# Here is the official Canon USA press release for the Canon EOS R3



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2021)

> *MELVILLE, NY (September 14, 2021) * Building on the success of the EOS R camera series, Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the next leap forward in full-frame mirrorless cameras – the professional-grade Canon EOS R3. The new camera leverages the advancements in technology that Canon has developed since the original EOS R launch in 2018 and bridges the gap between the immensely popular EOS R5 and the world-renowned Canon flagship EOS-1D X line. The EOS R3 is the first ‘3’ series camera from Canon since the widely used EOS-3 film camera was launched in 1998.
> The EOS R3 camera’s features greatly emphasize superb AF performance and speed with fast-moving subjects. It was designed to meet the reliability and durability demands of professionals, even when working in some extremely challenging conditions.
> ‘The launch of the EOS R3 sets a new benchmark for the...



Continue reading...


----------



## Rocksthaman (Sep 14, 2021)

******* I tell ya, *******


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Sep 14, 2021)

Reading that press release has left me underwhelmed. I'll be eager to see all the coverage and vids tomorrow, but for a $6K body following the R5, on paper it sounds kinda blah TO ME. Maybe I'd be more excited if I were in the intended target for this camera.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 14, 2021)

While I'm totally happy with my R5, this is a fun announcement. Can't wait to see what the new sensor can do!

PS: I was expecting a price closer to USD $5,500, but given the particularly high inflation in the US this year, the announced price doesn't shock me...

PPS: I'm thrilled to see an articulating screen on a 1D-level body. I feel a wee bit vindicated after praising all of the Canon articulating screens I've used over the years* while others insisted it would NEVER be added to a pro body. 

*A80, G12, 70D, R5...


----------



## tigers media (Sep 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I think its going to sell very well, for what you get the price seems reasonable. Nice and solid body which looks great if I could afford it id def get it ! Cant wait to finally see some images and reviews on it see how that eye af goes, if its just a gimmick or not ?


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

Sadly no resolution trick, no surprise features, no pixel shift, no GPS, no higher MP viewfinder, etc.
But... improved AF for animals will make my happy, assuming it is a significant/noticeable improvement. Also, looking forward to really clean files in low light! And best mirrorless ergonomics! And amazing speed! And improved battery life! Woo hoo!

Did everyone else already know that the hotshoe would not be backwards-compatible? You will need an adapter to use your existing hotshoe accessories, but that adapter will not be released until four months after the R3?

*AD-E1*
_*For a seamless transition from your current hot shoe accessories to the multi-function shoe, the
Multi-Function Shoe Adapter AD-E1 is the answer. The Multi-Function Shoe Adapter AD-E1 provides a
reliable connection for dust and drip proof Speedlite accessories that you may already own such as the
Speedlite EL-1, Speedlite 600EX II-RT, Speedlite 600EX-RT, Speedlite 580EX II, ST-E3-RT or OC-E3 flash*_
*cord. *The shoe adapter will also hold current accessories such as shotgun mics and on-camera LED panels
securely to the camera body with dual locking pins on the multi-function shoe side.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 14, 2021)

Sounds like a great camera! I'm looking forward to holding one to see what I think, since I've always preferred a smaller camera and never had one with a dual grip. I'm fine with the 24MP (I'm used to the R5's 45MP) and think the BSI design and user-eye tracking will (hopefully) be a major step towards getting the most superb photos. This is probably the body that a lot of well paid professionals have been finally waiting for! I hope Canon comes out soon with similar technology (and hopefully QP) in future bodies, including R5-like sized ones.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 14, 2021)

So, the R3 is nearly a flagship but doesn’t quite reach the dizzy heights of the 1DX III 

I beg to differ… But we will soon see...


----------



## geffy (Sep 14, 2021)

wheres peter mckinnon when you need him


----------



## JDavis (Sep 14, 2021)

$6k LOL! This makes the a9II look like an absolute steal at $4500! Get ready to pay $8k for the R1  Cant wait to see what new $3k RF lenses are coming next! Canon has lost their minds


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> So, the R3 is nearly a flagship but doesn’t quite reach the dizzy heights of the 1DX III
> 
> I beg to differ… But we will soon see...


Yes and no. I would say it is absolutely a mirrorless version of a 1D series but that canon is adding a definition of a 'flagship' camera and that what that is will be is the camera with EVERYTHING instead of different cameras to fill different niches.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 14, 2021)

The announcement implies the AF is on par with the R5. Unless the AF is a huge jump up, this camera may be a very hard sell. Same Digic X processor as the R5. With half the MP of the Sony A1 and half the VF resolution of the Sony A1, it faces tough competition.


----------



## Tidy Media (Sep 14, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes and no. I would say it is absolutely a mirrorless version of a 1D series but that canon is adding a definition of a 'flagship' camera and that what that is will be is the camera with EVERYTHING instead of different cameras to fill different niches.


This ^ I fully expect the R1 to have the resolution of the R5 (at least) with the speed and all the perks of the R3. More of an OP A1.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 14, 2021)

djack41 said:


> The announcement implies the AF is on par with the R5. Unless the AF is a huge jump up, this camera may be a very hard sell. Same Digic X processor as the R5. With half the MP of the Sony A1 and half the VF resolution of the Sony A1, it faces tough competition.


Not to mention the a1 can shoot 8K 30p and 4K 120p Video in 10-Bit


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> $6k LOL! This makes the a9II look like an absolute steal at $4500! Get ready to pay $8k for the R1  Cant wait to see what new $3k RF lenses are coming next! Canon has lost their minds


If I click your name will it take me to a website to buy the a9?
Just wondering where to go to get one of these. That is why I follow Canon sites.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

djack41 said:


> With half the MP of the Sony A1 and half the VF resolution of the Sony A1, it faces tough competition.


People here have been claiming Canon will have a tough time competing with Sony for a decade. Why hasn’t Canon lost market share to them? 

It’s ok…you keep irrelevantly complaining, Canon will keep selling cameras, and you’ll both be happy.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> People here have been claiming Canon will have a tough time competing with Sony for a decade. Why hasn’t Canon lost market share to them?
> 
> It’s ok…you keep irrelevantly complaining, Canon will keep selling cameras, and you’ll both be happy.


One company is actually transparent with their camera sales and earnings, one is not. That's all we need to know.


----------



## calfoto (Sep 14, 2021)

This is the part I love...

_** Specifications, availability, and price are subject to change without notice. Actual prices are set by individual dealers and may vary.*_

You think??? 

IOW - You'll be lucky to get one at "List" price when they first become available as Canon is allowing dealers to set their own pricing - assuming it's NOT less that $5999.99


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2021)

calfoto said:


> This is the part I love...
> 
> _** Specifications, availability, and price are subject to change without notice. Actual prices are set by individual dealers and may vary.*_
> 
> ...


An authorized Canon retailer cannot go above the MSRP. They can go below MSRP in-store only.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 14, 2021)

8 stops of internal image stabilization. That’s impressive. 

So what does the combined come out to with the new RF lenses? 10? Or 12?


----------



## Joel C (Sep 14, 2021)

Such an interestingly strange move at this juncture.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 14, 2021)

CanonGrunt said:


> 8 stops of internal image stabilization. That’s impressive.
> 
> So what does the combined come out to with the new RF lenses? 10? Or 12?



It doesn't work like that. The R5 also has "up to" 8 stops of stabilization only with IBIS for specific lenses where the image circle is big enough.
Combined with lens IS won't add more than 0.5 stops.


----------



## Warrenl (Sep 14, 2021)

Video record limit??? Any info on that?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It doesn't work like that. The R5 also has "up to" 8 stops of stabilization *only with IBIS* for specific lenses where the image circle is big enough.
> Combined with lens IS won't add more than 0.5 stops.


“_3 When combined with certain IS lenses such as the RF24-105mm F4 IS L USM, or when used with *certain non-IS lenses* as well._”

Your statement differs from Canon’s. I’ll go out in a limb and say they’re right and you’re wrong.

But, that same footnote (and the 8-stops with certain non- IS lenses) may also apply to the R5.

Edit - my misreading, sorry. Thanks to @raptor3x for the correction.


----------



## calfoto (Sep 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> An authorized Canon retailer cannot go above the MSRP. They can go below MSRP in-store only.


I'm assuming you're the authority on that topic - I'm just thinking back to the R5 and the number of eBay "New in Box" ones going for $1000+ or more than list. Of course they weren't "Authorized" dealers - but they might have had a pretty close relationship with some I'm thinking.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 14, 2021)

So I would say I’m the target audience for this camera - a motorsports photographer that also covers events, weddings, commercial, video you name it. This is not really an exciting…scratch that, it’s not really a surprising release from Canon. Part of me was hoping for some great big surprise…but they would have probably mentioned pixel-shift or DGO dynamic range if it had it, so that’s a bummer. But in all reality, the R5 was far too much resolution for me to shoot sports with for over a year. I shredded through drives all year long and my friends and I were all asking for a mRAW or sRAW option. Still, the R5 was absolutely better than my 1DX Mark II ever was at autofocus or image quality (maybe MAYBE it was better in low light, but not by much in the ISO range I play in) and the R6 was a great option for keeping files size back at my comfortable 20mp of my 1DXII. So this is basically the perfect sports camera for me now and will be my main video camera moving forward. The R5 is still my commercial and automotive choice and the R6 is my real estate camera and backup. Had this camera come with more resolution, it could have been more useful for me…but I’m pretty sure this is going to be one hell of a camera.

It’s just a shame Canon priced it at $6,000 up against Sony’s significantly more capable A1 at $6,500 and soon the Nikon Z9….that stings for sure and will be the topic DPReview and all the other reviewers will take points off for. I really won’t blame them for it. If you look at this compared to the A9II I do have to wonder what the hell they’re thinking with a $1500 price hike over that camera…I could see $600-800 or even $1000, but $1500 is a big difference.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 14, 2021)

I am surprised that the 16fps mechanical shutter wasn't included in the R3. I guess that it is one differentiator with the 1DXiii - for all the "flagship" debate


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> “_3 When combined with certain IS lenses such as the RF24-105mm F4 IS L USM, or when used with *certain non-IS lenses* as well._”
> 
> Your statement differs from Canon’s. I’ll go out in a limb and say they’re right and you’re wrong.
> 
> But, that same footnote (and the 8-stops with certain non- IS lenses) may also apply to the R5.


I think you may have misread his post. He's saying that having lens IS or not is not so much the limiting factor for the stabilization rating as the size of the imaging circle projected by the lens.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Sep 14, 2021)

What do you suppose the dynamic range is?


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 14, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I am surprised that the 16fps mechanical shutter wasn't included in the R3. I guess that it is one differentiator with the 1DXiii - for all the "flagship" debate


Depending on the readout speed of the new sensor the mechanical shutter may be more or less irrelevant.


----------



## SV (Sep 14, 2021)

"Here is everything that you need to know about tomorrow’s big day from Canon"

I guess it's tomorrow somewhere...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

CafferyPhoto said:


> What do you suppose the dynamic range is?


I suppose it’s the ratio between the smallest and largest possible values of a changeable quantity, or if you prefer the ratio between the full well capacity and the noise floor, or if you prefer the visual interpretation of the above based on an 8x10" print viewed at a distance of about arms length.

Oh, you meant the dynamic range of the R3. No idea.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 14, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> Depending on the readout speed of the new sensor the mechanical shutter may be more or less irrelevant.


I agree that a stacked BSI sensor should have a fast readout speed and getting closer to an effective "global shutter". 
I would be happy to remove the mechanical shutter for less moving parts, cost reduction and eshutter flash sync speed. 
That said, rolling shutter and indoor lighting banding are still issues to be resolved and I don't think that R3 buyers would be the first ones to test it. 
Having a variable speed for the eshutter would also be essential to remove the mechanical shutter but not confirmed yet in the marketing document. I think that a fixed 30fps for eshutter will be universally panned. I can't see the reason for the R5 to have 20fps fixed just to have silent shutter.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 14, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree that a stacked BSI sensor should have a fast readout speed and getting closer to an effective "global shutter".
> I would be happy to remove the mechanical shutter for less moving parts, cost reduction and eshutter flash sync speed.
> That said, rolling shutter and indoor lighting banding are still issues to be resolved and I don't think that R3 buyers would be the first ones to test it.
> Having a variable speed for the eshutter would also be essential to remove the mechanical shutter but not confirmed yet in the marketing document. I think that a fixed 30fps for eshutter will be universally panned. I can't see the reason for the R5 to have 20fps fixed just to have silent shutter.


If the readout speed is as fast, or faster, than the flash sync speed of the mechanical shutter then there's really no advantage to the mechanical shutter in regard to indoor lighting or rolling shutter effect. I'm really interested to see what the readout speed is on this body; for indoor sports some of the newer high frequency LED systems being installed will cause banding even with mechanical shutters. The only real way around that is a global shutter but until I'll take whatever camera has the fastest readout speed.


----------



## Kiton (Sep 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> An authorized Canon retailer cannot go above the MSRP. They can go below MSRP in-store only.



When I got my R5 the dealer told me he was not permitted to discount it (yet) and he would make it up to me elsewhere.


----------



## chasingrealness (Sep 14, 2021)

This is going to be an amazing camera. I wish it had 30mp but I get it. I can’t say I’m not at least a little bit interested…


----------



## sanj (Sep 14, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I am surprised that the 16fps mechanical shutter wasn't included in the R3. I guess that it is one differentiator with the 1DXiii - for all the "flagship" debate


Agree.


----------



## neurorx (Sep 14, 2021)

Tidy Media said:


> This ^ I fully expect the R1 to have the resolution of the R5 (at least) with the speed and all the perks of the R3. More of an OP A1.


yes likely so....but the highest price of all of the other flagships (Nikon, Sony)...this is disappointing. I did think Canon was going to really get aggressive with their cameras and pricing.


----------



## Oceventphotos (Sep 14, 2021)

I'm very interested in more information with the new hotshoe. Will it work with my Canon speed light or will I need to purchase the adaptor? Will they announce an updated speed light that will work natively?


----------



## reef58 (Sep 14, 2021)

neurorx said:


> yes likely so....but the highest price of all of the other flagships (Nikon, Sony)...this is disappointing. I did think Canon was going to really get aggressive with their cameras and pricing.


