# Canon tech specialist talks the Canon EOS R3



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 18, 2021)

> We have about 5 more weeks to wait before the Canon EOS R3 hits the streets for the lucky few.
> Canon tech specialist Dave Parry talks to Clifton Camera about the features, specifications and technology in the Canon EOS R3.
> There were actually a few bits of new information that I picked up from this presentation, but you may already know it all.



Continue reading...


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 18, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Did he actually imply that wildlife photography was NOT part of the target market? I had wondered about that since so many wildlife photographers seem to want lots of crop-ability which 24MP doesn't emphasize. I'd love to see how its output looks at ISO 102400 of a room lit by 3 candles.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 18, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Did he actually imply that wildlife photography was NOT part of the target market? I had wondered about that since so many wildlife photographers seem to want lots of crop-ability which 24MP doesn't emphasize. I'd love to see how its output looks at ISO 102400 of a room lit by 3 candles.


Four candles or fork handles, not 3.


----------



## sdz (Oct 18, 2021)

We are "know it alls"?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Did he actually imply that wildlife photography was NOT part of the target market?


That’s what I heard.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 19, 2021)

Did he say 800 shots per charge? That seems ludicrously low. I know the R5 and R6 have low 'official' numbers too, but given the larger battery I would have expected a higher number on this R3. I'm sure in reality there will be a wide variation anyway. 

Brian


----------



## djack41 (Oct 19, 2021)

It is Canon's first stacked, BSI sensor but I sure wish it had been at least 30 MP.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 19, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Did he say 800 shots per charge? That seems ludicrously low. I know the R5 and R6 have low 'official' numbers too, but given the larger battery I would have expected a higher number on this R3. I'm sure in reality there will be a wide variation anyway.
> 
> Brian


On my R5 I have been over 2,000 per charge for heavy near continuous use (birds, etc) or ~400 if inconsistent use, which is much closer to the actual rating. So, mileage will vary, significantly.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 19, 2021)

djack41 said:


> It is Canon's first stacked, BSI sensor but I sure wish it had been at least 30 MP.


24MP can make a 20"x30" print at 200 pixels per inch. That's good enough for me and I'd prefer that sensor development emphasize improving other areas.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 19, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Did he say 800 shots per charge? That seems ludicrously low. I know the R5 and R6 have low 'official' numbers too, but given the larger battery I would have expected a higher number on this R3. I'm sure in reality there will be a wide variation anyway.
> 
> Brian


Those "800" shots are with nothing external drawing power. If you are using new accessories connected to hotshoe battery life will be significantly lower.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 19, 2021)

docsmith said:


> On my R5 I have been over 2,000 per charge for heavy near continuous use (birds, etc) or ~400 if inconsistent use, which is much closer to the actual rating. So, mileage will vary, significantly.



I have had similar experience. I've gotten over 3k on my R6 at soccer games (2 games on back to back days, same battery). I turn a lot of the stuff off - basically set it to airplane mode and use only one screen at a time - which seems to help a lot. 




Chaitanya said:


> Those "800" shots are with nothing external drawing power. If you are using new accessories connected to hotshoe battery life will be significantly lower.



I wonder how they actually calculate it? I'm guessing it is with many of the camera's features turned on (wifi, GPS, etc), but no external accessories. I'm guessing they want to come in low so as to avoid overstating things and setting people up to be disappointed. At least that is how they did it with the R5/6. 

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I wonder how they actually calculate it? I'm guessing it is with many of the camera's features turned on (wifi, GPS, etc), but no external accessories. I'm guessing they want to come in low so as to avoid overstating things and setting people up to be disappointed. At least that is how they did it with the R5/6.


They use the CIPA standard. Among other things, that’s settings at factory default, one shot every 30 seconds and powering off/on every 10 shots. For cameras with built-in flash, flash fires every other shot.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 19, 2021)

djack41 said:


> It is Canon's first stacked, BSI sensor but I sure wish it had been at least 30 MP.


I agree. 30mp gives me enough room to fix my compositional mistakes. When I print, it is almost always 20x30, so I like the ability to crop and not mess up my quality. I've been very happy with results (of crops) of my R over the 5D Mark III I used to have. Well! Maybe the Mark II will have it.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Oct 19, 2021)

djack41 said:


> It is Canon's first stacked, BSI sensor but I sure wish it had been at least 30 MP.


