which cameras generally have the most trouble with. What exactly does :

• Dual card slot SD & CFExpress mean

Is that two different cards or it accepts both types of cards. It would seem odd to have two different types of cards in a camera. I've had no serious issue with CFExpress cards but they do run quite hot transferring data. Not sure if that weakens them over time.

If the R3 is as good as it potentially might be I think Canon will have an issue distinguishing an R1 from it.
I think it would have to be at least 50MP and 8K and better at focusing (which may be a difficult ask).
There may be no rush to bring out an R1. Maybe this was meant to be it but they ran into limits and didn't want to declare it an R1

 

[lethiferous]

How do you get to use it for a month as a "free rental"?

I just sell the body while it's still sold out for what I paid, maybe a hair less. It's pretty easy for a camera that has low supply but high levels of hype.

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

I am not a moron so if I could get a better camera for $1500 or so (The Canon R) I would not fork out the money for the 1dx3. It makes no sense if what you say is true, but it isn't. It may be for you, but not for me.

If all you care about is MP then you can get a Fuji Medium Format or even a Canon 5dsr.

You really don't seem to understand how logic works.

When you say the 1DX3 does EVERYTHING better than the R, and I say you're full of it, I am not saying the 1DX3 does NOTHING better than the R. Instead I'm saying the 1DX3 does NOT do everything better than the R. I win that argument by even having ONE thing the R does better, and I think we've mentioned a half-dozen. Hell, you mentioned at least three for me.

How do you not know that the contrary of "everything" is "not everything?" Who told you the contrary of "everything" is "nothing?" How did an adult become an adult without understanding this? I'm honestly flummoxed. And I'm a little scared to think fellow citizens, fellow voters, actually don't even understand basic things like this.

If all you care about is MP then you can get a Fuji Medium Format or even a Canon 5dsr.

I gave a list of quite a few ways the R beats a 1DX3. Where the heck do you get the idea "all I care about is MP?" (In point of fact my favorite benefit of the R is the RF lenses. If I could take just one superior ability, it'd be the lenses.)

 

[SwissFrank]

Let's not forget impact of higher MP on noise.

I think--especially with the back-side sensor, 4 pixels on a hypothetical 80MP sensor would capture just about as many photons as 1 pixel on a 20MP sensor. Each individually will have a lot more noise, but when averaged together, the S/N ratio becomes the same as the 1 big pixel.

 

[dtaylor]

Let's not forget impact of higher MP on noise.

We can safely forget zero impact.

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

BTWj - The sock comparison was apples and oranges. You took a simplistic, low cost product and compared it to a highly sophisticated product at 1000's of times the cost to produce and buy. Completely different markets, concepts, development, and production requirements.

You misunderstand me.

YES, by ALL MEANS sell two if you can affordably engineer and market two.

But is Canon releasing two cameras?

No. In fact the rumor mill says after the R3 the next TWO cameras will be cheap models, if I recall correctly.

So they're not "selling two," they're selling one and leaving the other market (slow/hi-IQ) unserved. (Well, we DO have the R5, which is awesome; I was just hoping to move from R to R3, but maybe I have to do R to R5 to R1???)

Now I'd agree with you that having two market segments, and serving one now, and the other at least 3 cameras later, if that is their strategy, MIGHT be more profitable than my proposal of a slow/hi-MP camera tweaked so it can also produce lo-MP images as quickly as a lo-MP camera could. But maybe its not.

I've worked six years of my career in Japanese firms in Japan in Japanese, and while everyone here seems to think they're geniuses at making these decisions, the way it works is there will be a group with some rough consensus but where most group members are afraid to push their opinion much at all, a senior person will tweak that consensus, and at that point NOBODY CAN QUESTION IT. It is FINAL. You see that constantly. The Fukushima reactor decided to move the backup generators up to the hilltop to keep them safe from tsunami. Smart move! But the extension cords weren't available. So did they delay moving the generator? OMG NO, it was a FINAL DECISION THAT IT BE MOVED so they moved it despite literally every person in the reactor knowing that it would leave them with no power if the main generator stopped. So then later they were flying in supplies to the villages cut off by the radiation zones. A helicopter is hovering literally 1 meter off the ground while the ground crew is yelling at him that the airport is closed, therefore he cannot land, and that decision is FINAL and cannot be changed even to get drinking water to thirsty residents. Go back to the Tokaimura Incident, where the entire reactor staff knew certain steps involved mixing plutonium by hand in a god damned bucket. I am not kidding. Staff in a hurry tried to do a double-batch and pop went the weasel. The bucket part wasn't part of the decided procedure, but the decided procedure was basically missing a step and you couldn't make the reactor run without improvising that step. But the decision on the procedure was final, even though it was known to be dangerous.

I've also worked in Swiss companies in German and Canadian companies in English. Big companies aren't totally freewheeling and open to alternate opinions even in the West, but they're far more open than in Japan. Anyway, YES, Canon surely has some kind of plan, and you guys seem to think it must therefore be a great plan. But I know how these plans are cooked up and I don't share your confidence.

> this camera will be probably be a very nice solution with better high ISO

I mentioned elsewhere but my theory is that down-sampling a hi-MP camera, especially a back-side sensor, down to a lo-MP sensor's resolution, will give you approximately the same noise as that lo-MP sensor.

 

[lglass12189]

Since when do CPS members get priority availability on products?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is that two different cards or it accepts both types of cards

It is two different cards.
We already know this and it is not speculation.
It is just like the R5.