I think Canon will be aggressive with the cameras and lenses but they are not going to be a discount manufacturer.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 14, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I think Canon will be aggressive with the cameras and lenses but they are not going to be a discount manufacturer.


In a declining market where manufacturers are forced to go to a mix of more expensive, high end gear, you don't want to be the discount provider. Good for Canon.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 14, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> So I would say I’m the target audience for this camera - a motorsports photographer that also covers events, weddings, commercial, video you name it. This is not really an exciting…scratch that, it’s not really a surprising release from Canon. Part of me was hoping for some great big surprise…but they would have probably mentioned pixel-shift or DGO dynamic range if it had it, so that’s a bummer. But in all reality, the R5 was far too much resolution for me to shoot sports with for over a year. I shredded through drives all year long and my friends and I were all asking for a mRAW or sRAW option. Still, the R5 was absolutely better than my 1DX Mark II ever was at autofocus or image quality (maybe MAYBE it was better in low light, but not by much in the ISO range I play in) and the R6 was a great option for keeping files size back at my comfortable 20mp of my 1DXII. So this is basically the perfect sports camera for me now and will be my main video camera moving forward. The R5 is still my commercial and automotive choice and the R6 is my real estate camera and backup. Had this camera come with more resolution, it could have been more useful for me…but I’m pretty sure this is going to be one hell of a camera.
> 
> It’s just a shame Canon priced it at $6,000 up against Sony’s significantly more capable A1 at $6,500 and soon the Nikon Z9….that stings for sure and will be the topic DPReview and all the other reviewers will take points off for. I really won’t blame them for it. If you look at this compared to the A9II I do have to wonder what the hell they’re thinking with a $1500 price hike over that camera…I could see $600-800 or even $1000, but $1500 is a big difference.


The only thing the A1 has over the R3 is resolution. Otherwise the A1 just more expensive...and you would have to add the battery grip price, and factor in the high price of the CF Express Type A cards that the A1 uses. And neither the A1 or the A9II are nearly as rugged as the R3...you if one used the Sony you may have to factor in repair or replacement costs.

With the A9II, you again have to add $400 for the battery grip, and once again you have less ruggedness and reliability. And if it matters, the R3 has 30 fps vs 20 fps for A9II, and the R3 has much better video capabilities than the A9II.

Personally, I'll take a true pro body like the R3 over either the A1 or the A9II.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2021)

Kiton said:


> When I got my R5 the dealer told me he was not permitted to discount and he would make it up to me elsewhere.


He lied. This issue is MAP, minimum advertised price. Dealers cannot advertise a price below the MAP, which is the same price as the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). They can sell it to you at less than MSRP (but not more), but they can't advertise a price below MAP. None the less, the dealer apparently gave you a discount but he probably sold you something else in return. 

Canon Price Watch tells readers that there is a dealer willing to sell at below MAP, but won't identify the dealer until you inquire. When you inquire, he forwards it to the dealer and you work directly with the dealer to secure the discount. Nothing is "advertised" by the dealer, so they aren't violating MAP.

Of course, these days with COVID shortages, not many dealers are offering discounts of any type.


----------



## sanj (Sep 14, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> The only thing the A1 has over the R3 is resolution. Otherwise the A1 just more expensive...and you would have to add the battery grip price, and factor in the high price of the CF Express Type A cards that the A1 uses. And neither the A1 or the A9II are nearly as rugged as the R3...you if one used the Sony you may have to factor in repair or replacement costs.
> 
> With the A9II, you again have to add $400 for the battery grip, and once again you have less ruggedness and reliability. And if it matters, the R3 has 30 fps vs 20 fps for A9II, and the R3 has much better video capabilities than the A9II.
> 
> Personally, I'll take a true pro body like the R3 over either the A1 or the A9II.


You do not 'have to' add battery grip.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 14, 2021)

unfocused said:


> He lied. This issue is MAP, minimum advertised price. Dealers cannot advertise a price below the MAP, which is the same price as the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). They can sell it to you at less than MSRP (but not more), but they can't advertise a price below MAP. None the less, the dealer apparently gave you a discount but he probably sold you something else in return.
> 
> Canon Price Watch tells readers that there is a dealer willing to sell at below MAP, but won't identify the dealer until you inquire. When you inquire, he forwards it to the dealer and you work directly with the dealer to secure the discount. Nothing is "advertised" by the dealer, so they aren't violating MAP.
> 
> Of course, these days with COVID shortages, not many dealers are offering discounts of any type.


Note that these issues are only for the US market. Completely different outside of America


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 14, 2021)

sanj said:


> You do not 'have to' add battery grip.


You do have to add the battery grip if you want to make a similar comparison between a Sony body and the R3.

Otherwise, then one can say that an easy advantage of the R3 over the Sony bodies is much longer battery life as well as the vertical grip. 

So either way the vertical/battery grip factors in. 

BTW the battery grip also matters if one is a hybrid shooter who does video. And in video, the R3 absolutely smokes the A9II, as in not even close.

So that's another consideration that some overlook but will matter to a lot of users out there.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 14, 2021)

unfocused said:


> He lied. This issue is MAP, minimum advertised price. Dealers cannot advertise a price below the MAP, which is the same price as the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). They can sell it to you at less than MSRP (but not more), but they can't advertise a price below MAP. None the less, the dealer apparently gave you a discount but he probably sold you something else in return.


I'm not so certain that it was a lie. Have you ever seen discounts on the Canon flagship bodies through normal retail channels? I've never seen one. You see it with every other Canon body but not so much the 1-series and maybe they're treating this the same.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 14, 2021)

I think that Canon wants quad pixel AF for the R1 and it was not ready at the time they needed to go ahead. I'd bet that getting quad pixel working to the point where it will have better AF performance than the 1D MK III is a technical challenge. DPAF still suffers with autofocus on some targets where dual pixel just does not work.

The eye controlled AF is undoubtedly why they resurrected the 3 series numbering. I am waiting to hear how well it works. Unfortunately, the R3 is not for me. I find my hands being unable to handle my R5 and a big lens, at least not for a long shoot. I need a monopod or tripod to hold it steady, IBIS works but not when the camera waves around like it does with me holding it. I really like the camera but should sell it and get something small and light. I doubt that I'm going to do that, after the R5, a RP would be too big of a drop.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Not to mention the a1 can shoot 8K 30p and 4K 120p Video in 10-Bit


But the A1 cannot do raw… you have to cook the footage when using A1:-D


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> I'm not so certain that it was a lie. Have you ever seen discounts on the Canon flagship bodies through normal retail channels? I've never seen one. You see it with every other Canon body but not so much the 1-series and maybe they're treating this the same.


I mean that he lied when the dealer said he couldn't offer a discount. The dealer could have, but chose not to. However, in fairness, the dealer may have meant that he couldn't afford to offer a discount, not that he was incapable of offering one. And, yes, you are right that discounts on 1-series bodies are rare. Much more common would be adding in "freebies" which generally have more of a cushion (mark up) than the cameras.


----------



## xiaohuaa (Sep 14, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> So I would say I’m the target audience for this camera - a motorsports photographer that also covers events, weddings, commercial, video you name it. This is not really an exciting…scratch that, it’s not really a surprising release from Canon. Part of me was hoping for some great big surprise…but they would have probably mentioned pixel-shift or DGO dynamic range if it had it, so that’s a bummer. But in all reality, the R5 was far too much resolution for me to shoot sports with for over a year. I shredded through drives all year long and my friends and I were all asking for a mRAW or sRAW option. Still, the R5 was absolutely better than my 1DX Mark II ever was at autofocus or image quality (maybe MAYBE it was better in low light, but not by much in the ISO range I play in) and the R6 was a great option for keeping files size back at my comfortable 20mp of my 1DXII. So this is basically the perfect sports camera for me now and will be my main video camera moving forward. The R5 is still my commercial and automotive choice and the R6 is my real estate camera and backup. Had this camera come with more resolution, it could have been more useful for me…but I’m pretty sure this is going to be one hell of a camera.
> 
> It’s just a shame Canon priced it at $6,000 up against Sony’s significantly more capable A1 at $6,500 and soon the Nikon Z9….that stings for sure and will be the topic DPReview and all the other reviewers will take points off for. I really won’t blame them for it. If you look at this compared to the A9II I do have to wonder what the hell they’re thinking with a $1500 price hike over that camera…I could see $600-800 or even $1000, but $1500 is a big difference.


Have you ever tried Craw?


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 14, 2021)

I honestly think that the actual day-to-day use of the EOS-R3 is going to absolutely blow everyone's expectations out of the water. A camera is far, far more than just specs. This camera may not get much hype off of specs alone in the general community, but I fully anticipate that actually using the camera is going to be an absolute breeze, and that has me very excited. 

The price alone makes me feel like Canon must be absolutely exceeding confident in the performance of this camera. There's far more to a camera than specs on a sheet of paper, and I anticipate that Canon built this camera to be a reliable, durable, high-speed powerhouse.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think that the actual day-to-day use of the EOS-R3 is going to absolutely blow everyone's expectations out of the water. A camera is far, far more than just specs. This camera may not get much hype off of specs alone in the general community, but I fully anticipate that actually using the camera is going to be an absolute breeze, and that has me very excited.
> 
> The price alone makes me feel like Canon must be absolutely exceeding confident in the performance of this camera. There's far more to a camera than specs on a sheet of paper, and I anticipate that Canon built this camera to be a reliable, durable, high-speed powerhouse.


Yes...this! Sony has gotten too many people focused just on specs on paper, and that has worked to the detriment of the camera industry. 

Canon cameras are always such that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. I have an R5 and have used an A1 and let me tell you, the R5 is by far and away the more usable camera. Even the way the battery door and the card slots door open is superior on the Canon. And let's not even get into those confusing Sony menu's.

And honestly, in almost all practical situations, one can get the same results from an R5 as from an A1.

Specs never tell the whole story. On paper a Hyundai (which is a good car BTW) can seem better than a BMW or Mercedes.


----------



## exige24 (Sep 14, 2021)

Where's the *yawn* emoji when you need it!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Where's the *yawn* emoji when you need it!!!


Good question. After reading your...ummm...contribution?...I need one!


----------



## MiJax (Sep 14, 2021)

Its a slightly updated fully gripped R5, with a better sensor that has been dumbed down for extra speed. And I'm not terribly optimistic the sensor is going to be all that fast either. If we see anything faster than 6ms I'll be surprised (considering they only went for the low hanging fruit). They literally one up'ed a 4 year old A9. $7000 saved.


----------



## geffy (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> $6k LOL! This makes the a9II look like an absolute steal at $4500! Get ready to pay $8k for the R1  Cant wait to see what new $3k RF lenses are coming next! Canon has lost their minds


I think this is the R1


----------



## BuffaloBird (Sep 14, 2021)

I was once so very excited for this camera. I'm sure many will be happy, but a hard pass for me. I had really, really (really) been hoping that they'd surprise us with a higher resolution in the official announcement. Looking less and less likely by the second.

Ah, well...


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 14, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> Yes...this! Sony has gotten too many people focused just on specs on paper, and that has worked to the detriment of the camera industry.
> 
> Canon cameras are always such that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. I have an R5 and have used an A1 and let me tell you, the R5 is by far and away the more usable camera. Even the way the battery door and the card slots door open is superior on the Canon. And let's not even get into those confusing Sony menu's.
> 
> ...



Agree completely, but I'm all for the Hyundai seeming better on paper considering I'm also upgrading my Hyundai this week!


----------



## lethiferous (Sep 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think that the actual day-to-day use of the EOS-R3 is going to absolutely blow everyone's expectations out of the water. A camera is far, far more than just specs. This camera may not get much hype off of specs alone in the general community, but I fully anticipate that actually using the camera is going to be an absolute breeze, and that has me very excited.
> 
> The price alone makes me feel like Canon must be absolutely exceeding confident in the performance of this camera. There's far more to a camera than specs on a sheet of paper, and I anticipate that Canon built this camera to be a reliable, durable, high-speed powerhouse.


The price is reflective of the customer base they are selling to and totally ignoring competition. We have a supply chain shortage and enough folks who won't touch anything else, don't want to change systems, head in the sand, whatever other reasons for Canon to sell as many as they are able to make for the time being. I will buy this camera because I still own most of my RF line up and I have GAS issues, but unless it has some GODLY AF eye control etc, I do not see how it is worth 6 grand by any means. Like I have posted before, my R5, A1 both take grips and haven't had issues getting wet with them. Also pretty sure 2 e6nh batteries last longer than 1 e19. The integrated grip is more ergos than anything else. You will end up needing more than 1 battery.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 14, 2021)

Interesting. It says 24.1 MP and also 6k raw. That would suggest that it doesn't do DCI as that would need 25.16 MP. Very un-Canonlike. The same math holds for 3:2 oversampled 4k, so maybe no DCI anywhere. Sony doesn't go there, so we don't need to either?? Tomorrow will be interesting.


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 14, 2021)

So, no quad pixel and no global shutter.


----------



## sanj (Sep 14, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> So, no quad pixel and no global shutter.


R1


----------



## sanj (Sep 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting. It says 24.1 MP and also 6k raw. That would suggest that it doesn't do DCI as that would need 25.16 MP. Very un-Canonlike. The same math holds for 3:2 oversampled 4k, so maybe no DCI anywhere. Tomorrow will be interesting.


What is DCI pls? And how does it help? Please.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 14, 2021)

sanj said:


> What is DCI pls? And how does it help? Please.


17:9 as opposed to 16:9. So you need a slightly wider sensor.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting. It says 24.1 MP and also 6k raw. That would suggest that it doesn't do DCI as that would need 25.16 MP. Very un-Canonlike. The same math holds for 3:2 oversampled 4k, so maybe no DCI anywhere. Sony doesn't go there, so we don't need to either?? Tomorrow will be interesting.


i think some of the sensors are slightly more MP but only use a specified amount. The EOS R5 has a 47.1MP sensor but only uses 45 when taking photos.


----------



## Kuau (Sep 14, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> The only thing the A1 has over the R3 is resolution. Otherwise the A1 just more expensive...and you would have to add the battery grip price, and factor in the high price of the CF Express Type A cards that the A1 uses. And neither the A1 or the A9II are nearly as rugged as the R3...you if one used the Sony you may have to factor in repair or replacement costs.
> 
> With the A9II, you again have to add $400 for the battery grip, and once again you have less ruggedness and reliability. And if it matters, the R3 has 30 fps vs 20 fps for A9II, and the R3 has much better video capabilities than the A9II.
> 
> Personally, I'll take a true pro body like the R3 over either the A1 or the A9II.