Especially since the competition doesn't seem to have a problem with higher resolution sensors that the R3 has. I thought it was funny that there are repeated excuses for the 24mp and why you don't need it.


----------



## ERHP (Oct 19, 2021)

One of our local camera shops, Nelson's, had an anniversary sale this last weekend with reps from the big names there. Canon had two reps and a pre-production R3 available for in store use. The eye control was unique as I was able to shift from face to face or in the parking lot, car to car just by shifting my focus. There will be a learning curve as it is also easy to shift to the wrong spot but willing to bet this will be a big hit with the sports types. It also felt very light and even with the slightly smaller size(compared with 1DX models), the buttons seemed to be in suitable positions without feeling cramped.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 19, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Especially since the competition doesn't seem to have a problem with higher resolution sensors that the R3 has. I thought it was funny that there are repeated excuses for the 24mp and why you don't need it.


So get an R5


----------



## GoldWing (Oct 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


So far the IQ is not impressive nor the battery life. Perhaps these are all pre-production units.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I thought it was funny that there are repeated excuses for the 24mp and why you don't need it.


I’ve been happy with the 18 MP of my 1D X. The R3 has more. It’s funny that everyone thinks their opinions are universal.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’ve been happy with the 18 MP of my 1D X. The R3 has more. It’s funny that everyone thinks their opinions are universal.


Your right. My neighbor is perfectly happy with his 7D. Why do so many people want superb resolution anyway? lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Your right. My neighbor is perfectly happy with his 7D. Why do so many people want superb resolution anyway? lol


More horsepower is always better, so everyone wants a V8 engine in their car. Lol.


----------



## sdz (Oct 19, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Especially since the competition doesn't seem to have a problem with higher resolution sensors that the R3 has. I thought it was funny that there are repeated excuses for the 24mp and why you don't need it.



Even though Canon offered a 24 mp sensor on its new Stacked Sensor, BSI camera, it does not follow that it could not have chosen a higher resolution sensor. The pending 1R may break with past practice by including a very high resolution sensor. At this time, we do not know what capabilities canon has and will have soon. But Canon will need to differentiate the 3R and the 5R and 1R lines, and sensor size is one way to do that.

The Canon is ******* meme refuses to die even when considering milestone achievements.


----------



## perplex1 (Oct 19, 2021)

does anyone know if Canon's BSI sensor have any impact on the dynamic range for video?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Oct 19, 2021)

Does anyone know if the R3 will crop in any of the video modes. I expect that it will work with the new Canon VR lens, but a crop factor would screw thugs up for the higher frame rate modes (which is where the R3 kicks the R5’s behind).


----------



## SereneSpeed (Oct 19, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> 24MP can make a 20"x30" print at 200 pixels per inch. That's good enough for me and I'd prefer that sensor development emphasize improving other areas.


200ppi is very limiting, if you have a detailed, or textured image.

240ppi is noticeably lacking in detail vs 300ppi, if you approach the image.

The argument that nobody approaches a large image, is based upon the experience of viewing low detail (low ppi) images.

If you have 300ppi, and engaging content, people will approach the image.


----------



## angelisland (Oct 19, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> 200ppi is very limiting, if you have a detailed, or textured image.
> 
> 240ppi is noticeably lacking in detail vs 300ppi, if you approach the image.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up. (It's landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.)
ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.


----------



## entoman (Oct 19, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Did he actually imply that wildlife photography was NOT part of the target market? I had wondered about that since so many wildlife photographers seem to want lots of crop-ability which 24MP doesn't emphasize.


Canon seem to be stating that sports and reportage are the primary target markets, but the R3 will be bought by a diverse group of photographers, that also includes weddings, portraiture and wildlife.



djack41 said:


> Why do so many people want superb resolution anyway? lol


Many wildlife photographers, especially bird photographers, like to have as many megapixels as we can get. This enables us to leave a safety margin space around fast moving subjects that are hard to track visually. It also lets us choose between horizontal and vertical crops from the same frame, and allows the image to be rotated for dynamic effect. Rotating a low resolution image will result in greater loss of detail, compared to rotating a high MP image.

