# The Canon EOS R3 will be officially announced in September



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2021)

> After my previous announcement date gaffe, I decided that the next time I give everyone an announcement date, it’s actually accurate. This time, barring any unknown catastrophe, I have received confirmation from good sources that the Canon EOS R3 body will be announced in September 2021.
> I do not have the exact announcement date in September, but I think we may need to be closer to September before the hype machine starts rolling.
> At this time, I have no additional features or specifications to report.
> Canon EOS R3 Specifications:
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 7, 2021)

So I'm guessing an October or November release if it gets announced in September? R5 was roughly a month later.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> So I'm guessing an October or November release if it gets announced in September? R5 was roughly a month later.


I would think so, I can't see them going back to the days of waiting 3-6 months before the camera ships.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 7, 2021)

Thank you for the update. An October / November ship date now appears more reasonable. Hoping for October.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 7, 2021)

So does this mean I can close my B&H pre order window tab for a couple of months?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 7, 2021)




----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 7, 2021)

September works for me. I have two massive jobs in November and December that would greatly benefit from a rugged sports camera. If not, I’m confident the R5/R6 combo will serve me well.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So does this mean I can close my B&H pre order window tab for a couple of months?


Certainly, if you don't mind losing your place and going to the back of the pre-order line when you re-place your pre-order down the road. We all know you're just fooolin......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Certainly, if you don't mind losing your place and going to the back of the pre-order line when you re-place your pre-order down the road. We all know you're just fooolin......


If it could be pre-ordered, I’d have done it already. B&H pre-orders start after the product is officially announced.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jul 7, 2021)




----------



## Anthny (Jul 7, 2021)

Was the 30.1mp announced by Canon or is it from a third party rumor? There was also some report of a surprise about sensor resolution?


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 7, 2021)

How about master-flash-function (via Wifi or BT?!) for wireless flash triggering?


----------



## entoman (Jul 7, 2021)

Anthny said:


> Was the 30.1mp announced by Canon or is it from a third party rumor? There was also some report of a surprise about sensor resolution?


I think the "surprise" was that the resolution is quite low - many must have been expecting the R3 to match the resolution of the R5 and the Sony a1. But for 95% of images (if not more) 30MP is more than enough, and has multiple advantages over higher resolutions e.g. less noise, higher max ISO, better DR, higher fps/bigger buffer. The design of the R3 seems almost perfect, considering the type of user it is aimed at.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 7, 2021)

Anthny said:


> Was the 30.1mp announced by Canon or is it from a third party rumor? There was also some report of a surprise about sensor resolution?


I think the surprise was it wasn't a 20MP sensor


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 7, 2021)

For the price I thought at first reading they were giving a free car or motorcycle with every R3 but I see its only that it will be able to focus on them
"Inclusion of cars and motorbikes"


----------



## unfocused (Jul 7, 2021)

entoman said:


> …multiple advantages over higher resolutions e.g. less noise, higher max ISO, better DR, higher fps/bigger buffer…


Those advantages were more apparent five years ago or so. In real world use today the 45 mp sensor performs very well at high ISOs. At the same time the 1Dx III sensor’s 20mp sustains cropping much better than previous generations. We are fast approaching the point where the old assumptions are relevant only for theoretical debates on geek forums.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> So I'm guessing an October or November release if it gets announced in September? R5 was roughly a month later.


The R5 was announced July 9th and shipped July 30th, so hopefully these would start to ship in October at the latest.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 7, 2021)

Hoping this means RF lens shortages will be resolved by September as well.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2021)

Anthny said:


> Was the 30.1mp announced by Canon or is it from a third party rumor? There was also some report of a surprise about sensor resolution?



As far as I have read, the 30.1MP sensor is still a rumor, and not officially announced yet. 

Here is the information originally posted about the "resolution trick":

"The image sensor is all-new from Canon, as we know it’s a stacked backside-illuminated image sensor. Beyond what Canon has told us, I have been told that this camera will have a “resolution trick”. Does that mean it will have pixel-shift or something else? This will not be a 20mp camera like the EOS-1D X Mark III, so expect a *very high-resolution* image sensor."








Let's talk about the Canon EOS R3 [CR2]


The surprise development announcement of the Canon EOS R3 has been quite exciting, but as planned by the marketing folks at Canon, we've all been speculating w



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think the "surprise" was that the resolution is quite low - many must have been expecting the R3 to match the resolution of the R5 and the Sony a1. But for 95% of images (if not more) 30MP is more than enough, and has multiple advantages over higher resolutions e.g. less noise, higher max ISO, better DR, higher fps/bigger buffer. The design of the R3 seems almost perfect, considering the type of user it is aimed at.


The rumor was about a "resolution trick," not a "surprise". A 30MP sensor would not be considered a "trick" though it could be considered a "surprise".


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Hoping this means RF lens shortages will be resolved by September as well.


I hope you're right, but it seems unlikely at this point, sadly.


----------



## Joules (Jul 7, 2021)

entoman said:


> 30MP is more than enough, and has multiple advantages over higher resolutions e.g. less noise, higher max ISO, better DR, higher fps/bigger buffer. The design of the R3 seems almost perfect, considering the type of user it is aimed at.


There is 0 advantage in terms of low light performance, noise or dynamic range for a lower resolution. Especially since we're talking about a stacked back side illuminated sensor in the R3.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Even if you don't have an exact date, do you have a sense of whether it's early September or late September?


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 7, 2021)

There were rumors that Nikon might announce the Z9 on June 28th, and that Canon would announce the R3 on June 29th. Canon appeared to want to steal Nikon's media thunder. 
Then Nikon didn't make the Z9 announcement, and Canon didn't either. 
Yesterday there were new rumors about Nikon releasing the Z9 in November/December, and now we get a new Canon rumor about the R3 coming out in September. 

Coincidence?

Perhaps we should invent a _new_ rumor that the Nikon Z9 is coming out in August to see if Canon responds by releasing the R3 early, just to ensure they one-up Nikon. 

Might be my best shot at getting the R3 before a November trip.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If it could be pre-ordered, I’d have done it already. B&H pre-orders start after the product is officially announced.


it is interesting how different resellers operate. I was able to put a refundable deposit down on the R5 back in February last year. The intent was to get it in June just prior to a big Scandinavian trip. That was one of three trips cancelled over the last 12 months but it did mean I got my R5 in the first batch in Australia (with a spare battery and the fancy strap that I immediately sold  )


----------



## Rzrsharp (Jul 7, 2021)

Eye Controll AF removed from the list?


----------



## WJF (Jul 8, 2021)

Anthny said:


> Was the 30.1mp announced by Canon or is it from a third party rumor? There was also some report of a surprise about sensor resolution?


I'm guessing the "surprise" will be something like a pixel-shift / multi-shot high resolution feature.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I hope you're right, but it seems unlikely at this point, sadly.


Yeah, most in the semiconductor world doesn't see the shortage ending for a long time. They do think the bulk of the shortage can be relieved by the end of next year, but we will still see some delays. After seeing the type of plant and the time it take to make these wafers, its no wonder why they are so bleak on their outlooks. The worst outlook I saw was 2023, but many see it lasting well in to 2022.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 8, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Yeah, most in the semiconductor world doesn't see the shortage ending for a long time. They do think the bulk of the shortage can be relieved by the end of next year, but we will still see some delays. After seeing the type of plant and the time it take to make these wafers, its no wonder why they are so bleak on their outlooks. The worst outlook I saw was 2023, but many see it lasting well in to 2022.


Thanks for sharing the insight! Even if it is a bit bleak...


----------



## drhuffman87 (Jul 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The rumor was about a "resolution trick," not a "surprise". A 30MP sensor would not be considered a "trick" though it could be considered a "surprise".


Shhh my Rebel XS considers it to be a "trick," don't ruin it's fun.


----------



## melgross (Jul 8, 2021)

Joules said:


> There is 0 advantage in terms of low light performance, noise or dynamic range for a lower resolution. Especially since we're talking about a stacked back side illuminated sensor in the R3.


Well, a lower rez stacked, back side sensor with bigger sensing sites would have better noise and dynamic range.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> Well, a lower rez stacked, back side sensor with bigger sensing sites would have better noise and dynamic range.