I agree with your assessment assuming the R3‘s AF is on par with the A1. I sure hope this is the case. In the winter I shoot downhill ski racing which demands top notch AF performance and this is where the R5 though a very capable camera I shoot with 2 of them last ski season and it did struggle sometimes picking up ski racers going top speed towards me. 

I jumped ship from Sony a while back when I read an interview from one of Sony’s top executives and he mentioned that Sony had no plans on releasing a “full” size pro body and wanted to stick with there small form factor. This was before the A1 was announced yet when it was it confirmed what the Sony exec said. Keep the body small.

Keeping my fingers crossed on the R3.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 14, 2021)

sanj said:


> What is DCI pls? And how does it help? Please.


Digital Cinema Initiatives 17:9 video spec. For 4k it is 4096 by 2160 instead of UHD 3840 by 2160. The R5 and 1DX III are DCI capable, but not the lower end cameras.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 14, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> i think some of the sensors are slightly more MP but only use a specified amount. The EOS R5 has a 47.1MP sensor but only uses 45 when taking photos.


It only needs 45 to do DCI.


----------



## sanj (Sep 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Digital Cinema Initiatives 17:9 video spec. For 4k it is 4096 by 2160 instead of UHD 3840 by 2160. The R5 and 1DX III are DCI capable, but not the lower end cameras.


I like DCI!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 14, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> Also pretty sure 2 e6nh batteries last longer than 1 e19. The integrated grip is more ergos than anything else. You will end up needing more than 1 battery.


The LP-E19 has 27.5Whr capacity compared to 2 x E6NH = 30.6Whr capacity so ~10% less capacity
Canon hasn't updated the e19 like E6->E6N->E6H
The 10.2v voltage in the LP-E19 battery makes a difference to the 7.2v LP-E6NH batteries. The higher voltage should drive the AF faster especially on the big whites.
Others will probably comment on other benefits for the higher voltage


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

djack41 said:


> The announcement implies the AF is on par with the R5. Unless the AF is a huge jump up, this camera may be a very hard sell. Same Digic X processor as the R5. With half the MP of the Sony A1 and half the VF resolution of the Sony A1, it faces tough competition.


I thought all of the language was pretty low key, not really throwing around the marketing buzz words we were accustomed to seeing with the R5: "revolutionary" and "game changer". On the one hand we have a pretty dry press release from Canon USA, and on the other we have Canon Europe claiming this is the most exciting announcement of the year. 

The article says: "Leveraging technology and performance feedback from the popular EOS R5 and EOS R6 cameras, the EOS R3 uses Deep-Learning technology to *further enhance* eye and body detection for *even better performanc*e during portrait and action-type shooting."

There is a big spectrum of what "Further enhance" and "even better" could mean, from incremental and small to substantially better. Hopefully initial reviews will help us determine the extent of the improvements tomorrow.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The LP-E19 has 27.5Whr capacity compared to 2 x E6NH = 30.6Whr capacity so ~10% less capacity
> Canon hasn't updated the e19 like E6->E6N->E6H
> The 10.2v voltage in the LP-E19 battery makes a difference to the 7.2v LP-E6NH batteries. The higher voltage should drive the AF faster especially on the big whites.
> Others will probably comment on other benefits for the higher voltage


I'm just wondering how much real-world battery life improvements we can expect to see in the R3 if the LP-E19 is powering all of the new R3 speedy tech plus driving fast AF plus now powering hot shoe accessories, etc. Thank goodness for USB charging because otherwise I'd have to get half a dozen spare LP-E19 batteries.


----------



## MoonMadness (Sep 14, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> If I click your name will it take me to a website to buy the a9?
> Just wondering where to go to get one of these. That is why I follow Canon sites.


And under his name it states: "I'm new here".
It's like the bully in grade school that laughs at everyone to make himself feel better and wonders why nobody likes him.

Go find another playground if all you came here for was "Because I wanted to see the R3 announcement and get a *chuckle *at its absurd $6k price." Try SARs.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 14, 2021)

To be honest, looking at the R3, I can't help but wonder if the R3 was built from the start as an olive branch to the professionals who *need* the 1-series build and responsiveness, but don't need the additional features that are gonna push the R1 to $8,000. 

Global shutter and QPAF will be no-doubt incredible, and the hearsay humors of 84/21mp resolution switching are compelling, but the majority of sports/news/professionals who count on the 1-series have never really needed flashy features, they just need a camera that always works. 

In all reality, I'm already perfectly happy with what the R5's electronic shutter pulls off when I'm shooting sports, and the R3 is significantly going to improve on that. With that in mind, I'll view getting the R3 as saving the $2000 or more that the R1 will cost over it, and put that money into an RF lens.


----------



## AEWest (Sep 14, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> The price is reflective of the customer base they are selling to and totally ignoring competition. We have a supply chain shortage and enough folks who won't touch anything else, don't want to change systems, head in the sand, whatever other reasons for Canon to sell as many as they are able to make for the time being. I will buy this camera because I still own most of my RF line up and I have GAS issues, but unless it has some GODLY AF eye control etc, I do not see how it is worth 6 grand by any means. Like I have posted before, my R5, A1 both take grips and haven't had issues getting wet with them. Also pretty sure 2 e6nh batteries last longer than 1 e19. The integrated grip is more ergos than anything else. You will end up needing more than 1 battery.


Its interesting that many people find the $6K price outrageous yet the R3 handily beats the 1DX3 in most specs and that camera sells for $6,500.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 14, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Its a slightly updated fully gripped R5, with a better sensor that has been dumbed down for extra speed. And I'm not terribly optimistic the sensor is going to be all that fast either. If we see anything faster than 6ms I'll be surprised (considering they only went for the low hanging fruit). They literally one up'ed a 4 year old A9. $7000 saved.


The stacked sensor should be significantly faster if it produce blackout free EVF and minimal rolling shutter.

But the R3 smokes the A9 and A9II in video features, which is important to a whole lot of hybrid users out there. And if you don't need 8K, and most do not, then the R3 is better than the A1.

Of course the R3 is likely to be a whole lot more durable under challenging conditions than any Sony.


----------



## padam (Sep 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting. It says 24.1 MP and also 6k raw. That would suggest that it doesn't do DCI as that would need 25.16 MP. Very un-Canonlike. The same math holds for 3:2 oversampled 4k, so maybe no DCI anywhere. Sony doesn't go there, so we don't need to either?? Tomorrow will be interesting.


It's not that complicated.

6K DCI just means the full width of the sensor cropped to the appropriate Cinema 4K aspect ratio and 16:9 will have a slight crop and the 4K will be derived from either version (4K-D or 4K-U)

Exactly the same as the 1DX III, only 6K instead of 5.5K
But with significant improvements in terms of AF (disabled for 5.5K 60p, I'm guessing it will work in the R3), rolling shutter, availability of 4k120p, DSLR quirks removed etc. and for slightly less money as well.


----------



## Joules (Sep 14, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Go find another playground if all you came here for was "Because I wanted to see the R3 announcement and get a *chuckle *at its absurd $6k price." Try SARs.


Took me a moment to realize you meant the Sony rumors site, instead of wishing severe acute respiratory syndrome on someone. The latter would have been a touch in the harsh side as far as responding to trolls goes


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 14, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> But the R3 smokes the A9 and A9II in video features, which is important to a whole lot of hybrid users out there. And if you don't need 8K, and most do not, then the R3 is better than the A1.


Funny. When a canon has better video features, it's quietly ignored when people scream that it's poor value compared to an a9


----------



## Viggo (Sep 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Sadly no resolution trick, no surprise features, no pixel shift, no GPS, no higher MP viewfinder, etc.
> But... improved AF for animals will make my happy, assuming it is a significant/noticeable improvement. Also, looking forward to really clean files in low light! And best mirrorless ergonomics! And amazing speed! And improved battery life! Woo hoo!
> 
> Did everyone else already know that the hotshoe would not be backwards-compatible? You will need an adapter to use your existing hotshoe accessories, but that adapter will not be released until four months after the R3?
> ...


Came here to join the discussion around this too. That adapter should 100% be included in the box. I didn’t know it wasn’t backwards compatible and by the looks of it the adapter is quite thick, so the flash seem to not sit as protected and balanced as it does on every other Canon…


----------



## padam (Sep 14, 2021)

That hotshoe adapter seems stupid, better to just upgrade everything to the new mount (which of course is something they would want) or just keep using an R5.

They are controlling the 3rd party RF lenses quite well for now, I wonder if this change can do the same with flashes as well or in a few months Godox will catch up with compatible devices.


----------



## digigal (Sep 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I thought all of the language was pretty low key, not really throwing around the marketing buzz words we were accustomed to seeing with the R5: "revolutionary" and "game changer". On the one hand we have a pretty dry press release from Canon USA, and on the other we have Canon Europe claiming this is the most exciting announcement of the year.
> 
> The article says: "Leveraging technology and performance feedback from the popular EOS R5 and EOS R6 cameras, the EOS R3 uses Deep-Learning technology to *further enhance* eye and body detection for *even better performanc*e during portrait and action-type shooting."
> 
> There is a big spectrum of what "Further enhance" and "even better" could mean, from incremental and small to substantially better. Hopefully initial reviews will help us determine the extent of the improvements tomorrow.


I can't wait to get Jeff Cable's review of his experience with shooting the Olympics with the R3. He used his R5 as well and took his 1DX III as a back-up for the two but planned to shoot the entire games with the two Canon mirrorless cameras. He's currently leading several back to back tours in Africa but should be back in another week or two. I think he has a good feel for the 3 cameras and a lot of solid time under his belt using the R3 so I would tend to pay more attention to his review than to someone who has only had the opportunity to spend a couple of days with the camera. I know Jeff wanted it well before the Olympics so he could have it programmed and be feeling completely familiar with it before using it there. I suspect he'll do a Zoom chat about it when he gets back. Check out his blog for updates on when that might be.


----------



## Chig (Sep 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think that the actual day-to-day use of the EOS-R3 is going to absolutely blow everyone's expectations out of the water. A camera is far, far more than just specs. This camera may not get much hype off of specs alone in the general community, but I fully anticipate that actually using the camera is going to be an absolute breeze, and that has me very excited.
> 
> The price alone makes me feel like Canon must be absolutely exceeding confident in the performance of this camera. There's far more to a camera than specs on a sheet of paper, and I anticipate that Canon built this camera to be a reliable, durable, high-speed powerhouse.


Yep, but try telling a Sony Fanboy that


----------



## Chig (Sep 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Agree completely, but I'm all for the Hyundai seeming better on paper considering I'm also upgrading my Hyundai this week!


Hyundais are far more reliable than any European car and if you need parts for a euro car it'll make the R3 look affordable


----------



## Chig (Sep 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting. It says 24.1 MP and also 6k raw. That would suggest that it doesn't do DCI as that would need 25.16 MP. Very un-Canonlike. The same math holds for 3:2 oversampled 4k, so maybe no DCI anywhere. Sony doesn't go there, so we don't need to either?? Tomorrow will be interesting.


What's DCI ?


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 14, 2021)

Chig said:


> Hyundais are far more reliable than any European car and if you need parts for a euro car it'll make the R3 look affordable


Not if you live in Europe it won't.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

It seems they crippled the viewfinder to leave room for an R1.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon has lost their minds


Yepp, Canon was, is, and will be ded. Good that they still fare quite well, given shrinking camera markets. Canon's most important product is society safety and collective mental health anyway, since they provide an important valve for all the hate steam overpressure that tends to build up on digital photography related sites.

That said, I am pretty sure that even 12k 240 fps full RAW video in such a camera wouldn't (1) improve many people's skills as photographers/videographers substantially and (2) wouldn't stop haters from finding something to hate, since it is ... erm ... a Canon product.

Now two serious comments:
(1) Canon still supports dual CF and SD cards, not XQD. Personally, I like that.
(2) dual pixel, no quad pixel AF, as was discussed here. So you better shoot action in landscape, not portrait, with the R3 I guess...


----------



## canonmike (Sep 14, 2021)

Just read a quote on Canonnews.com referring to a paper released by Nokishita. Has some interesting info in the article, so you may want to check it out. Of great interest to videographers is the following commentary, taken from Nokishita's info.

*"For the first time in the EOS series (excluding the CINEMA EOS SYSTEM), continuous shooting of more than 30 minutes is possible. It can record up to 6 hours. The camera can record up to 6 hours, making it suitable for long continuous shooting such as documentary shooting"*


----------



## padam (Sep 14, 2021)

Other information that was not translated from the Japanese text:
- Rolling shutter 4x faster than 1DX III -> should be around 8 ms instead of 32ms
- High-speed AF speed up to 0.03 sec (R5 0.05 sec)
- For the first time in his EOS series except "CINEMA EOS SYSTEM", continuous shooting for 30 minutes or more is possible. Up to 6 hours can be recorded and supports long-term continuous shooting such as documentary shooting.
- 4.15 million dot LCD
- 1/180 sec sync speed and 15 fps with electronic shutter using compatible flashes
- Supports "robotic camera system CR-S700R". Remote image capture is possible by using "baseplate kit CR-BP200".