 

[Danglin52]

You misunderstand me.

YES, by ALL MEANS sell two if you can affordably engineer and market two.

But is Canon releasing two cameras?

No. In fact the rumor mill says after the R3 the next TWO cameras will be cheap models, if I recall correctly.

So they're not "selling two," they're selling one and leaving the other market (slow/hi-IQ) unserved. (Well, we DO have the R5, which is awesome; I was just hoping to move from R to R3, but maybe I have to do R to R5 to R1???)

Now I'd agree with you that having two market segments, and serving one now, and the other at least 3 cameras later, if that is their strategy, MIGHT be more profitable than my proposal of a slow/hi-MP camera tweaked so it can also produce lo-MP images as quickly as a lo-MP camera could. But maybe its not.

I've worked six years of my career in Japanese firms in Japan in Japanese, and while everyone here seems to think they're geniuses at making these decisions, the way it works is there will be a group with some rough consensus but where most group members are afraid to push their opinion much at all, a senior person will tweak that consensus, and at that point NOBODY CAN QUESTION IT. It is FINAL. You see that constantly. The Fukushima reactor decided to move the backup generators up to the hilltop to keep them safe from tsunami. Smart move! But the extension cords weren't available. So did they delay moving the generator? OMG NO, it was a FINAL DECISION THAT IT BE MOVED so they moved it despite literally every person in the reactor knowing that it would leave them with no power if the main generator stopped. So then later they were flying in supplies to the villages cut off by the radiation zones. A helicopter is hovering literally 1 meter off the ground while the ground crew is yelling at him that the airport is closed, therefore he cannot land, and that decision is FINAL and cannot be changed even to get drinking water to thirsty residents. Go back to the Tokaimura Incident, where the entire reactor staff knew certain steps involved mixing plutonium by hand in a god damned bucket. I am not kidding. Staff in a hurry tried to do a double-batch and pop went the weasel. The bucket part wasn't part of the decided procedure, but the decided procedure was basically missing a step and you couldn't make the reactor run without improvising that step. But the decision on the procedure was final, even though it was known to be dangerous.

I've also worked in Swiss companies in German and Canadian companies in English. Big companies aren't totally freewheeling and open to alternate opinions even in the West, but they're far more open than in Japan. Anyway, YES, Canon surely has some kind of plan, and you guys seem to think it must therefore be a great plan. But I know how these plans are cooked up and I don't share your confidence.

> this camera will be probably be a very nice solution with better high ISO

I mentioned elsewhere but my theory is that down-sampling a hi-MP camera, especially a back-side sensor, down to a lo-MP sensor's resolution, will give you approximately the same noise as that lo-MP sensor.

I was only responding to your comment about understanding market segmentation. I acknowledged in my post that their decision could be a mistake and only time would justify or condemn their approach. The merit of their strategy would also depend on their product release plans which none of those outside the company or NDA are aware. They did a great job of keeping the R3 under wraps and close to unknown until the actual development announcement. I know there has been debate about the camera being relabeled from an R1 due to competition, but anyone with product development and marketing knowledge knows you don't change a direction close to launch (you stated this yourself). It would be nice to have a camera that does it all, but many times the Swiss Army knife approach manages to do a lot of things while not doing all of them in an optimized manner. They continue to expand the base technology platform, but keep layering on more compute and data bandwidth intensive tasks that bump up against the platform limits. As to creating multiple resolution of files from a larger sensor, I experimented with this on my R5 compared to an R6 I rented for a trip to YNP. While the downsized R5 files @ 12,800 were not bad, I felt the R6 files were "crisper" with less noise when shot in similar lighting situations. I switched lenses for the test and the light was consistent between shots (an elk grazing late afternoon around sunset). These were natural high ISO shots vs just cranking the ISO up to 12,800 in bright sunlight.

The R3 should work for me since I shoot wildlife and it has higher FPS, improved tracking and will probably deliver better high ISO performance with the new sensor. It would have been a tougher decision at less than 30mp since I wanted a bit of room for crop than the R6 I considered. I ALWAYS carry a backup body and it doesn't have to identical, jus in the same family. I held off buying a second R5 or R6 as a backup hoping Canon would release the R1. Assuming everything holds, I will carry the R3 as primary when shooting wildlife and the R5 when higher resolution or backup is needed. I sold the 1dx II for the R5 and feel the +/- balance out for the R5 in my use case.

On a final note, this is effectively their first large product backlight/stacked sensor with production capacity limitations. Canon is conservative and may want to test the waters in a full production versions at the lower res before they launch into high resolution sensor. While they probably already have test runs of a higher res sensor, they may still need to work out production issues before they bet on a pro level introduction. So, the higher resolution sensor you want may be technically "finished" it may not be ready for prime time yet. Introducing the in R3 gives them a test bed, ramp up production and. be prepared to put there name behind the high res sensor in an R1.

Companies are definitely NOT infallible because they are directed by people.

David

 

[djack41]

Bit let down. The Sony A1 is 50 MP and just as fast. I hope the AF really performs.

 

[Tangent]

So rumor has it that the RP will be replaced by a downmarket camera and an upmarket camera that will also serve as an R replacement. Call it the RP+.

That said, is it too much to hope the RP+ will have this new 30.1 MP backside illuminated sensor? (Or something similar with the new tech?) That would be great. More DR and yes to IBIS. Still keep it reasonably compact.