In spite of the fact the the highest resolution cameras have the most dynamic range? I think you need to study how dynamic range is measured (hint, fixed area, not pixel level).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> Well, a lower rez stacked, back side sensor with bigger sensing sites would have better noise and dynamic range.


There seems to be a correlation between low resolution and high ISO.
There does not appear to be a similar correlation with dynamic range.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jul 8, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Hoping this means RF lens shortages will be resolved by September as well.


COVID induced chip shortage and supply chain issues won’t be resolved very soon, here in HK many of the RF L lenses such as 100-500, 24-105L, 85.2 and even the EF-EOS-RF adapters are back-ordered, typically people who want to order need to wait at least 2-3 months.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 8, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> So I'm guessing an October or November release if it gets announced in September? R5 was roughly a month later.


Or unlike the R5/R6 they make the announcement with a lot of stock ready to go and they can start selling very quickly.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 8, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think the "surprise" was that the resolution is quite low - many must have been expecting the R3 to match the resolution of the R5 and the Sony a1. But for 95% of images (if not more) 30MP is more than enough, and has multiple advantages over higher resolutions e.g. less noise, higher max ISO, better DR, higher fps/bigger buffer. The design of the R3 seems almost perfect, considering the type of user it is aimed at.


In the real world the R6 shows very little advantage over the R5 at high ISO. Yes per pixel noise is lower as it's a much smaller image, but the R5 reszied to 20MP is as clean, and even at full res, the files clean up so nicely even out to 12800 it matters little. Also to match the reach of the R5, the R6 needs a 1.5x TC so you'd be using a slower aperture, higher ISO to match shutter speed for action. So it's advantage is gone. 

Now 30MP is a nice compromise for the R3 and offers 24% more reach than the R6 in FL limited cases. I would have preferred 36MP, but it is what it is. Stacked sensor, I presume blackout free EVF, improved eye tracking, and eye-controlled AF are what matters even more.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> There seems to be a correlation between low resolution and high ISO.
> There does not appear to be a similar correlation with dynamic range.


DR is often limited by the read noise. Sony A9 is lowish res, but had much worse DR than the A7RIII, due to the fact the read noise was ~4x worse. This came about due to the ADC's being clocked much faster to accommodate the much faster sensor scan speed which introduced more read noise. A9II improved the DR about 0.5EV and A1 improved it further so it's DR is only a tiny bit lower than the A7RIV. We have pretty much hit the wall on DR with 35mm sensors.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 8, 2021)

Anthny said:


> Was the 30.1mp announced by Canon or is it from a third party rumor? There was also some report of a surprise about sensor resolution?


Canon has not announced the resolution. I believe they never announce the resolution until the official announcement. So, 30 MP is only a rumor.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 8, 2021)

I am officially announcing that I will NOT be purchasing this camera.

Barring any unknown lottery winnings, I am officially broke.... I can only dream of one day owning it.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 8, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> How about master-flash-function (via Wifi or BT?!) for wireless flash triggering?


The grandest!


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 8, 2021)

I have been making annual fall trips to Yellowstone and Grand Tetons since 2000. I was so excited when Canon released the R5 because it arrived in time for my 2020 trip (yes, I rolled the dice with COVID). I was even more excited with the June R3 announcement rumor since I thought the R3 would be in my hands for fall 2021. I doubt the camera will arrive by September 23rd for my trip and it seems late for integrating into kit for sporting events.

Bummer!


----------



## BuffaloBird (Jul 8, 2021)

I'm sure 30MP will be great for many photogs, but that will earn a hard pass from me. I'm still--likely naively--holding out hope that it will be at least 45MP. If it is, it is an instant buy.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 8, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> COVID induced chip shortage and supply chain issues won’t be resolved very soon, here in HK many of the RF L lenses such as 100-500, 24-105L, 85.2 and even the EF-EOS-RF adapters are back-ordered, typically people who want to order need to wait at least 2-3 months.


I sometimes wonder if many who complain about availability haven’t even placed an order. Waiting for something to be in stock is not a serious strategy. Everyone who orders on announcement day gets theirs the first day.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 8, 2021)

I was wondering if anyone knew how the spec AF down to -7.0 EV compares to the R5 or R6. I’m curious to see what low light difference there might be. Any
Insights would be appreciated.
Thank you.


----------



## Tirmite (Jul 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So does this mean I can close my B&H pre order window tab for a couple of months?


Yes, please, and I’ll leapfrog one space ahead in line. Thank you!!!


----------



## Skux (Jul 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So does this mean I can close my B&H pre order window tab for a couple of months?


You'll need to keep it open at least that long waiting for stock to become available.


----------



## Joules (Jul 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> Well, a lower rez stacked, back side sensor with bigger sensing sites would have better noise and dynamic range.


And why would that be? I don't understand. 

BSI eliminates the wiring that is blocking a part of the light in conventional sensors. As there has to be more of this wiring on a higher resolution sensor, it actually should reduce the difference between high end low resolution even more in terms of noise - and the difference is already negligible in my eyes:






Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





And DR depends so heavily on noise. I know a single large pixel has higher DR than a single small one - but we are usually care about images, and therefore average multiple pixel together to compare image sections of the same area. Which results in the same light and noise per area, so where is the advantage for lower resolution sensors coming from? 

To be clear I do expect Canon to improve both in terms of DR and low light performance with this new sensor. It marks a pretty strong shift in their manufacturing technology after all. I just don't see that improvement being related to the resolution and fully expect the upcoming, higher resolution bodies (R5s, R1?) to outperform it.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 8, 2021)

Over time people should get more and more and more excited, but I feel the opposite. It just annoys me to wait such a long time from teasing to an announcement and sales might not even start directly after that. I hope they will do it differently with the R1. The best think would be announcing the R1 together with the R3.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> There were rumors that Nikon might announce the Z9 on June 28th, and that Canon would announce the R3 on June 29th. Canon appeared to want to steal Nikon's media thunder.
> Then Nikon didn't make the Z9 announcement, and Canon didn't either.
> Yesterday there were new rumors about Nikon releasing the Z9 in November/December, and now we get a new Canon rumor about the R3 coming out in September.
> 
> ...


I so hope you are able to get an R3 before your Nov trip but with a Sept announcement, that may be cutting it close, unless of course, supply is adequate for a change. Good luck.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 8, 2021)

Today I learned that even Miele washing machines have a shortage because of the chip problem. The same is true for cars and cameras.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 8, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The last two questions remains: does it have GPS included, and... price?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 8, 2021)

Has there been another new camera that has been seen out in the field and even physically ‘reviewed’ so far ahead of the official announcement?


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 8, 2021)

Rzrsharp said:


> Eye Control AF removed from the list?


Not at the official site.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 8, 2021)

And YES, it will be massively overpriced as we know Canon. It should be 3900 euros but it will be 5900 euros.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> And YES, it will be massively overpriced as we know Canon. It should be 3900 euros but it will be 5900 euros.


Then wait for the R3 MkII to come out in a few years, and buy a used R3.


----------



## leadin2 (Jul 8, 2021)




----------



## unfocused (Jul 8, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Has there been another new camera that has been seen out in the field and even physically ‘reviewed’ so far ahead of the official announcement?


Not that I recall. The sudden surge of pre-release teasers in June makes me think it's at least plausible that Canon was planning to make an announcement at the end of June. I strongly suspect someone took a look at the long backlog of out of stock products and decided maybe it wasn't a good idea to inject a new body into the mix, especially one that was going to result in a spike in demand for lenses they can't deliver. 

While rationally, most folks understand the supply chain problems, consumers are impatient (and I include myself in that category). I also expect that Canon is starting to get some blowback from major retailers. Adorama has not had the 100-500 in stock for six months. B&H is in a similar position. Canon seems to be prioritizing what little stock they have to their own web store. And while that maximizes Canon's profit, the big retailers can't be happy about it, as they account for a much larger percentage of Canon's revenue stream and Canon is kind of sticking it to them. 

I imagine the big retailers can borrow against the backorders, but I also imagine that banks aren't lending at 100%, but rather at a deeply discounted rate, assuming that many of those backorders will never be completed. At some point everyone loses patience.