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 14, 2021)

High-speed, high-quality images realized by the newly developed CMOS sensor and the image engine "DIGIC X" -The newly developed full-size back-illuminated stacked CMOS sensor with approximately 24.1 million effective pixels, which is the first to be installed in the EOS series, and images The engine "DIGIC X" achieves both high-speed continuous shooting at a maximum of approximately 30 frames per second and high image quality with AF / AE tracking during electronic shutter shooting.
-The high-speed readout of the new CMOS sensor significantly suppresses image distortion caused by electronic shutters. Rolling shutter distortion is reduced to about 1/4 compared to the electronic shutter of the "EOS-1D X Mark III".
-Blackout-free shooting, which keeps displaying images on the electronic viewfinder (EVF) even during high-speed continuous shooting, enables framing of violently moving subjects without losing sight of them.
-Achieves high-speed continuous shooting of up to approximately 12 frames / second during mechanical shutter / electronic front curtain shooting.
-Achieves high sensitivity of ISO102400, which is commonly used when shooting still images. It is possible to shoot moving objects with reduced noise even in dark scenes such as at night or indoors.
-When using an RF lens, the world's highest 8.0-step image stabilization is achieved by the coordinated control of the optical image stabilization mechanism on the lens side and the image stabilization mechanism inside the body.
-Supports still image / video recording using the "HDR PQ" method. In addition, it is equipped with an "HDR mode" that takes bracket shots at high speed and combines his three photos in the camera. Video expression with rich gradation is possible.
Advanced high-speed, high-precision, wide-range AF that pursues followability and operability
-"Dual pixel CMOS AF II" realizes high-speed, high-precision, wide-range AF with excellent followability. -It is possible to perform AF calculation and tracking calculation at a maximum of 60 fps at the same time when shooting with an electronic shutter. Achieves highly accurate AF even during high-speed continuous shooting at a maximum of approximately 30 frames per second.
-Supports detection of human eyes, face, head, torso, and animal (dog, cat, bird) eyes, face, and whole body. It also supports whole and spot detection of vehicles (cars and motorcycles in motor sports). By strengthening the algorithm "EOS iTR AF X" that utilizes deep learning technology, the detection function has been improved and high subject tracking performance has been achieved.
-For the first time in a Canon digital camera, it is equipped with a line-of-sight input AF when shooting still images. The pointer that moves according to the movement of the eyes looking through the viewfinder can be moved quickly by operating the buttons according to the subject you want to shoot, and the subject can be switched.
-Achieved the low-brightness focusing limit of EV-7.5. AF is possible even in a dark environment where it is difficult to see the subject with the naked eye. -Achieves high-speed AF of up to about 0.03 seconds, which is the fastest in the EOS R series.
Video performance to meet diverse production needs
-The new CMOS sensor's high-speed signal reading and the high-speed processing of the video engine "DIGIC X" realize internal recording of 6K / 60P video RAW data (12bit).
・ Achieves 4K / 120P high frame rate video recording. You can shoot smooth images, and you can get a fine and natural slow motion effect while keeping the sharpness of 4K.
・ High-quality 4K video can be generated from abundant 6K data. His 4K / 60P video is realized by oversampling without cropping, and delicate video expression with reduced moire and noise is possible. -Supports efficient shooting with the excellent focus control performance of "Dual Pixel CMOS AF II" such as wide range measurement brightness range and high-performance subject detection.
-Equipped with Canon's original Log gamma "Canon Log 3". The highlight gradation is less likely to skip than the conventional "Canon Log", and rich gradation expression is possible even in high-contrast scenes.
・ For the first time in his EOS series except "CINEMA EOS SYSTEM", his continuous shooting for 30 minutes or more is possible. It can record up to 6 hours and supports long-term continuous shooting such as documentary shooting.
Pursuit of reliability and operability that supports video production for professionals and high amateur users
-While adopting a high-definition vari-angle LCD monitor, it achieves the same dust-proof and drip-proof performance as the flagship model "EOS-1D X Mark III". While maintaining high reliability, the body with integrated vertical grip and the high-definition vari-angle LCD monitor of approximately 4.15 million dots enable highly flexible shooting.
-A magnesium alloy with high impact resistance and durability and excellent electromagnetic shielding effect is used for the exterior. Both high rigidity and light weight. If only the camera body is used, it is lighter than the "EOS 5Ds". Even when the battery and CFexpress card are included, the mass is about 1,015g, which is about 71% of the "EOS-1D X Mark III".
-Newly equipped with a "multi-accessory shoe" with advanced communication functions. By combining with compatible accessories, it is possible to control an external strobe when shooting still images, digitally input audio when shooting movies, and utilize the network by connecting to a smartphone.
-For the first time as his EOS with a high-speed sensor, all shutter methods (mechanical / electronic front curtain / electronic shutter) support dimming control during continuous shooting. With an electronic shutter, strobe dimming is possible for his 1/180 second, up to about 15 frames per second continuous shooting.
-Equipped with a "silent shutter function" that allows you to make batch settings related to sound. In addition, the LCD monitor can be turned off at all times, enabling quick shooting with consideration for sound and light.
-The power supply uses the "Battery Pack LP-E19" that can be shared with the "EOS-1D X Mark III". -Equipped with dual slots for CFexpress card (Type B) and SD memory card (UHS-II compatible). -Compatible with "Robotic Camera System CR-S700R". By using the "Base Plate Kit CR-BP200", remote shooting of still images is possible.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

How many hours of continous shooting can the battery handle? At six hours the battery could be the bottleneck.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 14, 2021)

WOW>... . Even when the battery and CFexpress card are included, the mass is about 1,015g, which is about 71% of the "EOS-1D X Mark III".

That is game changing for me.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 14, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> WOW>... . Even when the battery and CFexpress card are included, the mass is about 1,015g, which is about 71% of the "EOS-1D X Mark III".
> 
> That is game changing for me.


Just weighed my R5 with grip. The R3 is 150g lighter!


----------



## padam (Sep 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> How many hours of continous shooting can the battery handle? At six hours the battery could be the bottleneck.


Just power it via USB-C or AC...


----------



## swkitt (Sep 14, 2021)

To Sony online reps: 

If Canon don't call this a flagship, it's because they want to sell the rest of the 1DXmkIII... But honestly there's nothing missing in this camera, *for the photographers it targets. *
Also, when you compare prices, you should add the price of the vertical grip to the Sony if you want to compare properly. And after you bought the grip, you still have a 2 pcs camera with a grip holding on a screw. If you have ever used cameras intensively in nature or sports, you know what I mean. Not even mentioning the terrible ergonomics.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 14, 2021)

7.299,- € is the first price I could find in Germany yet.








CANON Eos R3 bei Digitfoto.de


spiegellose Profi-Vollformatkamera - für prof. Sport-Fotografie und Filmen - Stacked BSI CMOS-Sensor, DIGIC X Prozessor



www.digitfoto.de





We'll have to wait, if this will be confirmed by other stores or not.

5.999,- € price in Germany at several stores.


----------



## hne (Sep 14, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Came here to join the discussion around this too. That adapter should 100% be included in the box. I didn’t know it wasn’t backwards compatible and by the looks of it the adapter is quite thick, so the flash seem to not sit as protected and balanced as it does on every other Canon…



How they could break compatibility with a world of Profoto and Elinchrom users and call it pro baffles me. What use is fast silent shooting with flash sync on electronic shutter if you can't use it with flash hardware that can sustain that pace until next year?

Come on Canon, get that flash adapter out with the camera!


----------



## degos (Sep 14, 2021)

swkitt said:


> To Sony online reps:
> 
> But honestly there's nothing missing in this camera, *for the photographers it targets. *



Canon explicitly mentions wildlife and nature photographers. Unfortunately one of the key requirements of many such people is pixel density to allow cropping when focal-length-limited. Which 24MP doesn't provide.

So I'd argue that there is something missing.

As a result I'll not be buying into the RF system yet. Maybe I'll check back in 2024 when the R1 appears.


----------



## Joules (Sep 14, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> 7.299,- € is the first price I could find in Germany yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That unfortunately sound a lot more realistic compared to the previous 6k ish one.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 14, 2021)

hne said:


> How they could break compatibility with a world of Profoto and Elinchrom users and call it pro baffles me. What use is fast silent shooting with flash sync on electronic shutter if you can't use it with flash hardware that can sustain that pace until next year?
> 
> Come on Canon, get that flash adapter out with the camera!


^^


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> $6k LOL! This makes the a9II look like an absolute steal at $4500!


You have the a9 II at $4500 there? Damn. In Europe it's above the equivalent of $6k, with VAT.






Maximilian said:


> 7.299,- € is the first price I could find in Germany yet.


If it retails for that price...This better have unlimited buffer, unlike the alpha 1.
Otherwise, Canon may have shot their foot, this time.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 14, 2021)

The 4k/120 fps is probably cropped  line skipped, as it does not mention full frame there. No problem with that. Also, I think many people do not realize that it will not have full width raw 4k video recording (I wonder why Canon keeps writing "RAW", as it is not an acronym. I understand it may have registered something like "Canon RAW", but without any qualifiers it should not be written in capital letters) , as that is, of course, not possible. And also, as the 6k raw video is a recording format, not a delivery format, it really should not that much matter if it has 17:9 or 16:9 or even 3:2 aspect ratio. You'll probably downsample and/or crop it anyway for delivery. (By the way, there is no "6k DCI" or even "8k DCI" that I know of. Current official DCI spec v. 1.4 only defines 2k and 4k resolutions. And a lot of other things related to movie delivery.)


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> 7.299,- € is the first price I could find in Germany yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That seems to be a placeholder price from the time when no real price had leaked yet. It was already online weeks ago. If a store does not know the real price, it has to choose at the high side of the possible spectrum for potential preorders.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That seems to be a placeholder price from the time when no real price had leaked yet. It was already online weeks ago. If a store does not know the real price, it has to choose at the high side of the possible spectrum for potential preorders.


Could be - hopefully. 
But a German fotosite noted that this shop is not known for such behavior. We'll know in a few hours, when other shops place prices.


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 14, 2021)

Joules said:


> That unfortunately sound a lot more realistic compared to the previous 6k ish one.


6099 was tax free? Add your local VAT taxes ?


----------



## Joules (Sep 14, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> 6099 was tax free? Add your local VAT taxes ?


The Nokishita post that suggested 6k was supposed to include VAT according to a later clarification.


----------



## padam (Sep 14, 2021)

BurningPlatform said:


> The 4k/120 fps is probably cropped, as it does not mention full frame there.


" The camera is capable of shooting 6K 60p RAW and 4K 120p 10-bit _uncropped _video with Canon Log 3 support, in addition to the possibility for oversampled 4K and RAW movie internal recording."


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

I wonder if that will be another one of those announcements that we were waiting for for months and then it is over after five or ten minutes. Apple at least makes really long announcements.

I already put the video on my TV to make sure it will start at 12:00 and I will not miss it.


----------



## dboris (Sep 14, 2021)

Double LCD pixels of the R5?
Nice upgrade. I'd rather get than than the EVF.

Also, super excited by the numbers ; super low readouts and 6H record time? The video beast I expected.
Can't w


----------



## Chig (Sep 14, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Not if you live in Europe it won't.


Well here in New Zealand a service on an Audi Q7 costs NZD $10,000+ and all Euro car parts are insanely overpriced ,often after a minor crash they are written off because the parts are too expensive .
European cars are less reliable generally too.
My sister bought a Peugeot and the auto transmission needed replacing when it was less than 2 years old and the replacement gearbox has given lots of problems since.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 14, 2021)

padam said:


> " The camera is capable of shooting 6K 60p RAW and 4K 120p 10-bit _uncropped _video with Canon Log 3 support, in addition to the possibility for oversampled 4K and RAW movie internal recording."


Thanks. Fixed my post. Probably the 4k/120fps will be line skipped, as there is no mention of oversampling there. But we'll see.


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 14, 2021)

calfoto said:


> This is the part I love...
> 
> _** Specifications, availability, and price are subject to change without notice. Actual prices are set by individual dealers and may vary.*_
> 
> ...



In the US companies can't force prices on dealers. It's been that way for more than twenty years. In the old days long ago the MSRP was the max a dealer could charge and not risk the company spanking them.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 14, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> 7.299,- € is the first price I could find in Germany yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Got it. The bill is too heavy for my use (no sports, only occasional BIF).
I'll keep my EOS R and 5 DIV, and, later on, buy a "cashbacked" EOS R5...


----------



## Viggo (Sep 14, 2021)

m4ndr4ke said:


> You have the a9 II at $4500 there? Damn. In Europe it's above the equivalent of $6k, with VAT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It will certainly not have unlimited shooting dual cards at 30 fps when they screwed up and not including two CFE.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 14, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well here in New Zealand a service on an Audi Q7 costs NZD $10,000+ and all Euro car parts are insanely overpriced ,often after a minor crash they are written off because the parts are too expensive .
> European cars are less reliable generally too.
> My sister bought a Peugeot and the auto transmission needed replacing when it was less than 2 years old and the replacement gearbox has given lots of problems since.


For the love of god don’t ever think Peugeot = European cars, jeez….


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> To be honest, looking at the R3, I can't help but wonder if the R3 was built from the start as an olive branch to the professionals who *need* the 1-series build and responsiveness, but don't need the additional features that are gonna push the R1 to $8,000.



My feeling has always been the R3 was a warm up. It lets them take some chances and if it's a little rough it's not the R1 which needs to be perfect.


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 14, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Now two serious comments:
> (1) Canon still supports dual CF and SD cards, not XQD. Personally, I like that.



XQD is dead because CFe is XQD


----------



## swkitt (Sep 14, 2021)

degos said:


> Canon explicitly mentions wildlife and nature photographers. Unfortunately one of the key requirements of many such people is pixel density to allow cropping when focal-length-limited. Which 24MP doesn't provide.
> 
> So I'd argue that there is something missing.
> 
> As a result I'll not be buying into the RF system yet. Maybe I'll check back in 2024 when the R1 appears.


I agree with the fact the 24MP is not enough for cropping with some wildlife shots, if you don't own a 500mm or bigger. 
I only work with a 400 and that's what is gonna make me think twice about keeping the R5 for now as it gives me the crop option. But honestly this is a small thing when you consider that :

- many wildlife photographers who can afford a R3 have already a 500 or bigger lens
- cropped shots will always be cropped shots
- the advantages that the new AF/Eye may provide for wildlife photographers can be much more interesting on the field than the possibility of cropping.
- If this new sensor technology delivers the same IQ at 12800 ISO than a 45MP sensor at 3200... then I won't think twice.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 14, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well here in New Zealand a service on an Audi Q7 costs NZD $10,000+ and all Euro car parts are insanely overpriced ,often after a minor crash they are written off because the parts are too expensive .
> European cars are less reliable generally too.
> My sister bought a Peugeot and the auto transmission needed replacing when it was less than 2 years old and the replacement gearbox has given lots of problems since.


And my Renault Espace III got me 300000 troublefree kilometers before I sold it (still running!).
My sister's current Clio III: 234000 km. with only a leaking rear brake caliper, that's it! She sold her first one, only defect a coolant thermostat, at 240000 km., car got scrapped at km. 315000...