Having said all this, there are plenty of people who have spent years with 1Dx and/or 7D series cameras, and they will probably be perfectly happy with 24MP.

There is no single “best” solution. Canon offer us choices, it’s up to each of us to choose the option that suits our own genres of photography, and our own style of working.


----------



## entoman (Oct 19, 2021)

angelisland said:


> Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up.
> ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.


With respect, that is meaningless without more information. What is the subject matter? Does it have a lot of very fine detail? What is the “up close” viewing distance?

Also, of course, most people will be looking primarily at the *subject matter* and *aesthetics* of your images, and factors such as edge sharpness, fine detail resolution and even accurate focus will be secondary to that.

The most relevant question is whether a high resolution image is preferable to an identical low resolution image.
With some subjects and treatments it won’t matter. With other subjects and treatments more resolution is far better.


----------



## entoman (Oct 19, 2021)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Does anyone know if the R3 will crop in any of the video modes. I expect that it will work with the new Canon VR lens, but a crop factor would screw thugs up for the higher frame rate modes (which is where the R3 kicks the R5’s behind).



The R3 specification chart from Canon states that *cropping is supported in stills mode only*.



https://downloads.canon.com/DMSD/r3/EOS-R3_downloadable-specifications.pdf


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

angelisland said:


> Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up. (It's landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.)
> ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.


We disagree, you must be wrong. Unless you’re talking about a 24 MP _Sony_ sensor, then of course the images are superb.
Sincerely,
—The Forum


----------



## angelisland (Oct 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> We disagree, you must be wrong. Unless you’re talking about a 24 MP _Sony_ sensor, then of course the images are superb.
> Sincerely,
> —The Forum



Ha! (it was mostly Nikon cameras with Sony sensors)
But to answer the other guy's questions re the 36" prints at SF MOMA museum - the images are all landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.

Believe me - I like more pixels - at the moment I shoot with an R5 and an A7rIV mostly, but when I see the excellent large prints from 24mp sensors, I think why the F do I need more pixels than my old D750 had...

Cheers.


----------



## Methodical (Oct 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> More horsepower is always better, so everyone wants a V8 engine in their car. Lol.


Yeah, but there are some V6 engines that can out muscle some V8s.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2021)

Methodical said:


> Yeah, but there are some V6 engines that can out muscle some V8s.


Real men want a massive engine in their car and more MP in their camera. Anyone who settles for a turbocharged V6 when there is an 8 L, 16 cylinder 1500 hp engine available, or anyone who settles for a 50 MP FF camera when there’s a 150 MP MF camera available, is a wuss.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 20, 2021)

ERHP said:


> One of our local camera shops, Nelson's, had an anniversary sale this last weekend with reps from the big names there. Canon had two reps and a pre-production R3 available for in store use. The eye control was unique as I was able to shift from face to face or in the parking lot, car to car just by shifting my focus. There will be a learning curve as it is also easy to shift to the wrong spot but willing to bet this will be a big hit with the sports types. It also felt very light and even with the slightly smaller size(compared with 1DX models), the buttons seemed to be in suitable positions without feeling cramped.


This is the camera that I would love to rent for a day's worth of soccer games. Multiple kids in the frame and the subject isn't facing you but others are. I waffle between selecting my own focus point and letting the camera decide for me, and I use the control ring to flip through the modes. It's clunky. I've missed many shots when the camera couldn't focus on the player I wanted fast enough or chose someone else instead. And if I choose the AF point, I end up framing looser because I can't track and move the point at the same time. I'd love to see if eye AF can solve many of these issues.


----------



## entoman (Oct 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Real men want a massive engine in their car and more MP in their camera. Anyone who settles for a turbocharged V6 when there is an 8 L, 16 cylinder 1500 hp engine available, or anyone who settles for a 50 MP FF camera when there’s a 150 MP MF camera available, is a wuss.





neuroanatomist said:


> More horsepower is always better, so everyone wants a V8 engine in their car. Lol.


Right, there are some who will always claim that they “need” MF and 200MP, and there are always those who claim that can get an equally good large print from a 5 year old 8MP smartphone. The truth is that everyone has different needs and perceptions, and most of those who make such claims have never seen a side by side comparison of prints to back up such nonsense.