So, I just guessing (and it is only a guess, but a plausible one) that Canon decided they didn't need to throw one more product into the pipeline right now.

On the plus side, I still believe this may be a sign that Canon expects the backlog of lenses and other products to ease around the time they finally release the R3.


----------



## David_E (Jul 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So does this mean I can close my B&H pre order window tab for a couple of months?


I find it best to give my suppliers a blanket pre-order for everything they sell, and sort it out here at home.


----------



## Joules (Jul 8, 2021)

leadin2 said:


>


For those that are curious, this video contains no new information.


----------



## melgross (Jul 8, 2021)

Dragon said:


> In spite of the fact the the highest resolution cameras have the most dynamic range? I think you need to study how dynamic range is measured (hint, fixed area, not pixel level).


I know very well how it works. You don’t seem to.


----------



## melgross (Jul 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> There seems to be a correlation between low resolution and high ISO.
> There does not appear to be a similar correlation with dynamic range.


It’s not the resolution per se. it’s the larger site size. Otherwise every sensor would have the same dynamic range if they were of the same generation, which they don’t.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> I know very well how it works. You don’t seem to.


In that case, please share a list of low megapixel cameras that noticeably exceed the dynamic range of the R5, A1, and A7R4 (all high megapixel bodies).


----------



## Joules (Jul 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> It’s not the resolution per se. it’s the larger site size. Otherwise every sensor would have the same dynamic range if they were of the same generation, which they don’t.


Right, the current cameras all have vastly differing DR ... and the one with the highest DR is of course equipped with a low resolution ... right?





__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net





Right?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 8, 2021)

Canon need to get into the soap opera business they really seem to be stretching out their product launches. Why the hell tease something in early Spring that your not going to fully announce until September and sell from November / December. 
Gone it seems are the days they keep something secret and then announce & start selling a month later. 
It starts to become negative publicity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> I know very well how it works. You don’t seem to.


Do you? Then please use your vast knowledge to explain the position of the Canon R5 in the list below (which is from Bill Claff's website). The only cameras that exceed the DR of the Canon R5 have MF sensors (and the R5 is better than some MF sensors).


Camera ModelMaximum
PDR ▴Low Light
ISOLow Light
EVPhase One IQ4 150MP13.112252412.82Phase One IQ3 100MP13.061280012.00Hasselblad H6D-100c12.89856511.42FujiFilm GFX 10012.301041311.70Hasselblad H6D-50c12.01640011.00Hasselblad X1D-50c11.98905811.50Phase One IQ25011.92640011.00FujiFilm GFX 50S11.90624110.96FujiFilm GFX 50R11.86621810.96*Canon EOS R5*11.85543510.76Pentax 645Z11.77515710.69Hasselblad CFV II-50c11.73469210.55Sony ILCE-7R11.71410810.36FujiFilm GFX 100(FF)11.68630710.98Sony ILCE-7RM311.65578710.85Nikon D85011.63411510.36Sony ILCE-7RM411.62474410.57Nikon D61011.61396910.31


----------



## Joules (Jul 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you? Then please use your vast knowledge to explain the position of the Canon R5 in the list below (which is from Bill Claff's website). The only cameras that exceed the DR of the Canon R5 have MF sensors (and the R5 is better than some MF sensors).
> 
> 
> Camera ModelMaximum
> ...


Just to be fair, it is worth pointing out that the R5 tops the chart thanks in part to featuring baked in noise reduction at low ISO.

But of course, apart from Mr. Claffs tests specifically looking for this, I have not seen anybody noticing any downsides coming from the noise reduction technique Canon uses. And even without it, it is certainly not at any Form of disadvantage compared to vastly lower resolution sensors like the one found in the R6 and 1DX III.


----------



## Michael T (Jul 8, 2021)

Everywhere you look there are shortages of high-end toys, cars, watches. Partly due to unprecedented demand from central banks flooding liquidity due to COVID recesssion worries and the chip shortages. I have five RF lenses ordered and I am weeks and months from getting them. Maybe not so bad the R3 is announced in September.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 8, 2021)

Of course we could get into the weeds with regards PDR, which is a normalization and where some manufacturers are cooking the RAW files to some extent, and the actual capacity of the sensor to capture a wider range of a Stouffer style step wedge. The we can move to the differences in practical and engineering differences in a noise floor!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 8, 2021)

Joules said:


> Just to be fair, it is worth pointing out that the R5 tops the chart thanks in part to featuring baked in noise reduction at low ISO.
> 
> But of course, apart from Mr. Claffs tests specifically looking for this, I have not seen anybody noticing any downsides coming from the noise reduction technique Canon uses. And even without it, it is certainly not at any Form of disadvantage compared to vastly lower resolution sensors like the one found in the R6 and 1DX III.


Even Camon states R5 has more DR than R6.
It would be pretty tough to prove that is all because of "baked in noise reduction".
Especially, since pretty much every camera has some degree of noise reduction.
Canon is by far not the worst offender.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 8, 2021)

Great idea for a Canon Rumors themed quiz show -- Guess the Topic.

Take any series of comments posted after the first three pages of any thread and try to guess what the original topic of the thread was.


----------



## Jsjamesok (Jul 8, 2021)

neurorx said:


> I was wondering if anyone knew how the spec AF down to -7.0 EV compares to the R5 or R6. I’m curious to see what low light difference there might be. Any
> Insights would be appreciated.
> Thank you.


Canon website lists -6 for the R5 and -6.5 for the R6 (with -5 for video).


----------



## entoman (Jul 8, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> I am officially announcing that I will NOT be purchasing this camera.
> 
> Barring any unknown lottery winnings, I am officially broke.... I can only dream of one day owning it.


Haha, I officially announced that I wouldn't be getting an R5.

6 months later, look at my gearlist...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2021)

Michael T said:


> Everywhere you look there are shortages of high-end toys, cars, watches. Partly due to unprecedented demand from central banks flooding liquidity due to COVID recesssion worries and the chip shortages. I have five RF lenses ordered and I am weeks and months from getting them. Maybe not so bad the R3 is announced in September.


Do you count the five RF lenses and R3 as high-end toys?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 9, 2021)

Joules said:


> And why would that be? I don't understand.
> 
> BSI eliminates the wiring that is blocking a part of the light in conventional sensors. As there has to be more of this wiring on a higher resolution sensor, it actually should reduce the difference between high end low resolution even more in terms of noise - and the difference is already negligible in my eyes:
> 
> ...


The issue with BSI for larger sensors is that the micro lenses replace a lot of the light/efficiency lost to the wiring.

BSI made a huge difference in small sensors, like phones and P&S's, but as the sensor gets larger the percentage of light loss due to the wiring is not as big, and, as I say, the microlens arrays over the sensors replace a lot of that loss. When Sony went to FF BSI the DR didn't increase at all from their previous generation non BSI sensors.


----------



## Joules (Jul 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The issue with BSI for larger sensors is that the micro lenses replace a lot of the light/efficiency lost to the wiring.
> 
> BSI made a huge difference in small sensors, like phones and P&S's, but as the sensor gets larger the percentage of light loss due to the wiring is not as big, and, as I say, the microlens arrays over the sensors replace a lot of that loss. When Sony went to FF BSI the DR didn't increase at all from their previous generation non BSI sensors.


I guess you are referring to my last paragraph there, in explaining why we may see little to no gain in DR due to the new sensor tech? As this does not look like an attempt to explain why larger pixels should lead to more DR in an image.

If so, good point.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 9, 2021)

Joules said:


> I guess you are referring to my last paragraph there, in explaining why we may see little to no gain in DR due to the new sensor tech? As this does not look like an attempt to explain why larger pixels should lead to more DR in an image.
> 
> If so, good point.


The bigger pixel argument stems from a difference in the way DR is measured. Do you measure at a pixel level or do you normalize? If you measure at the pixel level one big pixel is less affected by some types of noise for a given exposure (depending on a billion caveats like same generation processing, etc etc) than a small pixel. Also a bigger pixel potentially has a bigger full well capacity which can be used to increase DR.

If you normalize across same generation then sensors are sensors and nothing beats area, and this has been true for many years.