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I am surprised that the 16fps mechanical shutter wasn't included in the R3. I guess that it is one differentiator with the 1DXiii - for all the "flagship" debate


To be honest I am not. Reducing the max speed of the mechanical shutter will in crease its longevity in actuations as it won't be as stressed . So that adds to the durability of the camera and if you want high speed then you have the ES. WIN WIN


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 14, 2021)

They changed the hotshoe, JUST so we could buy a new adaptor? Wow, that's greed.


----------



## dboris (Sep 14, 2021)

Is there any livestream link yet?


----------



## neurorx (Sep 14, 2021)

Im not sure where I stated or inferred this but ok.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

dboris said:


> Is there any livestream link yet?


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 14, 2021)

150 frame buffer for both types of cards and in RAW.


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 14, 2021)

R3 technical specifications : 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jTgFe4xy9eRW53M727fsSgw0VibjNbrG/view


----------



## AlP (Sep 14, 2021)

Full specs in English here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jTgFe4xy9eRW53M727fsSgw0VibjNbrG/view


----------



## Fran Decatta (Sep 14, 2021)

I'm glad to pay 3k for a lens that no other brand created and fits greatly on my work (28-70 f2 was a game changer) I never thought that something like this would exist.  Let them innovate making crazy lenses  this would be fun!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

It started. Exciting.


----------



## Michael T (Sep 14, 2021)

Got it pre-ordered at B&H.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

That woman is really annoying


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

Video can be recorded more than 30 minutes! Preordered at 0600 from B&H!


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 14, 2021)

B&H let me down this time, their website crashed for me and would not allow me to put the R3 into my cart. Had to run over to Adorama and put in all my info, ended up pre-ordering at 6:04


----------



## suburbia (Sep 14, 2021)

Kiton said:


> When I got my R5 the dealer told me he was not permitted to discount it (yet) and he would make it up to me elsewhere.


Did you run away?


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

1/64000 sec top shutter speed. Cool!!!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

So the oversampled 4K will "only" be 60p? Didn't the leaks say 120p?

1/64000 s shutter speed is amazing. That is a big improvement.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 14, 2021)

€6500 inc VAT here, pleasantly surprised!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

OVF simulation? I wonder how well that will work.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

€5,999 Euros in Germany. Already €100 lower than announced: https://www.fotokoch.de/Canon-EOS-R3-Gehaeuse_41261.html


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

Spot metering linked to AF point is not provided. Damn.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 14, 2021)

$5999 at bh


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

1/180 sec electronic shutter sync.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

Full Specifications: R3 Technical Specifications


----------



## JohnC (Sep 14, 2021)

john1970 said:


> 1/180 sec electronic shutter sync.


I almost never use flash….that sounds low though, is it?


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

R3 mass is 1013 grams while 1Dx Mk3 mass is 1440 grams. That is a 427 grams (0.94 lb) weigh savings vs. a 1Dx Mk 3. Wow!!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> €5,999 Euros in Germany. Already €100 lower than announced: https://www.fotokoch.de/Canon-EOS-R3-Gehaeuse_41261.html


This site claims mid-November availability, whereas all the USA stores say November 30th. Interesting.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

I actually love a heavy camera, although I must admit that weight to damp the mirror slap is no longer needed if you no longer have a mirror.


----------



## Kiton (Sep 14, 2021)

suburbia said:


> Did you run away?


 No. Everyone I know here in canada paid the full price to the penny. Canon's orders here. Canon gave us a North Face, CPS branded light jacket for pre ordering. the 24-105 kit in the US was not made available to us here!! Had to buy them separately. He made it up to me with good discounts on the 70-200, the 85, the 50 and 24-105 and the 14-35. You guys states side get way better deals and treatment. We also have zero access to refurb gear, Canon USA will not ship to Canada, and Canada has zip all in the refurb dept.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> This site claims mid-November availability, whereas all the USA stores say November 30th. Interesting.


At least I found the same price at four different dealers. Calumet predicts a Novever 25 delivery date: https://www.calumetphoto.de/product/Canon-EOS-R3/CANEOSR3

I would wait for a Canon Cashback though. The had a €250 Cashback for the R6 recently and the one for the R3 might be worth €500. Combine that with anoth €500 price reduction next year and you will get the camera for €5,000.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 14, 2021)

5.999,- € price in Germany at several stores.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> 5.999,- € price in Germany at several stores.


When was the last time anyone can remember Canon pricing having the same number (5999) for euros and dollars?


----------



## dsburk0203 (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> $6k LOL! This makes the a9II look like an absolute steal at $4500! Get ready to pay $8k for the R1  Cant wait to see what new $3k RF lenses are coming next! Canon has lost their minds


I looked at the A9ii before I switched to Canon from Sony. If you’re comparing photo specs then sure, there’s an argument to be made, however in my opinion and the reason I switched to Canon is the A9 is a one trick pony and not a serious video camera. It only shoots 4K 30 8 bit color, and is missing Sony’s picture profiles meaning grading video footage is basically non-negotiable. That’s where the R3 can justify the price over the A9ii. 6k 60, 4K 120 with no crop, and 10 bit color with c Log 3 (which is a dream to grade btw). 

Ultimately I’ll never own either because the R6 has been more than sufficient for my needs as a hybrid sports shooter (and I lost my tail when I sold my Sony stuff to make the swap) but if I had the money and you put them both on the table I’ll take the R3. So I guess my point is if the R3 is a $4500 camera then the A9ii is a $3500 camera, problem solved.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> When was the last time anyone can remember Canon pricing having the same number (5999) for euros and dollars?


I have no idea... seems I'm getting old


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 14, 2021)

swkitt said:


> I agree with the fact the 24MP is not enough for cropping with some wildlife shots, if you don't own a 500mm or bigger.


In fact, if you shoot birds, even 500mm isn't enough. My standard combo is an EF 500mm + 1.4x TC, which gives 700mm. With my 7D2 is a kind of good compromise between enough "reach", i.e. details for further cropping (if enough light is avaiable), and increasing problems coming with the atmosphere such as haze, dust, thermal blur etc.

But you really need a resolution like the 7D2's mostly. That's why I still hope that Canon will offer a decent R7 crop camera as a successor of the aging 7D2. Its 20 MP is equivalent to about 50 MP in FF, but smaller crop images need less space and give more room for fast image processing. An R7 with about the same performance as the R3 would be great, but even with stripped-down features I'd most probably hit the order-button.

For sports with bigger objects such as cars or wildlife with bigger animals, the R3 is a superb offering, no doubt. I guess it'll eat a substantial part of the 1D-X III's market, but Canon surely has that risk included in their calculation. They have to move on to ML cameras for real pros anyway, they're quite late already.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think that the actual day-to-day use of the EOS-R3 is going to absolutely blow everyone's expectations out of the water. A camera is far, far more than just specs. This camera may not get much hype off of specs alone in the general community, but I fully anticipate that actually using the camera is going to be an absolute breeze, and that has me very excited.


So, like most other FF bodies they've released.


----------



## exige24 (Sep 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good question. After reading your...ummm...contribution?...I need one!


Not even considering what they're asking for it, what an utterly mundane body release. Similar to the budget 100-400 7.1 or 16 2.8 but without the price reduction. What year is this? 2017?


----------



## exige24 (Sep 14, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> In fact, if you shoot birds, even 500mm isn't enough. My standard combo is an EF 500mm + 1.4x TC, which gives 700mm. With my 7D2 is a kind of good compromise between enough "reach", i.e. details for further cropping (if enough light is avaiable), and increasing problems coming with the atmosphere such as haze, dust, thermal blur etc.
> 
> But you really need a resolution like the 7D2's mostly. That's why I still hope that Canon will offer a decent R7 crop camera as a successor of the aging 7D2. Its 20 MP is equivalent to about 50 MP in FF, but smaller crop images need less space and give more room for fast image processing. An R7 with about the same performance as the R3 would be great, but even with stripped-down features I'd most probably hit the order-button.
> 
> For sports with bigger objects such as cars or wildlife with bigger animals, the R3 is a superb offering, no doubt. I guess it'll eat a substantial part of the 1D-X III's market, but Canon surely has that risk included in their calculation. They have to move on to ML cameras for real pros anyway, they're quite late already.


I want them to bring out an r7 body with the sensor inside the M6 Mark 2 dammit!!! I really dislike this dumb R3 they just released Such a waste.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 14, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> To be honest I am not. Reducing the max speed of the mechanical shutter will in crease its longevity in actuations as it won't be as stressed . So that adds to the durability of the camera and if you want high speed then you have the ES. WIN WIN


I meant the current 1DXiii's 16fps mechanical shutter. It would be more expensive than the R5's mechanical shutter but is certainly durable.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 14, 2021)

Viggo said:


> It will certainly not have unlimited shooting dual cards at 30 fps when they screwed up and not including two CFE.


"Screwed up"


----------



## scyrene (Sep 14, 2021)

exige24 said:


> I want them to bring out an r7 body with the sensor inside the M6 Mark 2 dammit!!! I really dislike this dumb R3 they just released Such a waste.


The world doesn't revolve around you.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2021)

Yay! I was so disappointed when I learned it would be 24mp. Now that it is officially announced and I see it has 24.1 I am really stoked!


----------



## MiJax (Sep 14, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yay! I was so disappointed when I learned it would be 24mp. Now that it is officially announced and I see it has 24.1 I am really stoked!


I'm still disappointed about the res, but the rest for me has been a little meh... Obviously, it has good features that aren't on my R5, but all the great features were previously introduced on the A1 or the ancient A9 with the exception of the eye control. This is kinda what I expected from Nikon's Z9, not the R3. The R5 really got my expectations sky high, but Canon grounded me today. Overall, it looks like a fine camera, but not what I was hoping for. However, judging from the rolling shutter, the intended users might give this body a harder time than people think. The distorted soccer balls are a little concerning. Unfortunately the fix is downgrading the speed from what they are used to on the other 1DXs in mechanical shutter.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 14, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Yepp, Canon was, is, and will be ded. Good that they still fare quite well, given shrinking camera markets. Canon's most important product is society safety and collective mental health anyway, since they provide an important valve for all the hate steam overpressure that tends to build up on digital photography related sites.
> 
> That said, I am pretty sure that even 12k 240 fps full RAW video in such a camera wouldn't (1) improve many people's skills as photographers/videographers substantially and (2) wouldn't stop haters from finding something to hate, since it is ... erm ... a Canon product.
> 
> ...


If they keep up this $6k camera and $3k lens garbage, they will bleed marketshare. They may not care though. They can take the Apple route and prioritize profit over marketshare. But this isn't the smartphone market and $6 cameras and $3k lenses are luxury items. How many people do you think can pay those prices? The absurdly priced $6 R3 makes the a9II look like a steal at only $4500, and many were crying about that being expensive not too long ago. All Canon are doing is pricing themselves out of the market and sending potential customers (and those of us sick of their greed) straight to Sony and Nikon.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 14, 2021)

m4ndr4ke said:


> You have the a9 II at $4500 there? Damn. In Europe it's above the equivalent of $6k, with VAT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1509600-REG/sony_ilce9m2_b_alpha_a9_ii_mirrorless.html



...and you can get them for $4k or less used on various forums. Ive seen them going as low as $3,800. The R3 (like everything else RF) is absurdly overpriced.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 14, 2021)

dsburk0203 said:


> I looked at the A9ii before I switched to Canon from Sony. If you’re comparing photo specs then sure, there’s an argument to be made, however in my opinion and the reason I switched to Canon is the A9 is a one trick pony and not a serious video camera. It only shoots 4K 30 8 bit color, and is missing Sony’s picture profiles meaning grading video footage is basically non-negotiable. That’s where the R3 can justify the price over the A9ii. 6k 60, 4K 120 with no crop, and 10 bit color with c Log 3 (which is a dream to grade btw).
> 
> Ultimately I’ll never own either because the R6 has been more than sufficient for my needs as a hybrid sports shooter (and I lost my tail when I sold my Sony stuff to make the swap) but if I had the money and you put them both on the table I’ll take the R3. So I guess my point is if the R3 is a $4500 camera then the A9ii is a $3500 camera, problem solved.


Im a photographer, couldn't care less about video. If I was a videographer, I would buy a VIDEO camera. Both Sony and Canon have an entire line of them to choose from...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> If they keep up this $6k camera and $3k lens garbage, they will bleed marketshare.


Canon have had $6K cameras and expensive lenses for a long time. They’ve gained market share.

JDavis, meet Facts. Facts, meet JDavis.

Hopefully the introduction helps, clearly you two were unacquainted. Sadly, I suspect you’re heard of Facts but formed an instant dislike and have ignored them since.


----------



## Valdormar_Hauslendale (Sep 14, 2021)

_*24.1-megapixel*_ * 
Completely feeling no admiration or interest in this product! Come on Canon.*


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> ...How many people do you think can pay those prices? ...All Canon are doing is pricing themselves out of the market...



I think quite a few people can pay those prices. Spend 15 minutes on the internet looking at prices for African and Indian safaris, Cruises down the Amazon, Trips to Antarctica, Birding tours in Costa Rica, any National Geographic branded tour etc., all of which are usually booked a year or more in advance and you will see there are plenty of enthusiasts willing to spend a whole lot of money on these experiences. And, you can be sure most are not taking their Rebels with them.


----------



## dsburk0203 (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Im a photographer, couldn't care less about video. If I was a videographer, I would buy a VIDEO camera. Both Sony and Canon have an entire line of them to choose from...


And if you were a hybrid shooter you’d by a hybrid camera which the R3 is and the A9 II isn’t or at least not a serious one. There’s a reason these companies continue to develop high end photography cameras that can be used for production level videos. I clearly said I’m a hybrid shooter so the specs make sense to me. Have a great day.


----------



## geffy (Sep 14, 2021)

wow as good as 3 year old sony sensor, guess i will be upgrading in 3 years time


----------



## JohnC (Sep 14, 2021)

JDavis said:


> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1509600-REG/sony_ilce9m2_b_alpha_a9_ii_mirrorless.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you can get them for $4k or less used on various forums. Ive seen them going as low as $3,800. The R3 (like everything else RF) is absurdly overpriced.


then don't buy one, I'm pretty sure no one (including Canon) cares if you do or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

geffy said:


> wow as good as 3 year old sony sensor, guess i will be upgrading in 3 years time


By that logic, Sony’s a7S III is as good as a Canon sensor from 16 years ago. Wow.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2021)

Anyone else feel like a kid at 5 o'clock on Christmas afternoon after all the presents have been opened? 