I believe the meme originated back in the day before microlens arrays when on sensor wiring was comparatively inefficient and for a smaller pixel higher resolution sensor the wiring took up a bigger percentage of the sensor area than the same sized sensor with fewer pixels, this meant the former were not as efficient and prone to more noise. This has not been true for several generations of sensor.


----------



## Michael T (Jul 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Do you count the five RF lenses and R3 as high-end toys?


Given I am not a professional photographer, yes.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 9, 2021)

I downloaded RAWs from this site https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen at ISO 100 and increased the exposure five stops to compare the ISO noise in underexposed areas. Shouldn't the R6 and the 1D X III have the same sensor? The 1D X III has much lower noise. I wonder how the R3 will compete. I also saw that my 1D X is VERY bad in that regard. So I really need a new camera. WIth the 1D X you can't really recover shadows at all even at ISO 100 without introducing a lot of noise.


----------



## JairoMartinez (Jul 9, 2021)

will the R3 be priced above or under the 1Dx Mkiii?


----------



## Joules (Jul 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The bigger pixel argument stems from a difference in the way DR is measured. Do you measure at a pixel level or do you normalize? If you measure at the pixel level one big pixel is less affected by some types of noise for a given exposure (depending on a billion caveats like same generation processing, etc etc) than a small pixel. Also a bigger pixel potentially has a bigger full well capacity which can be used to increase DR.
> 
> If you normalize across same generation then sensors are sensors and nothing beats area, and this has been true for many years.
> 
> I believe the meme originated back in the day before microlens arrays when on sensor wiring was comparatively inefficient and for a smaller pixel higher resolution sensor the wiring took up a bigger percentage of the sensor area than the same sized sensor with fewer pixels, this meant the former were not as efficient and prone to more noise. This has not been true for several generations of sensor.


I am aware and fully agree with all of this. Hence, my emphasis on DR in an image, not in a pixel. Which I assume the typical consumer and certainly Canon is focusing on when it comes to choice of MP.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 9, 2021)

JairoMartinez said:


> will the R3 be priced above or under the 1Dx Mkiii?


Under.
The question is by how much.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 9, 2021)

Joules said:


> I am aware and fully agree with all of this. Hence, my emphasis on DR in an image, not in a pixel. Which I assume the typical consumer and certainly Canon is focusing on when it comes to choice of MP.


The standard way of measuring DR is an 8 X 10 image.
However, I use "standard" loosely as every test seems to measure it differently.


----------



## Joules (Jul 9, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The standard way of measuring DR is an 8 X 10 image.
> However, I use "standard" loosely as every test seems to measure it differently.


Yes, it is part of what the DR on the PTP site is based on. Specifically, a normalized size and viewing distance is used to set the threshold at which noise becomes too apparent. As you need some reference for the noise floor.

According to what I know, I would stress the looseness of the word "standard" here though. Never seen it used elsewhere.


----------



## JairoMartinez (Jul 9, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Under.
> The question is by how much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2021)

Joules said:


> Yes, it is part of what the DR on the PTP site is based on. Specifically, a normalized size and viewing distance is used to set the threshold at which noise becomes too apparent. As you need some reference for the noise floor.
> 
> According to what I know, I would stress the looseness of the word "standard" here though. Never seen it used elsewhere.


An 8x10 image at 12” viewing distance is the same standard on which DoF calculators are based. For example, see:






Understanding Depth of Field in Photography







www.cambridgeincolour.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 9, 2021)

I have also seen a more recent, though not new, calculation of the reproduction diagonal divided by 1500 (or 1442) to give you the size of the CoC.

This means people that have a problem with "I never print 8"x10"" can work out the CoC for their personal screen or print size. Of course even using this slightly different way of arriving at your CoC still makes an angular field of view assumption of a generalized viewing distance. That is, if your print/screen/reproduction is bigger than 8"x10" then you view it from further away.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 10, 2021)

Start saving money... this R3 will be overpriced like all Canon gear. I see posts mentioning 4000 euro’s... FORGET IT. It will be 5900 euro’s. Canon is years behind on mirrorless bodies and now they finally catch up with Sony, they want your money... big time.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 10, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Start saving money... this R3 will be overpriced like all Canon gear. I see posts mentioning 4000 euro’s... FORGET IT. It will be 5900 euro’s. Canon is years behind on mirrorless bodies and now they finally catch up with Sony, they want your money... big time.


The fact that in two years Canon caught up to Sony in terms of AF tracking and in three years is offering a BSI stacked sensor clearly shows that Canon is technically on par with the competition. Moreover, for me they offer unique lens, e.g. a 100 mm macro with 1.4x magnification, and professionally designed bodies with integrated grips and superior ergonomics. Before you complain current prices I suggest you look at historical prices. In 2007 a Canon 1Ds Mk3 listed for $6999 (or $9086 in today's dollars)! 

The R3 will not be inexpensive, but then again this is camera aimed at professionals. In USD I suspect the pricing will be between $5500 to $5900.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 10, 2021)

For not having a mirror and not having an OVF I would like to see a discount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For not having a mirror and not having an OVF I would like to see a discount.


Because a small, high-resolution display is a lot cheaper than a couple of pieces of glass? Lol.

Also, a discount from what? The EOS 3 film camera? The R3 isn’t a 1-series or a 5-series.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because a small, high-resolution display is a lot cheaper than a couple of pieces of glass? Lol.
> 
> Also, a discount from what? The EOS 3 film camera? The R3 isn’t a 1-series or a 5-series.


First an at least $1000 discount because of the model name with a "3" instead of a "1". And then an additional discount compared to the best avaible DSLR. Of course that screen might costs some money, but it is only needed because of the decision to ditch the mirror. It is like a prosthetic leg compared to a real one.


----------



## R1-7D (Jul 10, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> First an at least $1000 discount because of the model name with a "3" instead of a "1". And then an additional discount compared to the best avaible DSLR. Of course that screen might costs some money, but it is only needed because of the decision to ditch the mirror. It is like a prosthetic leg compared to a real one.



You do realize prosthetic limbs are very expensive, don’t you?

Your analogy is terrible.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 10, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> First an at least $1000 discount because of the model name with a "3" instead of a "1". And then an additional discount compared to the best avaible DSLR. Of course that screen might costs some money, but it is only needed because of the decision to ditch the mirror. It is like a prosthetic leg compared to a real one.


That was the most literal claim of Canon crippling a camera that I have seen yet.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That was the most literal claim of Canon crippling a camera that I have seen yet.


Well the comedy value is the only value any of his comments have.....


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 10, 2021)

R1-7D said:


> You do realize prosthetic limbs are very expensive, don’t you?
> 
> Your analogy is terrible.


It costs a lot more money to get a limb surgically reattached than to get a prosthetic one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It costs a lot more money to get a limb surgically reattached than to get a prosthetic one.


That’s just an initial cost. Prosthetics need multiple replacements over a persons lifespan and often times people will have more than one for appropriate uses. Depending on their functionality prosthetics can be very expensive too.

Add in the multiple replacements and repairs along with fittings and adjustments etc etc over a lifetime and the cost could easily exceed the initial surgery cost.

I count myself very lucky in that I had a bad accident 20 odd years ago and could have lost my right arm, the surgeon, who didn’t know me at all, spent 7 hours saving my arm.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That’s just an initial cost. Prosthetics need multiple replacements over a persons lifespan and often times people will have more than one for appropriate uses. Depending on their functionality prosthetics can be very expensive too.
> 
> Add in the multiple replacements and repairs along with fittings and adjustments etc etc over a lifetime and the cost could easily exceed the initial surgery cost.
> 
> I count myself very lucky in that I had a bad accident 20 odd years ago and could have lost my right arm, the surgeon, who didn’t know me at all, spent 7 hours saving my arm.


That was a terrible story with a happy ending.
I am glad you are still with us.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That was a terrible story with a happy ending.
> I am glad you are still with us.


Thank you for your kind thoughts. My wife might not agree all the time though


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For not having a mirror and not having an OVF I would like to see a discount.


I'm hoping you were attempting to make a joke. It would be really delusional if you were serious.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 11, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> Canon need to get into the soap opera business they really seem to be stretching out their product launches. Why the hell tease something in early Spring that your not going to fully announce until September and sell from November / December.
> Gone it seems are the days they keep something secret and then announce & start selling a month later.
> It starts to become negative publicity.


They certainly seem to have done a 180 on their marketing strategy......you can see and feel the frustration this is causing in the marketplace.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 11, 2021)

There is no doubt that Canon is placing a high premium on their R5/R6 bodies, a policy of which is certain to continue with R3 series, not to mention RF lenses and other accessories. I don't like paying exorbitant prices for my gear either. However, upon further consideration I will try and cut Canon some slack, given their product track record ever since the introduction of the aforementioned camera bodies. Extensive R&D would not happen if it were not for the potential profit to be made down the road. Customer demand has little to do with R&D. The bottom line here is any company is in business to make money first. Big corps are not running a charity, albeit they would sometimes have you believe they are giving this stuff away. We are now seeing a plethora of new product offerings, granted with slow delivery due to market conditions but I am thankful to see Canon aggressively creating new gear, eventually with adequate inventories of same. Profit is the driving force that makes all this new gear possible. We have to allow mfgs to make a profit and I participate in that strategy when I purchase one of their new offerings. If I feel like any given product is priced way out of line, I just don't buy it or wait for the price to come down to a level I am then willing to part with my hard earned money for. Judging by CR members' commentary, referencing Canon gear owned, one can see that you believe in this capitalistic way of doing business, as well. Judging by my purchase habits of late, I seem to have embraced the ritual with unusual vigor. I have not had this level of enthusiasm for new Canon gear in years. It is certainly a great time to be a consumer across all Mfgs lines and offerings. Now, bring on that R3 boys.......


----------



## john1970 (Jul 11, 2021)

canonmike said:


> They certainly seem to have done a 180 on their marketing strategy......you can see and feel the frustration this is causing in the marketplace.


I wonder if these drawn out development announcements that last 6 months are due to supply shortages. For the 1Dx Mk3 I believe the development announcement was in October 2019 and it was released in January 2020.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For not having a mirror and not having an OVF I would like to see a discount.


So you want a tiny HDTV set (EVF) for less than the price of a mirror? . It may well cost more to make.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2021)

Dragon said:


> So you want a tiny HDTV set (EVF) for less than the price of a mirror? . It may well cost more to make.


Yes, the mirror and the mechanism that can flap the mirror 12 or more times a second should cost a lot more. Even the Powershot S1 IS, which I owned, had an EVF. Of course modern EVFs have a much higher resolution, but costs should have gone down a lot in the last 17 years.

Digital cameras are already quite old and the digital SLRs always were the high end and came with a premium price. Now suddenly cameras got rid of the mirror and they still cost a premium price. 

It is the old discussion "Is it a bug or a feature". Many products come with features that have downsides. What freaks me out about EVFs is the exposure preview. So the EVF gets brighter or darker depending on where I point my camera. I prefer this exposure compensation to be done with my own eyes, which of course will also adjust to the brightness. However an EVF only has a certain maximum brightness even in bright sunlight. So it always has to adjust. I hardly even had any problem with my exposure with my DSLR, so that exposure proview is a big bug and not a feature for me. Especially at very low light that exposure preview can become very grainy, even if that problem gets smaller with newer cameras. 

And of course the other major downside that you have to turn on your camera and use battery power just to look through the viewfinder. It reminds me of the difference between new and old phones. When I was a kid, the phones worked even during a power outage. Now that is no longer true, because the always need power. Turning something that did not need power into something that needs power is a big step back.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [..] When I was a kid, the phones worked even during a power outage. Now that is no longer true, because the always need power. Turning something that did not need power into something that needs power is a big step back.


The 'old' phones also needed power, the big difference is that the power was supplied over the analog phone line by the Central Office.


----------



## Joules (Jul 11, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The 'old' phones also needed power, the big difference is that the power was supplied over the analog phone line by the Central Office.


I thought they talked about old mobile phones. Those with buttons and tiny, dim screens and the type of chunky construction people jokingly say could survive nuclear blast. Nokia bricks and their peers. 

Which of course still needed power, but consumed less simply due to being much, much less capable than modern smartphones. Consuming more power is only a downside for use cases that either can't (at least partially) leverage the additional capabilities of modern devices, or have no means of providing the power when necessary.

The latter especially is a much smaller concern than it used to be with quality power banks, quick charge, USB power outlets and wireless charging pads in trains and cars and standardized charge ports (with the exception of one brand... ) leading to pretty good odds of having the option to charge quickly when necessary.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Now suddenly cameras got rid of the mirror and they still cost a premium price.


The reality is that for luxury goods, which there are, production costs have only a minimal influence on retail price. Canon will charge what they think the market will pay.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 11, 2021)

Joules said:


> I thought they talked about old mobile phones. Those with buttons and tiny, dim screens and the type of chunky construction people jokingly say could survive nuclear blast. Nokia bricks and their peers.
> 
> Which of course still needed power, but consumed less simply due to being much, much less capable than modern smartphones. Consuming more power is only a downside for use cases that either can't (at least partially) leverage the additional capabilities of modern devices, or have no means of providing the power when necessary.
> 
> The latter especially is a much smaller concern than it used to be with quality power banks, quick charge, USB power outlets and wireless charging pads in trains and cars and standardized charge ports (with the exception of one brand... ) leading to pretty good odds of having the option to charge quickly when necessary.


I remember sitting in a ferry on the water outside Hong Kong, next to a family who realized that all their phones had run out of power and had no way to take pictures of the trip to the islands in the bay. They were very happy with the powerbanks our group had brought with us, they could charge up their phones quite a bit during the 45 minutes of the trip.
I had an EOS M with 4 spare batteries, enough for a morning of outdoors 

That was 2019, I bet odds will have improved for finding power on the road, when travel will become feasible and popular again.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2021)

It seems my 1D X is really dead. I thought it was the battery. So I bought a new one for 135 Euros, just to realize that it was NOT the battery. I hope that the oreorder price of 7299 Euros for the R3 is just a placeholder. It would make it even more expensive than the 1D X III, which is at 7114 Euros. My only other option with built-in battery grip would be the 1D X II for under 5000 Euros. Those are hard times for me as a photo enthusiast, who does not really generate a lot of money out of his hobby.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 11, 2021)

john1970 said:


> The fact that in two years Canon caught up to Sony in terms of AF tracking and in three years is offering a BSI stacked sensor clearly shows that Canon is technically on par with the competition. Moreover, for me they offer unique lens, e.g. a 100 mm macro with 1.4x magnification, and professionally designed bodies with integrated grips and superior ergonomics. Before you complain current prices I suggest you look at historical prices. In 2007 a Canon 1Ds Mk3 listed for $6999 (or $9086 in today's dollars)!
> 
> The R3 will not be inexpensive, but then again this is camera aimed at professionals. In USD I suspect the pricing will be between $5500 to $5900.


Like I said: Overpriced.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2021)

It is sad that some things like a built-in battery grip are only available in very expensive bodies. It reminds me of the time when SSDs were only available in very expensive notebooks, where the SSD only made a fraction of the addional costs. The problem is that people have very different budgets and therefore manufacturers need to find a way to get the maximum amount from everybody, that he is willing to pay. That's why additional storage in an iPhone is ridiculously expensive. There are the people who can hardly afford the cheapest iPhone and those who are willing to pay a hight price for any additional features. And then are those who could pay almost any price. That's why it often is a good advice to only buy the "second best" of anything. Stay in the second best room category in the second best hotel for example. Or buy a 5 series BMW instead of a 7 series. As the R3 might be that second best camera after the R1, I had high hopes that it would not be priced over the top, but this time the second best might be as expensive as the former best. Just look how much Canon charges for the second best RF wide angle zoom: More thatn 1800 Euros in Germany. For the second best!


----------



## Joules (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It is sad that some things like a built-in battery grip are only available in very expensive bodies. It reminds me of the time when SSDs were only available in very expensive notebooks, where the SSD only made a fraction of the addional costs. The problem is that people have very different budgets and therefore manufacturers need to find a way to get the maximum amount from everybody, that he is willing to pay. That's why additional storage in an iPhone is ridiculously expensive. There are the people who can hardly afford the cheapest iPhone and those who are willing to pay a hight price for any additional features. And then are those who could pay almost any price. That's why it often is a good advice to only buy the "second best" of anything. Stay in the second best room category in the second best hotel for example. Or buy a 5 series BMW instead of a 7 series. As the R3 might be that second best camera after the R1, I had high hopes that it would not be priced over the top, but this time the second best might be as expensive as the former best. Just look how much Canon charges for the second best RF wide angle zoom: More thatn 1800 Euros in Germany. For the second best!