What's next @Canon Rumors Guy ?


----------



## RevolutionarySabo (Sep 15, 2021)

Why are people so upset about it being 24 Mp? Are you all printing or posting on Instagram? 
I got to play with the camera for a bit and honestly it's a joy to use. I'm pretty objective with cameras since it's my job to not be biased.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 15, 2021)

MiJax said:


> I'm still disappointed about the res, but the rest for me has been a little meh... Obviously, it has good features that aren't on my R5, but all the great features were previously introduced on the A1 or the ancient A9 with the exception of the eye control. This is kinda what I expected from Nikon's Z9, not the R3. The R5 really got my expectations sky high, but Canon grounded me today. Overall, it looks like a fine camera, but not what I was hoping for. However, judging from the rolling shutter, the intended users might give this body a harder time than people think. The distorted soccer balls are a little concerning. Unfortunately the fix is downgrading the speed from what they are used to on the other 1DXs in mechanical shutter.


What rolling shutter? Read Gordon Laing's review.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 15, 2021)

In Australia, AUD8,399.00 (incl GST) - actually a little less than I was expecting given the dire exchange rate - but way too rich for my needs or even realistic wants.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I meant the current 1DXiii's 16fps mechanical shutter. It would be more expensive than the R5's mechanical shutter but is certainly durable.


I get what you meant. And I have no doubt they could have put it in. But why? A stronger, faster, heavier shutter simply puts more load through the camera and if you have 30fps with the ES then you don't really need 16fps mech (it can also do 15 and 3fps ES apparently). Putting in a slightly slower MS will reduce the load the body has to endure (even if only by the smallest amount) which will add to durability. On the 1dx series they had no choice but to put the fastest MS in they possibly could but this time they have that choice. Consider it the equivalent to a rev limiter on an engine to increase the lifespan of the engine.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 15, 2021)

Jethro said:


> In Australia, AUD8,399.00 (incl GST) - actually a little less than I was expecting given the dire exchange rate - but way too rich for my needs or even realistic wants.


A LOT less than I was expecting. I honestly was picking close to 11k here


----------



## Skux (Sep 15, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think that the actual day-to-day use of the EOS-R3 is going to absolutely blow everyone's expectations out of the water. A camera is far, far more than just specs. This camera may not get much hype off of specs alone in the general community, but I fully anticipate that actually using the camera is going to be an absolute breeze, and that has me very excited.
> 
> The price alone makes me feel like Canon must be absolutely exceeding confident in the performance of this camera. There's far more to a camera than specs on a sheet of paper, and I anticipate that Canon built this camera to be a reliable, durable, high-speed powerhouse.


I've watched some reviews now and they all say the eye-controlled AF is a game changer for sports. Photographers will no longer have to aim their AF points manually every single time they want to isolate a subject through a dense crowd of football players. They just look at it and activate tracking. It doesn't get any more intuitive than that.

This is the kind of upgrade that you can't quantify on a spec sheet. It has huge benefits for photojournalism, events, or any situation where you can't control the action.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2021)

For those that have been saying the flip screen is a liability on a 1 series camera, you are incorrect.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2021)

Skux said:


> I've watched some reviews now and they all say the eye-controlled AF is a game changer for sports. Photographers will no longer have to aim their AF points manually every single time they want to isolate a subject through a dense crowd of football players. They just look at it and activate tracking. It doesn't get any more intuitive than that.
> 
> This is the kind of upgrade that you can't quantify on a spec sheet. It has huge benefits for photojournalism, events, or any situation where you can't control the action.


It certainly has that potential. Very anxious to see if it delivers.


----------



## MiJax (Sep 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> What rolling shutter? Read Gordon Laing's review.


I disagreed with Gordon's assessment of the rolling shutter actually. Here he is saying, "look, no rolling shutter" while the pole is clearly leaning, but I do understand it isn't terrible. Check out Polin's review, it shows a couple of kicked soccer balls showcasing the distortion. This has got to have some of the intended audience a little uncomfortable to use the eShutter and not very happy to slow down to 12 fps when perfect geometry is needed. For wildlife I think that level of rolling shutter would be fine, but for a baseball, golf or a soccer photographer that's going to be a problem. Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 15, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.



It's not puzzling. They need something for the R1. Canon has been pretty clear this isn't their top of the line but how much more can they add?

Both the R5 and the A1 to me appear to have more gaps than the R3. There are already videos showing six hours of 4K oversampled recording without overheating with the R3. Recording 6K raw until the card fills up.


----------



## MiJax (Sep 15, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> It's not puzzling. They need something for the R1. Canon has been pretty clear this isn't their top of the line but how much more can they add?
> 
> Both the R5 and the A1 to me appear to have more gaps than the R3. There are already videos showing six hours of 4K oversampled recording without overheating with the R3. Recording 6K raw until the card fills up.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There no valid argument where you "protect" an $8,000 camera by dumbing down the capabilities of a $6,000 one. If you find yourself legitimately doing that, the design process went astray somewhere. I'll accept the need have a lower res differentiate the two, but to hamper the very people the camera was designed specifically for (professional sports photographers) is odd. There are very few things this group puts a premium on, and fps is one of them. I suspect some have already switched to the R5, so this will not be terribly jarring for those, but the others...hmmm. They may not like that their new body needs to be shot at speeds slower than they had 10 years ago in the original 1DX. Either way, don't let my opinion color your view of the camera, I'm sure its good. Canon seldom gets it wrong, but this one has more compromises than I would have liked for the premium price tag.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

MiJax said:


> There no valid argument where you "protect" an $8,000 camera by dumbing down the capabilities of a $6,000 one. If you find yourself legitimately doing that, the design process went astray somewhere.


Please explain why no camera outside of the 1-series has AF point-linked spot metering.


----------



## bernie_king (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please explain why no camera outside of the 1-series has AF point-linked spot metering.


I wonder that as well... at least with the R3. As others have pointed out, it's not as big an issue with a mirrorless camera. You see the exposure in the EVF so I'm not as disappointed as I would've been were this a DSLR


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I wonder that as well... at least with the R3. As others have pointed out, it's not as big an issue with a mirrorless camera. You see the exposure in the EVF so I'm not as disappointed as I would've been were this a DSLR


Agreed. Someone on another thread reminded me that the original EOS 3 (film) had the feature. But for digital, it’s been restricted to the 1-series.


----------



## MiJax (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please explain why no camera outside of the 1-series has AF point-linked spot metering.


The last time we had had an $8000 camera was the 1Ds III, and I don't remember them stripping features from the 1D III to differentiate them (including linked spot metering). I could be wrong because I passed on the 1D III, but had that feature on my 1D IIN which too supports the statement I made as the 1Ds II ($7,000+) didn't lead to stripped down features on the 1D IIN.

Canon will absolutely strip down features from the mid and lower lines like linked AF spot metering and the old mythical OVF shutter on the 1D series, but there's no good reason to charge top dollar and strip away features. There just isn't. If you can't make a camera that is worth $8000, it probably doesn't need to be made.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Canon will absolutely strip down features from the mid and lower lines like linked AF spot metering and the old mythical OVF shutter on the 1D series, but there's no good reason to charge top dollar and strip away features. There just isn't.


Please explain the lack of HDR mode in the 1-series cameras.

A valid reason to 'charge top dollar and strip away features' is if the feature is thought to be of little to no value to the target market. As an example, the 1-series cameras cannot generate an in-camera HDR; they have AEB, of course, but the camera cannot combine the images into a single HDR jpg file, that has to be done in post on a computer. The R5 has an HDR mode, my M-series cameras have it, my PowerShot S120 has it, but my 1D X does not (nor do the 1D X II or III).


----------



## MiJax (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please explain the lack of HDR mode in the 1-series cameras.
> 
> A valid reason to 'charge top dollar and strip away features' is if the feature is thought to be of little to no value to the target market. As an example, the 1-series cameras cannot generate an in-camera HDR; they have AEB, of course, but the camera cannot combine the images into a single HDR jpg file, that has to be done in post on a computer. The R5 has an HDR mode, my M-series cameras have it, my PowerShot S120 has it, but my 1D X does not (nor do the 1D X II or III).


Please explain this and that... where will it end? If you think it is reasonable to strip features from cameras at this price point, that's fine, but I'll continue to say it isn't. The ultimate barometer for it is sales. Whether something makes sense or not doesn't really matter, but if there are enough people to feed in to it, it works. As far as your example, a feature outside of the intended audience isn't a stripped or protected feature, IMO. That simply is not what they want in the camera. But taking a valued feature out of a camera that the intended audience wants simply to offer it at a higher price point is what I'm talking about. And I will continue to say, at $8,000 you shouldn't have to do that. It should be that price because that is what it took to develop the product with as few compromises as possible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Please explain this and that... where will it end? If you think it is reasonable to strip features from cameras at this price point, that's fine, but I'll continue to say it isn't. The ultimate barometer for it is sales. Whether something makes sense or not doesn't really matter, but if there are enough people to feed in to it, it works. As far as your example, a feature outside of the intended audience isn't a stripped or protected feature, IMO. That simply is not what they want in the camera. But taking a valued feature out of a camera that the intended audience wants simply to offer it at a higher price point is what I'm talking about. And I will continue to say, at $8,000 you shouldn't have to do that. It should be that price because that is what it took to develop the product with as few compromises as possible.


Just making the point that things aren't as cut-and-dried as you suggest. You can say that for $8000 a camera should be absolute perfection, but that's not how product development and pricing work. 

Consider trim levels for cars. Say I want a heated steering wheel...I have to buy the Limited trim level to get it. It's not an option on the Standard or Premium trims, and I don't want the leather interior or back seat USB ports that are also part of the Limited trim. Too bad, if I want toasty warm hands in winter, I have to buy the Limited...and pay more for it.

One of the ways that Canon has decided to differentiate products is to include certain features only on higher level bodies. You can say 'you shouldn't have to do that' and while agree, it's not our call. If you feel strongly about it, buy a Nikon or a Sony mid-level camera that has AF point-linked spot metering, or buy a 1-series body (which means waiting for the R1 if you want a MILC). 

I absolutely agree with you that the ultimate barometer is sales. Canon picks the features to include in models at various price points, and the fact that they've led the ILC market for nearly 20 years suggests they are making the right choices. You'd have made different ones, fine. Until you have Fujio Mitarai's job, you pay your money and you make your choice.


----------



## bernie_king (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Just making the point that things aren't as cut-and-dried as you suggest. You can say that for $8000 a camera should be absolute perfection, but that's not how product development and pricing work.
> 
> Consider trim levels for cars. Say I want a heated steering wheel...I have to buy the Limited trim level to get it. It's not an option on the Standard or Premium trims, and I don't want the leather interior or back seat USB ports that are also part of the Limited trim. Too bad, if I want toasty warm hands in winter, I have to buy the Limited...and pay more for it.
> 
> ...


On top of all of this, we are making assumptions that Canon has cracked linking exposure to an AF point using DPAF 2. It may be that they haven't. This may end up being a feature they add to DPAF 3 that is not yet ready. They also may think with exposure simulation, it's not really a priority.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 15, 2021)

MiJax said:


> I disagreed with Gordon's assessment of the rolling shutter actually. Here he is saying, "look, no rolling shutter" while the pole is clearly leaning, but I do understand it isn't terrible. Check out Polin's review, it shows a couple of kicked soccer balls showcasing the distortion. This has got to have some of the intended audience a little uncomfortable to use the eShutter and not very happy to slow down to 12 fps when perfect geometry is needed. For wildlife I think that level of rolling shutter would be fine, but for a baseball, golf or a soccer photographer that's going to be a problem. Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.


I looked at Jared's review and seems to me there are many shots where the ball is moving just as fast and it is round, so the in the case you refer to where the ball was just kicked, it could simply be resonant deformation of the ball. More testing will be needed, but even the extreme case is a non-issue for virtually all image uses as Jared himself points out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> On top of all of this, we are making assumptions that Canon has cracked linking exposure to an AF point using DPAF 2. It may be that they haven't. This may end up being a feature they add to DPAF 3 that is not yet ready. They also may think with exposure simulation, it's not really a priority.


I think it's a reasonable assumption, but you're right. With a DSLR, they had to match input from two different sensors (neither of which was the image sensor) to like exposure to AF point. With a MILC, all the data are coming from the same sensor. That seems like an easier problem to solve, but perhaps not.


----------



## degos (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider trim levels for cars. Say I want a heated steering wheel...I have to buy the Limited trim level to get it. It's not an option on the Standard or Premium trims, and I don't want the leather interior or back seat USB ports that are also part of the Limited trim. Too bad, if I want toasty warm hands in winter, I have to buy the Limited...and pay more for it.



Now let's flip that around and apply the camera market paradigm...

There are six different cars in the range, each only available in one trim level. If you want the heated steering wheel you can't buy that in a pack, you have to buy the biggest SUV in the range. Oddly though, it doesn't have the biggest engine because "market research" says that its users would be overwhelmed by too much torque. And it's not the flagship in the range, that's apparently the model from two years ago that you can still buy covered in dust from a dockside storage park.

The big 5.0 litre V8 engine is only available in the midsized hatchback, but its acceleration is capped so as not to upset the drivers of the big SUV. For people who can't afford that there's a similar hatchback that uses the engine from the old flagship SUV. But it lacks wing mirrors, just because.

Meanwhile at the bottom of the range there are some city cars, one of which uses a turbocharged engine that actually produces more power than any other car in the range. However that car is made of plastic and only lasts 20,000 miles.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2021)

degos said:


> Now let's flip that around and apply the camera market paradigm...
> 
> There are six different cars in the range, each only available in one trim level. If you want the heated steering wheel you can't buy that in a pack, you have to buy the biggest SUV in the range. Oddly though, it doesn't have the biggest engine because "market research" says that its users would be overwhelmed by too much torque. And it's not the flagship in the range, that's apparently the model from two years ago that you can still buy covered in dust from a dockside storage park.
> 
> ...