If budget is an issue, maybe going for an Apple or BMW isn't the best idea in the first place.

I understand that the rise in prices is upsetting, but it is to be expected. The market is shrinking, so seeing such a great pace of progress both with the performance of the latest bodies and the glass that goes along with it is something that should be appreciated in itself. But as that R&D has to be payed for by fewer customers and the current world economy causes a bunch of issues from production, over logistics to inflation, a new price structure is inevitable. There's no point in complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems my 1D X is really dead. I thought it was the battery. So I bought a new one for 135 Euros, just to realize that it was NOT the battery. I hope that the oreorder price of 7299 Euros for the R3 is just a placeholder. It would make it even more expensive than the 1D X III, which is at 7114 Euros. My only other option with built-in battery grip would be the 1D X II for under 5000 Euros. Those are hard times for me as a photo enthusiast, who does not really generate a lot of money out of his hobby.


I would suspect a PCB failed. That’s a common cause of a ‘dead’ camera, and a repair would certainly be far cheaper that an R3 (probably 500 +/- 100 €), if the 1D X is otherwise able to meet your needs.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 11, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The 'old' phones also needed power, the big difference is that the power was supplied over the analog phone line by the Central Office.


I still have a landline for that reason.
I was very disappointed when a hurricane knocked out the power and my cell phone worked but my landline did not.
The cool thing was that any Verizon store with power would charge my cell phone.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It is sad that some things like a built-in battery grip are only available in very expensive bodies.


It is supply and demand.
Most people buying cheaper cameras have no desire for battery grips.
You can always get another 1DX Mark I or 1D.
On the other hand, Walmart still lists the 1DC at $12K.


Robot or human?


----------



## randym77 (Jul 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems my 1D X is really dead. I thought it was the battery. So I bought a new one for 135 Euros, just to realize that it was NOT the battery. I hope that the oreorder price of 7299 Euros for the R3 is just a placeholder. It would make it even more expensive than the 1D X III, which is at 7114 Euros. My only other option with built-in battery grip would be the 1D X II for under 5000 Euros. Those are hard times for me as a photo enthusiast, who does not really generate a lot of money out of his hobby.



Get it repaired.

If you don't want to do that, sell it for parts and buy a 1DX II used. The price on those has dropped quite a bit, with the 1DX III available, and so many people switching to mirrorless. It would still be an upgrade for you.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2021)

Yes, I will call the Canon service and ask them how much it would cost if the mainboard has to be replaced. I probably would not buy a used camera, as I do not know how it was treated. I thought my camera would live much longer, as the shutter count is under 60,000. I wish there was an R6 in a large and heavy body, but not for twice or more the price.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 11, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Like I said: Overpriced.


It may be overpriced from your perspective, but if they get more orders than they can fill, then you could say it is actually a bit underpriced. The market, not one individual perspective, determines what is over and under priced.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 12, 2021)

randym77 said:


> Get it repaired.
> 
> If you don't want to do that, sell it for parts and buy a 1DX II used. The price on those has dropped quite a bit, with the 1DX III available, and so many people switching to mirrorless. It would still be an upgrade for you.


Great advice!


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2021)

randym77 said:


> Get it repaired.
> 
> If you don't want to do that, sell it for parts and buy a 1DX II used. The price on those has dropped quite a bit, with the 1DX III available, and so many people switching to mirrorless. It would still be an upgrade for you.


Once the R3 is in my hands, it's going to be real tough to sell my 1DX mark II for a third of what I paid for it, but at the same time, I got my money's worth out of that camera many dozens of times over. 


I know we don't even know the actual price of the R3, but it'll be interesting to see how the used prices of the R5 and R3 change over the next five years. On one hand like you said, I think the mirrorless switch is driving down the price of the used DSLRs more than they naturally would have, but on the other hand, mirrorless tech is still so new and evolving so fast, so I could imagine big changes in the next few years could drive down the prices of the current mirrorless models in a similar fashion.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 12, 2021)

Jsjamesok said:


> Canon website lists -6 for the R5 and -6.5 for the R6 (with -5 for video).


Dammit! I wish I had your lucky lotto numbers!


----------



## kaihp (Jul 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course we could get into the weeds with regards PDR


Please refresh my teflon brain: what is PDR in this context?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 12, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Please refresh my teflon brain: what is PDR in this context?


Photographic dynamic range, it is differentiated from engineering dynamic range in that it establishes a noise floor limit, SNR or signal to noise ratio, that is corrected for the sensor size. This means it gives a closer to ‘real world’ value.





__





Sensor Analysis Primer – Engineering and Photographic Dynamic Range






www.photonstophotos.net


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Photographic dynamic range, it is differentiated from engineering dynamic range in that it establishes a noise floor limit, SNR or signal to noise ratio, that is corrected for the sensor size. This means it gives a closer to ‘real world’ value.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My big problem with this as a measure is that modern cameras denoise in camera.
In the real world we also denoise in post.
Also not all noise looks the same.
Filmic noise might be perfectly acceptable.

Maybe I am just old fashion but it seems a lot easier to just try cameras out and pick the ones that suit me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 12, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> My big problem with this as a measure is that modern cameras denoise in camera.
> In the real world we also denoise in post.
> Also not all noise looks the same.
> Filmic noise might be perfectly acceptable.
> ...


Oh there is no doubt that personal testing or use is the only way to work out if a specific camera will work for you personally or not. I also agree it is frustrating that almost everybody now cooks their RAW files, something I think Canon was pushed into because others did it and those comparisons hurt and people don’t understand they are not true comparisons.

But I still find the measures useful for an initial assessment and have found the Bill Claff site to be unbiased and a good indication of what I’d expect to see from real files.

I also like that you can download all the ‘Studio Comparison’ RAW files from DPReview.


----------



## entoman (Jul 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Those advantages were more apparent five years ago or so. In real world use today the 45 mp sensor performs very well at high ISOs. At the same time the 1Dx III sensor’s 20mp sustains cropping much better than previous generations. We are fast approaching the point where the old assumptions are relevant only for theoretical debates on geek forums.


That does appear to be the case, although most photography websites are still perpetuating the notion that low resolution sensors (of same generation) have less noise and greater DR...


----------



## jd7 (Jul 12, 2021)

Joules said:


> If budget is an issue, maybe going for an Apple or BMW isn't the best idea in the first place.
> 
> I understand that the rise in prices is upsetting, but it is to be expected. The market is shrinking, so seeing such a great pace of progress both with the performance of the latest bodies and the glass that goes along with it is something that should be appreciated in itself. But as that R&D has to be payed for by fewer customers and the current world economy causes a bunch of issues from production, over logistics to inflation, a new price structure is inevitable. There's no point in complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business.


There is no point complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business, certainly, but I don't understand why the price rises are to be expected (or at least price rises which do more than keep pace with inflation and currency fluctuations). Assuming Canon's R&D budget hasn't suddenly increased dramatically, and that cost of production of a mirrorless camera is similar to that of a DSLR, what's changed? There is a potentially shrinking market, but is there any evidence that the market for higher end cameras is shrinking? Was R&D cost previously shared over a wider range of gear (ie compact cameras, in particular) than now? I don't know to what extent R&D cost was shared, or is shared now (and not just with cameras specifially, but potentially with other things Canon makes in its various divisions), but it does seem possible this is an issue. On the other hand, the more Canon pushes up price, the more the market will likely shrink as people decide it's not worth the price to play. Pushing cameras into the realm of real luxury items which only a relatively small number of people are willing to pay for (which seems to me to be where Canon is heading) doesn't seem obviously a great strategy to me, but I can only assume Canon thinks (based on all of the market data it has, no doubt) that the increased profit per item will more than make up for the lower sales volume.

Anyway, the thing which really gets me is that Sony's camera bodies aren't more expensive than Canon's now, and once you are in the Sony system there are a lot of great value lenses (albeit many are third party) which make the overall cost of ownership pretty similar to what it's been for DSLRs. So, it is possible to have current tech at a much more moderate cost than you can get it with Canon.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh there is no doubt that personal testing or use is the only way to work out if a specific camera will work for you personally or not. I also agree it is frustrating that almost everybody now cooks their RAW files, something I think Canon was pushed into because others did it and those comparisons hurt and people don’t understand they are not true comparisons.
> 
> But I still find the measures useful for an initial assessment and have found the Bill Claff site .......


I was looking for information regarding raw files being cooked, curious because of what Canon is doing with the R5, and somehow came across the DPR forums where Bill Claff is quite active. The discussion was around Canon's use of noise reduction in the raw R5 files at low ISO. Somebody asked Bill if he was aware of other camera manufacturers doing the same thing as Canon is with the R5 (and 1DXIII), adding noise reduction to the raw files. Bill's answer was that from the data he analyses he wasn't aware of _any other camera_ manufacturer doing his. Now this really surprised me because I was / am pretty certain when looking at other raw files, that they are ! 
He was also asked how much noise reduction was being applied on the R5 and his reply was that is was reasonably significant but possibly only in the deep lowlights. 
So I find this a bit of a mystery. Is Bill Claff right, and the others have unadulterated raws ? I can't believe it. Or is it limitations in his methodology that is not showing it ? I don't know. 
Incidentally when I downloaded some R5 raws from somewhere, can't remember where, and really pulled up the deep shadows to an unrealistic and academic level, they didn't look too pretty to be honest. Certainly saw nothing that made me want to give up the 5DS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 12, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I was looking for information regarding raw files being cooked, curious because of what Canon is doing with the R5, and somehow came across the DPR forums where Bill Claff is quite active. The discussion was around Canon's use of noise reduction in the raw R5 files at low ISO. Somebody asked Bill if he was aware of other camera manufacturers doing the same thing as Canon is with the R5 (and 1DXIII), adding noise reduction to the raw files. Bill's answer was that from the data he analyses he wasn't aware of _any other camera_ manufacturer doing his. Now this really surprised me because I was / am pretty certain when looking at other raw files, that they are !
> He was also asked how much noise reduction was being applied on the R5 and his reply was that is was reasonably significant but possibly only in the deep lowlights.
> So I find this a bit of a mystery. Is Bill Claff right, and the others have unadulterated raws ? I can't believe it. Or is it limitations in his methodology that is not showing it ? I don't know.
> Incidentally when I downloaded some R5 raws from somewhere, can't remember where, and really pulled up the deep shadows to an unrealistic and academic level, they didn't look too pretty to be honest. Certainly saw nothing that made me want to give up the 5DS.


I think Canon are the manufacturer that cooks (uses built in noise reduction) in its RAW files at low iso numbers. Almost all manufacturers cook their high iso RAW files as can be seen by Bill's own graphs. Triangle down or diamond shape indicate noise reduction pre applied. But as you say, I wouldn't rule out limitations in his calculation strategy.





__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net





Interestingly the only 'new' camera I could see that doesn't use noise reduction on the RAW files anywhere in the iso range is the Sony α1. 

Having said all this it really becomes a bit of an esoteric conversation. We can't 'see' the analog readings coming off the sensor, it is necessarily converted to digital output which we also can't 'see'. If we use programs to demosiac that information in an as is format they look horribly dark and green anyway. So given RAW files have to undergo a regeneration process one wonders what difference pre baked noise reduction makes. Then, of course, we go down the rabbit hole of baked in lens corrections etc etc...

Personally I don't have a problem with baled in NR, I do have a problem with baked in lens corrections. To me the first is something that is going to be done anyway, the later is a way of working around poor lens design.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 12, 2021)

jd7 said:


> There is no point complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business, certainly, but I don't understand why the price rises are to be expected (or at least price rises which do more than keep pace with inflation and currency fluctuations). Assuming Canon's R&D budget hasn't suddenly increased dramatically, and that cost of production of a mirrorless camera is similar to that of a DSLR, what's changed? There is a potentially shrinking market, but is there any evidence that the market for higher end cameras is shrinking? Was R&D cost previously shared over a wider range of gear (ie compact cameras, in particular) than now? I don't know to what extent R&D cost was shared, or is shared now (and not just with cameras specifially, but potentially with other things Canon makes in its various divisions), but it does seem possible this is an issue. On the other hand, the more Canon pushes up price, the more the market will likely shrink as people decide it's not worth the price to play. Pushing cameras into the realm of real luxury items which only a relatively small number of people are willing to pay for (which seems to me to be where Canon is heading) doesn't seem obviously a great strategy to me, but I can only assume Canon thinks (based on all of the market data it has, no doubt) that the increased profit per item will more than make up for the lower sales volume.
> 
> Anyway, the thing which really gets me is that Sony's camera bodies aren't more expensive than Canon's now, and once you are in the Sony system there are a lot of great value lenses (albeit many are third party) which make the overall cost of ownership pretty similar to what it's been for DSLRs. So, it is possible to have current tech at a much more moderate cost than you can get it with Canon.


First, I think it is a mistake to assume that the last year or two are typical, which they are not.

In a typical cycle, after a year on the market the R5 would have seen a substantial price drop and most of the RF lenses would also be seeing lower prices (Not necessarily official price cuts, but defacto price cuts through rebates, promotions and special deals from retailers.) 

Next, I think people make the mistake of looking only at the high end products. The Canon RP is the cheapest full frame camera ever offered by Canon, well below the cost of the 6D, not only at introduction but even today. The R is a fantastic camera and before the pandemic, it was dropping in price. Nearly two years ago, I paid less for the R than it is selling for today. 

The RF lens system also includes some bargains. Two supertelephotos for under $1,000 -- something previously unheard of. A full-frame 24-240mm superzoom for under $1,000. An f1.8 wide angle with macro for $100 less than its 35 f2 EF lens. 

The R5 is an expensive camera, no denying that, but it is also a sophisticated camera, offering features that no previous Canon DSLR offered. 

And, yes, R&D Cost was previously shared over a wider range of gear, plus DSLRs benefitted from years and years of previous embedded development.

Ultimately it comes down to supply and demand. We are in a cycle of high demand and low supply. If Sony products are cheaper or seem to be a better value, that is because the demand is less and the supply is greater. Ultimately, the market sets prices and if Canon products are not perceived by consumers to be a good value, the prices will come down.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I think Canon are the manufacturer that cooks (uses built in noise reduction) in its RAW files at low iso numbers. Almost all manufacturers cook their high iso RAW files as can be seen by Bill's own graphs.


When I download sample raw files from say the Nikon Z7II for instance, in the low ISO samples there is definitely a very tiny, subtle smearing and smoothing of the data and suspicious lack of shot noise compared with the equivalent Canon, which is recording a tiny (and insignificant) amount of extra detail. This makes me think that with my raw converter programs at least, there is some kind of noise reduction somewhere, somehow, maybe not intended. For instance look how noiseless and smooth at the expense of detail the Fuji X trans raw files are when opened in ACR.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> maybe not intended


LOL


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 12, 2021)

Very annoying is that "star eating" noise reduction in some cameras that you can't turn off. If you take a video of the night sky and nail the focus, most stars will only have the size of a single pixel. So the camera treats them as random noise and the stars suddenly disappear. They will only reappear if you slightly change the focus, so that each of them is spread over more than one pixel.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Interestingly the only 'new' camera I could see that doesn't use noise reduction on the RAW files anywhere in the iso range is the Sony α1.


I do not believe that for a second.
DPReview is dead to me.
They seem to review gear that they have no idea how to use in the manner people actually use it.
Blogs of all kinds do this and they are far from the biggest offenders.
I think they review whatever they are sent and companies need better criteria for who they send what to.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally I don't have a problem with baled in NR, I do have a problem with baked in lens corrections. To me the first is something that is going to be done anyway, the later is a way of working around poor lens design.