Sure, that works. Let me repeat: you pay your money and you make your choice.

Or walk.

Or paint, as the analogy may be.


----------



## geffy (Sep 16, 2021)

now i can dream about the R1: 8k video with in body stills, double cf express, 50 mega files, why not both will be unlikely to fill my palm anyway


----------



## MiJax (Sep 16, 2021)

geffy said:


> now i can dream about the R1: 8k video with in body stills, double cf express, 50 mega files, why not both will be unlikely to fill my palm anyway


I actually find it hard to believe Canon will do a camera spec'ed like that. Priced $2000 up the road and offering the same thing the competition offers, might make that a tough sale. However, that old wacky R1 rumor doesn't look so crazy anymore, especially if they can deal with the heat of twin Digic X's and find someway to write to the cards.

Also note, they made it a point that they would like to be the first solid state camera on the market, potentially with a global sensor. If they do pull the global sensor out the hat, I doubt it will be a high megapixel one. But at this point, who knows what their logic will be, most of what I've seen in the last year has been brow raising, whether that's for good or bad.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I think quite a few people can pay those prices. Spend 15 minutes on the internet looking at prices for African and Indian safaris, Cruises down the Amazon, Trips to Antarctica, Birding tours in Costa Rica, any National Geographic branded tour etc., all of which are usually booked a year or more in advance and you will see there are plenty of enthusiasts willing to spend a whole lot of money on these experiences. And, you can be sure most are not taking their Rebels with them.


Get real. id venture to say that 80% of these absurdly priced $6k R3 wont even be bought by individuals. They will be bought by companies to give to their employees shooting sports and photojournalism. 95% of the people posting here wont even sniff this camera much less have the money to buy it. One of these things and a couple RF L lenses will set you back *$12,000 *which is actually beyond absurd. Especially when you consider you can get an a9II and a couple GM lenses for *$4,000* less. Hell, I can put together a nice Hasselblad MF kit that costs thousands less than the R3 and RF lenses lol. Canon has lost their minds.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon have had $6K cameras and expensive lenses for a long time. They’ve gained market share.
> 
> JDavis, meet Facts. Facts, meet JDavis.
> 
> Hopefully the introduction helps, clearly you two were unacquainted. Sadly, I suspect you’re heard of Facts but formed an instant dislike and have ignored them since.


Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs.


Nikon led the market in the 80s. And 90s. Canon didn’t become the market leader until DSLRs took over.

If you were trying to sound like a jerk in addition to a fool, at least you’ve succeeded at something!!



JDavis said:


> You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later.


It’s obvious you really have no ability to understand facts or reality, but for the benefit of those who can here are the market share data from 2020:




Note that Canon dominates the market, with over double the share of Sony, and that Canon had bigger gains last year.



JDavis said:


> I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass



Canon sold >220,000 more cameras in 2020 than they sold in 2019. You are irrelevant.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 18, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.


If you go to B&H and select RF and Sony E lenses and then select FF (to weed out the Sony APS-c lenses) and price High to low, you will see that your argument re Sony glass doesn't hold water. The 400mm and 600mm Big Whites are exactly $1 apart between Sony and Canon. As you go down the list Canon wins some slots and Sony others, but there is no huge discrepancy for high end glass. If you love Tamron and Sigma, your argument has more basis, but remember that Sony owns a fair chunk of Tamron and Sigma has openly joined the L-mound alliance, so If I were Canon, I would be quite cautious about sharing too much info on the inner workings of the RF system with either of those vendors any sooner than necessary, and in a shrinking market handing over business to third parties doesn't make sense. Also, if you think Canon had the market to themselves in the 80's, you must not have been alive then, because Minolta was a very big dog and the first with a working AF system (that sold very well BTW).


----------



## geffy (Sep 18, 2021)

JohnC said:


> then don't buy one, I'm pretty sure no one (including Canon) cares if you do or not.


only you would think that no one else cares i guess it says a lot about you


----------



## JohnC (Sep 18, 2021)

geffy said:


> only you would think that no one else cares i guess it says a lot about you


It absolute does say a lot. It says I’ll buy what I prefer assuming I can afford it and I don’t much care whether someone else agrees with it or not. It also says I think everyone else has the same right, despite whether I agree with what they buy or not.

What I find bothersome however, is someone making it their business to criticize what others choose to spend their hard earned money on.

Like I said before, if you don’t like whatever it is, the don’t buy it that is your choice. Just don’t make it your personal mission to convince everyone else that you are “correct”.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.



The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are either a Sony troll, or a complete fool.

Nikon was the market leader in the 80's.
Sony lenses are quite expensive as well. To say they are thousands of dollars less is an outright lie.
I assume you know that you can use EF lenses on R system cameras - meaning that you can get pro quality "L" glass used for quite reasonable prices - but you choose to ignore it. 
Your statement that you dumped your R6, RP and RF glass makes no sense whatsoever. This apparently means that you already owned RF glass which apparently was within your price range.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 19, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are either a Sony troll, or a complete fool.
> 
> Nikon was the market leader in the 80's.
> Sony lenses are quite expensive as well. To say they are thousands of dollars less is an outright lie.
> ...


I said "arguably better quality cameras and equally good glass for thousands less". That is true. Price an R3 vs an a9II and you're already $1400 in the hole, and every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version. So add in a couple R(O)F L lenses, and you are indeed thousands of dollars more expensive. Oh, use EF glass? You mean with one of those adapters that haven't been in stock for 8 months? Its quite obvious that Canon is intentionally shorting those to force people into buying their absurdly priced RF glass. Besides, why on earth would I want to put 20 year old glass designed for film cameras on my brand new $2500 mirrorless camera? lol. Just stop being a Canon apologist.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 19, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are either a Sony troll, or a complete fool.



I'm going with the second choice. I base that on the sum and substance of his posts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> That is true. Price an R3 vs an a9II and you're already $1400 in the hole, and every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version. So add in a couple R(O)F L lenses, and you are indeed thousands of dollars more expensive.


Once you add the vertical grip and an extra battery to the Sony package to match the R3, the a9 II with the f/2.8 ‘trinity’ costs $1500 less than the R3 with the similar trinity (starting at 15mm instead of 16mm). The lenses are $200 more each, and that’s after Canon raised their lens prices by $100. 

Is $1500 really ‘thousands of dollars more expensive’? Maybe it just seems that way to you. Or maybe your math skills are as abysmal as your factual knowledge.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> I said "arguably better quality cameras and equally good glass for thousands less". That is true. Price an R3 vs an a9II and you're already $1400 in the hole, and every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version. So add in a couple R(O)F L lenses, and you are indeed thousands of dollars more expensive. Oh, use EF glass? You mean with one of those adapters that haven't been in stock for 8 months? Its quite obvious that Canon is intentionally shorting those to force people into buying their absurdly priced RF glass. Besides, why on earth would I want to put 20 year old glass designed for film cameras on my brand new $2500 mirrorless camera? lol. Just stop being a Canon apologist.


I am not going to waste the time to put a spreadsheet together, but this link, starting at top points out that you are simply a liar. $1 is not $300. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...ses,fct_lens-mount_3442:canon-rf|sony-e-mount


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> One of these things and a couple RF L lenses will set you back *$12,000 *which is actually beyond absurd.





https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433721-REG/canon_ef_400mm_f_2_8l_is.html



Take a deep breath. If you're getting two lenses and the camera for 12K they all fell off a truck.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 19, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I am not going to waste the time to put a spreadsheet together, but this link, starting at top points out that you are simply a liar. $1 is not $300. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912/N/4196380428?sort=PRICE_HIGH_TO_LOW&filters=fct_brand_name:canon|sony,fct_lens-format-coverage_3332:full-frame-lenses,fct_lens-mount_3442:canon-rf|sony-e-mount


Congrats, you cherry picked the ONE lens thats close in price. Now try the other 99% and get back to me...


----------



## JDavis (Sep 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Once you add the vertical grip and an extra battery to the Sony package to match the R3, the a9 II with the f/2.8 ‘trinity’ costs $1500 less than the R3 with the similar trinity (starting at 15mm instead of 16mm). The lenses are $200 more each, and that’s after Canon raised their lens prices by $100.
> 
> Is $1500 really ‘thousands of dollars more expensive’? Maybe it just seems that way to you. Or maybe your math skills are as abysmal as your factual knowledge.


Thats the other reason I left Canon. Many companies are lowering prices. Canon is RAISING prices on lenses, lenses they can't even manufacture in a timely manner, leaving their customers who have ordered them sitting around for months. They have become a joke.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Thats the other reason I left Canon. Many companies are lowering prices. Canon is RAISING prices on lenses, lenses they can't even manufacture in a timely manner, leaving their customers who have ordered them sitting around for months. They have become a joke.


Your posts are a joke. Why do you think other ILC manufacturers are lowering their prices? Because they have oodles of love for their customers and want to make them happy? Lol. It’s because they are not effectively competing with the market leader – Canon.

Meanwhile, Canon believes they can raise prices and still maintain market dominance. You probably think they’re wrong, but their >18 years of market leadership suggests they know a lot more about selling cameras that some rando on the internet who can’t even get simple facts right.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your posts are a joke. Why do you think other ILC manufacturers are lowering their prices? Because they have oodles of love for their customers and want to make them happy? Lol. It’s because they are not effectively competing with the market leader – Canon.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canon believes they can raise prices and still maintain market dominance. You probably think they’re wrong, but their >18 years of market leadership suggests they know a lot more about selling cameras that some rando on the internet who can’t even get simple facts right.


Your first paragraph was my first thought when I read that post. 

On another note, I’m not sure I believe Sony actually compensates people to do this “trolling”. I think Sony is a pretty smart company so it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t get better quality argusmenta out there if they were going to pay for the service.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Congrats, you cherry picked the ONE lens thats close in price. Now try the other 99% and get back to me...


Let's see, the second one is also $1 difference. The Sony 100-400 is $300 cheaper than the 100-500, but for the difference you get another 100mm. The 70-200 f/2.8 is $200 more than the Sony, but also much smaller and lighter and also sharper in the corners. The 70-200 f/4 is $100 more than the Sony, but smaller and lighter. The 15-35 f/2.8 is $200 more than the Sony and for that you get an extra mm on the wide end . The 85mm f/1.8 is $1 more than the Sony. None of that adds up to "all RF lenses are $300 more than their Sony counterparts". The 50mm f/1.2 and the 85 f/1.2 are noticeably more expensive than Sony counterparts, but then Sony don't have an 85 f/1.2 and when they have something special like the 14-24 f/2.8, they are perfectly happy to ask the big bucks. Most of us here would be happy to pay a few dollars more to avoid the miserably awkward Sony UI, but if that is your choice, go for it. In reality, I suspect your problem is that you can't mortgage your tent for enough to buy any FF lens, so you spend your time venting instead of getting a job.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 19, 2021)

JohnC said:


> On another note, I’m not sure I believe Sony actually compensates people to do this “trolling”. I think Sony is a pretty smart company so it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t get better quality argusmenta out there if they were going to pay for the service.



Is there a Sony tipline where I can report JDavis for throwing Sony's money away? If they're paying him they are absolutely not getting their money's worth out of it.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Thats the other reason I left Canon. Many companies are lowering prices. Canon is RAISING prices on lenses, lenses they can't even manufacture in a timely manner, leaving their customers who have ordered them sitting around for months. They have become a joke.


Any camera company lowering prices in the current inflationary market is having trouble selling their wares (i.e. in danger of losing market share).


----------



## swkitt (Sep 20, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> In fact, if you shoot birds, even 500mm isn't enough. My standard combo is an EF 500mm + 1.4x TC, which gives 700mm. With my 7D2 is a kind of good compromise between enough "reach", i.e. details for further cropping (if enough light is avaiable), and increasing problems coming with the atmosphere such as haze, dust, thermal blur etc.


This is very depending on the place you live, the kind of birds you shoot, how close you can get and so on. Also your style if you are a bird close up addict or if you want the bird in its environment. Living in Iceland I do not need any longer than 500, and I'm currently shooting most of my good frames between 300 and 400. It's good to have extra reach, but not a necessity IMO.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Let's see, the second one is also $1 difference. The Sony 100-400 is $300 cheaper than the 100-500, but for the difference you get another 100mm. .......


The Sony 200-600mm is £1599 in the UK as opposed to £2979 for the RF 100-500mm, so you get an extra 100mm for £1380 less from Sony (and an f/6.3). Choose your arguments carefully. I'm a very happy 100-500mm user, not a troll. I just can't stand these stupid Canon-Sony wars.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The Sony 200-600mm is £1599 in the UK as opposed to £2979 for the RF 100-500mm, so you get an extra 100mm for £1380 less from Sony (and an f/6.3). Choose your arguments carefully. I'm a very happy 100-500mm user, not a troll. I just can't stand these stupid Canon-Sony wars.


Me too, it becomes embarrassingly childish. That's my thought relative to the actual gear. 

However, it is challenging to have to be exposed to nonsense and say nothing - it takes a lot of willpower. Think of it this way, if everyone gets to lie and never gets challenged society will fracture. Hmm, I guess the virus illustrates this pretty well (at least here in Alberta). Not to mention a Canadian election, where lying is an art. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Me too, it becomes embarrassingly childish. That's my thought relative to the actual gear.
> 
> However, it is challenging to have to be exposed to nonsense and say nothing - it takes a lot of willpower. Think of it this way, if everyone gets to lie and never gets challenged society will fracture. Hmm, I guess the virus illustrates this pretty well (at least here in Alberta). Not to mention a Canadian election, where lying is an art.
> 
> Jack


Trouble is, there are those who when you try and lay out the facts will redouble their efforts and never back down. I have a few rules for myself: I'll comment only when I have my own direct first-hand experience; when I know the theoretical basis in optics and physics; when there are reliable evidential data available; or those I trust have relayed equivalently reliable evidence. If people can get so worked up about camera brands, I wonder what they can get up to in the name of politics, religion etc...


----------



## Dragon (Sep 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The Sony 200-600mm is £1599 in the UK as opposed to £2979 for the RF 100-500mm, so you get an extra 100mm for £1380 less from Sony (and an f/6.3). Choose your arguments carefully. I'm a very happy 100-500mm user, not a troll. I just can't stand these stupid Canon-Sony wars.