I do agree with you on this, but for me it more depends on the context. A cheap $200 18-55mm kit lens, or even a non-pro 24-240mm travel lens needing baked-in corrections as it doesn't cover the full sensor? Sure, why not, I'll accept it if it mens the lens is significantly smaller and easier for its intended task(travel/being super cheap). I don't feel like anyone should really expect miracles from non-L series glass, at the end of the day, so if it accomplishes the small/cheap/light/big zoom flexibility, I'm not too bothered.

My true concern is if Canon applies the same baked-in lens correction to L-series glass, like the 14-35mm, and that the lens doesn't actually cover the sensor at 14mm. That would be undercutting people who *do* care about image quality and expect the most out of their glass. Same thing goes for if they ever make a L-series version of a 24-240mm, that lens needs to be flexible, but it needs to actually be built for the focal lengths intended.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> My true concern is if Canon applies the same baked-in lens correction to L-series glass,


I thought the lens correction was just metadata in the RAW files.
It obviously needs to be baked in JPEGs.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I thought the lens correction was just metadata in the RAW files.
> It obviously needs to be baked in JPEGs.


Not for the 24-240mm, which is what PrivateByDesign was talking about. That lens doesn't cover the sensor at 24mm, so even the raw files have correction applied to appear to cover the sensor.

Edit: Looking at it again, I may me slightly mistaken. The 24-240 does cover the sensor at 24mm, but is actually closer to a 18-20mm fisheye look at 24mm, which is corrected even in the raw files to appear as 24mm.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 12, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Not for the 24-240mm, which is what PrivateByDesign was talking about. That lens doesn't cover the sensor at 24mm, so even the raw files have correction applied to appear to cover the sensor.
> 
> Edit: Looking at it again, I may me slightly mistaken. The 24-240 does cover the sensor at 24mm, but is actually closer to a 18-20mm fisheye look at 24mm, which is corrected even in the raw files to appear as 24mm.


From what I've seen it isn't lens corrected in the RAW files, open one up with a tool like RawDigger and you should see un-lens-corrected data.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> From what I've seen it isn't lens corrected in the RAW files, open one up with a tool like RawDigger and you should see un-lens-corrected data.



Yeah, you're right about that. I'm sure this is a conversation that could go on for hours, but I think the bigger point was that the lens isn't actually a 24mm lens unless it's corrected, and that the 24mm uncorrected is basically unusable. The lens would have been designed differently in the film era, where what you see was all you had, which meant lenses had to be (relatively) more corrected on their own as they couldn't depend on correction in the same way. 

I know other lenses have extreme distortion, but the 24-240mm is a pretty good example of where Canon chose to emulate 24mm at 24mm using digital corrections rather than design the lens that way from the get-go.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 12, 2021)

That may be an advantage of EF lenses. There Canon can't do such a cheating, because some people still own analogue cameras with an EF mount and those lenses have to work with those cameras too. I own an EOS 30 for example.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 12, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That may be an advantage of EF lenses. There Canon can't do such a cheating, because some people still own analogue cameras with an EF mount and those lenses have to work with those cameras too. I own an EOS 30 for example.


 On the other hand, unless my recollection is faulty, Canon has no 24-240 EF lens.

The ability to correct in-camera made the lens possible at all. Now a lot of purists out there (including me when I'm feeling cranky) find that undesirable (because something is always lost when you process an image that way), but then again, it isn't an L lens either. It's acceptable consumer grade.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 12, 2021)

SteveC said:


> On the other hand, unless my recollection is faulty, Canon has no 24-240 EF lens.
> 
> The ability to correct in-camera made the lens possible at all. Now a lot of purists out there (including me when I'm feeling cranky) find that undesirable (because something is always lost when you process an image that way), but then again, it isn't an L lens either. It's acceptable consumer grade.


They do have an EF 28-300 L, it’s a modest performing L series lens but way above consumer grade IQ and the results don’t need auto correct.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> The lens would have been designed differently in the film era, where what you see was all you had, which meant lenses had to be (relatively) more corrected on their own as they couldn't depend on correction in the same way.


I am not sure how many people do not realize this but there was a long period before digital cameras where the images from the film were digitized and edited digitally.


----------



## R1-7D (Jul 12, 2021)

Just posted. The question is: how soon?


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> They do have an EF 24-300 L, it’s a modest performing L series lens but way above consumer grade IQ and the results don’t need auto correct.


It's actually 28-300mm and weighs 1670g (vs 750g for the RF 24-240) and is almost 3 inches longer. Plus costs over 2.5 times as much. For me personally, I would never buy the 28-300 due to its weight and cost. So, I'll gladly take the auto-correction for all the other advantages.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> They do have an EF 24-300 L, it’s a modest performing L series lens but way above consumer grade IQ and the results don’t need auto correct.





Czardoom said:


> It's actually 28-300mm and weighs 1670g (vs 750g for the RF 24-240) and is almost 3 inches longer. Plus costs over 2.5 times as much. For me personally, I would never buy the 28-300 due to its weight and cost. So, I'll gladly take the auto-correction for all the other advantages.



I'll stand corrected then.

I do own some of the Tamron super zooms and as near as I can tell, they distort as much as the 24-240, the further you get away from the center of the field of view. BUT they are APSC lenses, which means that the zones with the worst distortion are simply cropped away.

And it goes without saying no in-camera correction is being done to the Tammy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 13, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> It's actually 28-300mm and weighs 1670g (vs 750g for the RF 24-240) and is almost 3 inches longer. Plus costs over 2.5 times as much. For me personally, I would never buy the 28-300 due to its weight and cost. So, I'll gladly take the auto-correction for all the other advantages.


Yes sorry for the typo. I have seen them sub $1,000 on Craigslist in great condition with case and box etc. There's one for $850 at the moment on eBay.

Size and weight? You pay your money and choose your poison!


----------



## steven choi (Jul 13, 2021)

It looks like R3 is same size as 1DX series body while Z9 is much smaller size.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 13, 2021)

steven choi said:


> It looks like R3 is same size as 1DX series body while Z9 is much smaller size.


Not that I can see!


----------



## stevelee (Jul 13, 2021)

I find the discussion of lens corrections in and out of body interesting. I have the perspective of having shot thousands of pictures in late 2019 with the G5X II, and thousands more before that with the G7X II. Getting the quality of pictures that I get from their tiny lenses and sensors obviously depends upon software corrections. I don’t know how much is already baked in before I open pictures in ACR, but turning on and off profile lens corrections makes a huge difference. Sometimes I prefer manual corrections after I‘ve seen those options.

I haven’t used those cameras during my 18 months of staying close to home, since the DSLR is always close to hand. Even so, I am sometimes surprised by how much difference I see with and without profile corrections from EF lenses, most noticeably vignette correction or over-correction.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 14, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I find the discussion of lens corrections in and out of body interesting. I have the perspective of having shot thousands of pictures in late 2019 with the G5X II, and thousands more before that with the G7X II. Getting the quality of pictures that I get from their tiny lenses and sensors obviously depends upon software corrections. I don’t know how much is already baked in before I open pictures in ACR, but turning on and off profile lens corrections makes a huge difference. Sometimes I prefer manual corrections after I‘ve seen those options.
> 
> I haven’t used those cameras during my 18 months of staying close to home, since the DSLR is always close to hand. Even so, I am sometimes surprised by how much difference I see with and without profile corrections from EF lenses, most noticeably vignette correction or over-correction.


For lenses where I noticed that Adobe is doing a bad job, I run them through DPP4 first. These include nearly all EF-M lenses (minus the EF-M32mm), the EF f/1.8 primes and the 17-40L. Especially on the EF-M 11-22mm DPP4 does a significantly better job at distortion correction.

A lot of those lenses benefit from DLO as well, which makes the extra effort worth it, for me. I import photos into my computer with a script that renames them to YYYY-MM-<original filename> and that script also sorts them into the LR and DPP4 folders automatically. In DPP4 I just click 'batch export' and a loooooong time later it has put all the TIFFs in the LR import folder.

I feel this is mostly to satisfy my OCD, since not many people will spot these improvements in web sized versions or 12-by-8" prints hanging on the wall.


----------



## LastX (Sep 7, 2021)

［Canon］your EOS.　Canon EOS Presentation


2021年9月14日（火）19：00に行われた新製品についてのプレゼンテーション動画をご覧いただけます。




cweb.canon.jp


----------