Interesting. The 200-600 is $1998 in the US and the 100-500 is $2799, so "only" $800 difference. I, too hate the troll wars, but if you follow the thread back, I was jut trying to establish that the all-inclusive statements that the original troll was making were patent BS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting. The 200-600 is $1998 in the US and the 100-500 is $2799, so "only" $800 difference. I, too hate the troll wars, but if you follow the thread back, I was jut trying to establish that the all-inclusive statements that the original troll was making were patent BS.


Also, the original statement ws, "Every, single RF L lens is at least $300 more expensive than the GM version," and the Sony 200-600mm is not a GM lens (though from the Optical Limits review, it seems it's as-good-as, has weather sealing, etc., all-in-all an excellent lens).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting. The 200-600 is $1998 in the US and the 100-500 is $2799, so "only" $800 difference. I, too hate the troll wars, but if you follow the thread back, I was jut trying to establish that the all-inclusive statements that the original troll was making were patent BS.


Ido appreciate that you were responding. It's very annoying in the UK that Canon is charging us about 15% more than it does the rest of Europe - the price in euros is close to the price in GBP for these new products and we have the same warranty requirements. Nikon and Sony have very similar pricing in the EU and UK. Taking the tax off the 100-500mm and converting the tax free price to USD gives $3400, that's $600 or 21% more. Do the same calculations with the Sony 200-600mm gives a tax-free price here in USD of $1825, which is lower than the US price.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 22, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> The price is reflective of the customer base they are selling to and totally ignoring competition. We have a supply chain shortage and enough folks who won't touch anything else, don't want to change systems, head in the sand, whatever other reasons for Canon to sell as many as they are able to make for the time being. I will buy this camera because I still own most of my RF line up and I have GAS issues, but unless it has some GODLY AF eye control etc, I do not see how it is worth 6 grand by any means. Like I have posted before, my R5, A1 both take grips and haven't had issues getting wet with them. Also pretty sure 2 e6nh batteries last longer than 1 e19. The integrated grip is more ergos than anything else. You will end up needing more than 1 battery.



11V will still drive heavy AF lens elements faster than 7.2V will. That was one of the main advantages of the 1D series over the 5D series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Get real. id venture to say that 80% of these absurdly priced $6k R3 wont even be bought by individuals. They will be bought by companies to give to their employees shooting sports and photojournalism. 95% of the people posting here wont even sniff this camera much less have the money to buy it. One of these things and a couple RF L lenses will set you back *$12,000 *which is actually beyond absurd. Especially when you consider you can get an a9II and a couple GM lenses for *$4,000* less. Hell, I can put together a nice Hasselblad MF kit that costs thousands less than the R3 and RF lenses lol. Canon has lost their minds.



What companies still issue thousands of bodies to thousands of employees? Now the vast majority of them pay independent freelancers (i.e. their former employees) to shoot using their own equipment for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made when using the company's gear.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.



Actually, Nikon had about 75% of the pro market (among those pros who shot 135 format film) in the 1980s. It wasn't until the introduction of the Ultra Sonic Motor in the original EF 300mm f/2.8 that made autofocus faster and at least as equally accurate than seasoned pros could manually focus which caused many pros to abandon Nikon for Canon in the 1990s.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon led the market in the 80s. And 90s. Canon didn’t become the market leader until DSLRs took over.
> 
> If you were trying to sound like a jerk in addition to a fool, at least you’ve succeeded at something!!
> 
> ...



Canon actually overtook Nikon's market share among pros shooting 135 format about half a decade after the introduction of the all electronic EOS mount and USM lenses beginning with the EF 300mm f/2.8 in 1987, and then the EOS-1 in 1989. But many pros at the time were shooting MF and LF and continued to use Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Sinars, etc.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> And my Renault Espace III got me 300000 troublefree kilometers before I sold it (still running!).
> My sister's current Clio III: 234000 km. with only a leaking rear brake caliper, that's it! She sold her first one, only defect a coolant thermostat, at 240000 km., car got scrapped at km. 315000...



Meanwhile, the last car I sold was a Toyota Corolla with over 300,000 miles (483,000 km) on the odometer and it was still going strong...


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

MiJax said:


> I disagreed with Gordon's assessment of the rolling shutter actually. Here he is saying, "look, no rolling shutter" while the pole is clearly leaning, but I do understand it isn't terrible. Check out Polin's review, it shows a couple of kicked soccer balls showcasing the distortion. This has got to have some of the intended audience a little uncomfortable to use the eShutter and not very happy to slow down to 12 fps when perfect geometry is needed. For wildlife I think that level of rolling shutter would be fine, but for a baseball, golf or a soccer photographer that's going to be a problem. Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.



Mechanical shutters do not provide perfect geometry, either. If one looks at images from the 1DX Mark III taken using the mechanical shutter just as critically as one looks at images taken with electronic shutter, there's not that much difference between the R3 with ES and the 1D X Mark III with MS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

MiJax said:


> I disagreed with Gordon's assessment of the rolling shutter actually. Here he is saying, "look, no rolling shutter" while the pole is clearly leaning, but I do understand it isn't terrible. Check out Polin's review, it shows a couple of kicked soccer balls showcasing the distortion. This has got to have some of the intended audience a little uncomfortable to use the eShutter and not very happy to slow down to 12 fps when perfect geometry is needed. For wildlife I think that level of rolling shutter would be fine, but for a baseball, golf or a soccer photographer that's going to be a problem. Additionally, the puzzling idea of including a R5-like mechanical shutter that is slower than the camera these folks are upgrading from, is equally odd. I can see why the Olympic photographer decided to take so many bodies with him a couple of months ago, the line has these odd gaps in capability and dealing with them means going without or grabbing multiple bodies. With the introduction of the R5 and A1 I thought this idea of a separate camera for every job was going away, but obviously, I was wrong.



There's also the possibility that they've designed a new shutter that has a faster transit time at the expense of a slower reset time... possibly by reducing wear and tear enough during reset it can have a longer shutter life rating even though the faster transit time increases wear and tear during exposure over previous designs?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

MiJax said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There no valid argument where you "protect" an $8,000 camera by dumbing down the capabilities of a $6,000 one. If you find yourself legitimately doing that, the design process went astray somewhere. I'll accept the need have a lower res differentiate the two, but to hamper the very people the camera was designed specifically for (professional sports photographers) is odd. There are very few things this group puts a premium on, and fps is one of them. I suspect some have already switched to the R5, so this will not be terribly jarring for those, but the others...hmmm. They may not like that their new body needs to be shot at speeds slower than they had 10 years ago in the original 1DX. Either way, don't let my opinion color your view of the camera, I'm sure its good. Canon seldom gets it wrong, but this one has more compromises than I would have liked for the premium price tag.



At 12 fps it matches the 2012 1D X when refocusing or remetering between each frame is required. To get 14 fps with the 1D X one had to leave the mirror locked up with fixed focus and exposure for the entire sequence.

Ten years ago in 2011 the fastest fps rate in Canon land was the 16.1 MP APS-H 1D Mark IV that had a buffer limited to 28 raw and 121 large fine JPEGs. Oh, and only 10 fps.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Your first paragraph was my first thought when I read that post.
> 
> On another note, I’m not sure I believe Sony actually compensates people to do this “trolling”. I think Sony is a pretty smart company so it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t get better quality argusmenta out there if they were going to pay for the service.



They probably do pay trolls who are actually good at it. 

Imagine being a troll and not being a good enough troll to be able to get Sony to pay you, though?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Is there a Sony tipline where I can report JDavis for throwing Sony's money away? If they're paying him they are absolutely not getting their money's worth out of it.



They're not paying him. He doesn't troll up to their standards. Imagine how that must make him feel?


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Meanwhile, the last car I sold was a Toyota Corolla with over 300,000 miles (483,000 km) on the odometer and it was still going strong...


Impressed...
Yet, a friend of mine scrapped his Renault Megane 2 with the original 1,5 litre diesel at 880,000 kms.
Unfortunately the newer tiny turbocharged engine are no longer designed to last that long, whether Toyota or Moskvitch .
Thanks God, there's still Canon...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 4, 2021)

swkitt said:


> This is very depending on the place you live, the kind of birds you shoot, how close you can get and so on. Also your style if you are a bird close up addict or if you want the bird in its environment. Living in Iceland I do not need any longer than 500, and I'm currently shooting most of my good frames between 300 and 400. It's good to have extra reach, but not a necessity IMO.


Ah, in Iceland you can get closer to some birds, that's true. But I still used my 500mm quite frequently. I love to catch many details or even bird a portrait, if possible. Here is one example of a great norther diver who suddenly surfaced in front of us at Myvatn, distance maybe 10 meters. Catched this image with my EF 500mm F/4.5 + 1.4x Extender Mk III, that time on my old 5D3. I just had that combo attached because I was shooting flying terns at that lucky moment.

Btw you are really lucky to live in Iceland - but unfortunately there is now too much cheapo mass tourism now. Twenty years ago, it was much nicer to travel around in Iceland.


----------



## JohnC (Oct 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> They probably do pay trolls who are actually good at it.
> 
> Imagine being a troll and not being a good enough troll to be able to get Sony to pay you, though?


I suspect there might be a person or two here feeling picked on right about now .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Ah, in Iceland you can get closer to some birds, that's true. But I still used my 500mm quite frequently. I love to catch many details or even bird a portrait, if possible. Here is one example of a great norther diver who suddenly surfaced in front of us at Myvatn, distance maybe 10 meters. Catched this image with my EF 500mm F/4.5 + 1.4x Extender Mk III, that time on my old 5D3. I just had that combo attached because I was shooting flying terns at that lucky moment.
> 
> Btw you are really lucky to live in Iceland - but unfortunately there is now too much cheapo mass tourism now. Twenty years ago, it was much nicer to travel around in Iceland.
> View attachment 200587


Lovely shot. Yes, some places and some species allow much closer approaches. This was with the EOS M2 and EF-M 55-200mm (at 200mm).


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 4, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.


Looks like we have a new ship-jumping troll.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lovely shot. Yes, some places and some species allow much closer approaches. This was with the EOS M2 and EF-M 55-200mm (at 200mm).
> 
> View attachment 200589


Great catch, both for you as a photographer and the heron! So you came quite close.

I have a collection of our herons here in the city area of Frankfurt feeding on mice, but those images are a bit brutal, here's one. Our herons normally do not accept that close distances, mainly because not everyone here is nice to them.


----------



## bernie_king (Oct 5, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Canon had the market pretty much to themselves back in the 80s grandpa. Well, aside from Nikon but Canon was the major player. This isn't 1985 any longer and these arent SLRs. You now have companies like Sony producing superior sensors, arguably better cameras and equally good glass for thousands of dollars less. Canon will price themselves out of the market sooner than later. Especially the way they are forcing out 3rd party makers and keeping their mount closed. There are a TON of Sigma and Tamron shooters who will never touch a Canon RF mount camera and that should worry Canon, a lot. I was a 17 year Canon user who just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500. I know have plenty of excellent choices with the Sony E mount. Not only less expensive Sony glass, but great glass with very good pricing from Sigma, Tamron and others too.


Nikon was the big dog in the 80's with Canon and Minolta scrapping it out for number 2. There were also several other companies (Olympus, Pentax, etc...) that had decent market share. When Sony bought Minolta, they were #3 so they had that head start entering the market. Minolta was late to the DSLR party and started losing maret share. By then Konica (who owned Minolta) had outsourced much of their lens production to Tamron and their own lens production had ground to a slow crawl and much of that was cancelled by Sony when they took over. That was the reason I moved to Canon. Sony opened up their mount to 3rd parties, not to be benevolent to their users, but because they had no choice. Without 3rd parties, they would've had almost no lenses. After that, the toothpaste was out of the tube and there was no way to get it back in. Canon (and I believe Nikon) never opened up their mount to 3rd parties... didn't need to. There are still holes in the Sony lineup that need filled, and it's likely they still outsource significant lens production to Tamron (and Zeiss). As far as comparing prices on lenses, Canon knows that the move to mirrorless will start at the higher end and that those users are willing to pay a few hundred more for better glass. They will have more "affordable" glass eventually, but for now you can just adapt EF glass (and yes, the adapters can be found... it just takes some looking). At the moment Canon sells every MILC and RF lenses as fast as they can make them, so it looks like the strategy is working.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 5, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Nikon was the big dog in the 80's with Canon and Minolta scrapping it out for number 2.


A funny twist of history was that originally Canon made the cameras, based on Leica's M39 rangefinder screw mount, and Nikon made the lenses, so they co-operated peacefully for many years after WW II. Then, in the 50s, the famous US photographer David Douglas Duncan learned about Nikon's lenses and realized that they are sharper than Leica's comparable offerings back then. He started to use them and made Nikon known in the US. Quickly, those Japanese lenses grew extremely popular amongst pro's. Later, when Nikon produced their first SLR's and lenses for their new F mount, it was easy for them to swallow market shares from Leica in the pro segment, which was soon realized by engaged amateurs. That was the start of Nikon's success story. But in the 80s and 90s, Nikon was too settled and too slow, so Canon took over with affordable SLRs with new electronic features. In particular, in the 90s, Canon offered the fast USM AF drives, whereas Nikon stuck with their micromotor screw driver sort of in-camera drives. Canon was more free with their clean new designed EF mount to move on. 

That said, I still love Nikon's mechanical SLRs like my old FM-2. Those cameras work always, and if the battery for the metering is down, you still can use the sunny 16 sort of rules...


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Great catch, both for you as a photographer and the heron! So you came quite close.
> 
> I have a collection of our herons here in the city area of Frankfurt feeding on mice, but those images are a bit brutal, here's one. Our herons normally do not accept that close distances, mainly because not everyone here is nice to them.
> View attachment 200599


Stunning picture, I really love it!


----------



## MiJax (Oct 12, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Mechanical shutters do not provide perfect geometry, either. If one looks at images from the 1DX Mark III taken using the mechanical shutter just as critically as one looks at images taken with electronic shutter, there's not that much difference between the R3 with ES and the 1D X Mark III with MS.


This is what I consider too much for the intended audience. I can understand why they saw this as a marked improvement, however, I don't see it as terribly good. Let's just say a global shutter has a real value in this type of shooting.


----------