There are people who fall for the sales hype and buy cameras with specifications beyond their needs, and for Mr Average, a 24MP APS-C is almost always enough. But even angelisland admits that he shoots mostly with an R5 or a7Riv, despite his claims about 24Mp being enough for “excellent large prints”…

Sensible photographers will choose the camera with the specification that best meets their personal needs. I’ve used cameras ranging from 8-62MP, and as an ex-industrial photographer turned hobbyist, I’ve shot ultra high resolution 16x20” industrial and 8x10” field cameras, so I know when high resolution is needed, and when it is not needed.

As I stated above, “many wildlife photographers, especially bird photographers, like to have as many megapixels as we can get. It enables us to leave a safety margin space around fast moving subjects that are hard to track visually. It also lets us choose between horizontal and vertical crops from the same frame, and allows the image to be rotated for dynamic effect. Rotating a low resolution image will result in greater loss of detail, compared to rotating a high MP image.”

All of us have different needs.

To quote another of your posts “It’s funny that everyone thinks their opinions are universal.”


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 20, 2021)

The 'lucky few' who don't need a decent amount of megapixels that is...


----------



## SereneSpeed (Oct 20, 2021)

angelisland said:


> Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up. (It's landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.)
> ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.


I didn’t say you couldn’t do it.

All I said was; Your detail was limited by the resolution and if you’d had more resolution, the difference would be noticeable.

Congratulations on getting your art on the wall. I’d love to see some of your work, if you have any online and you don’t mind sharing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> The 'lucky few' who don't need a decent amount of megapixels that is...


There are, indeed, relatively few 1-series body owners. For a somewhat larger few, there is the R5. For the majority, there are 24-32 MP APS-C cameras. Did you have a point? I mean, other than trolling that is apparently your raison d'être.


----------



## juststeve (Oct 20, 2021)

I have an R3 on order, but the order was not placed until about 3 hours after it all started. Not likely to be in the first batch or even second batch of arrivals. I waffled about order the camera, liking virtually everything about it except the 24 MP. 

Well, get an R5, some of you say. Well, I have had one since they became available. I feel it is the best camera I have owned or used. Its ability to quickly and accurately focus and deliver 45 MP at 12 FPS is near perfect for my needs. Near perfect. 

I do not use the full electronic shutter because the slower readout rate has caused problems noticeable in prints. The faster R3 readout should be close to eliminating the problems.

Also, the faster readout speed of the R3 should improve focusing speed and accuracy, even over the R5. Handling appears as if it might be a bit better than with the R5. Again, for me, perhaps not everyone. Also, there is the hope eye control will work well. I still wear glasses and eye control did not work well for me on the EOS 3, my previous favorite camera of all time, but for several reasons I am hopeful it will on the R3.

So I am happy to have placed the order for the R3, but also happy not to be getting one in the early shipments. It will be nice to be able download some files, process them and see how well they stack up to R5 and 5Ds prints. The R3 price seems a bit steep, although I do believe stacked sensors are very expensive to make and yield is likely low compared to Canon's previous sensors, even R5 sensors. I would like to be sure of getting value for my money for my needs with the R3.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 20, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> All I said was; Your detail was limited by the resolution and if you’d had more resolution, the difference would be noticeable.


Noticeable at what viewing distance? I maintain that the optimum viewing distance of a piece of art is about equal to its diagonal measurement. If you are close enough for the increased resolution to be noticeable, you are no longer looking at a piece of art, you are looking at a small part of a piece of art. What's the point?

In addition to my 5D3, I own a 5Ds which I bought the day that Canon dropped the price by 65%. One of these days, I might do a blind test: different camera, same lens, same scene, asking people which print was made with which camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Noticeable at what viewing distance? I maintain that the optimum viewing distance of a piece of art is about equal to its diagonal measurement. If you are close enough for the increased resolution to be noticeable, you are no longer looking at a piece of art, you are looking at a small part of a piece of art. What's the point?


Depends on the art. This triptych by Hieronymus Bosch deserves closer study than the 4.3 m / 14' viewing distance that your diagonal measure guideline would suggest is optimum.



People viewing the painting at the Museo del Prado in Madrid tend to stand much closer than 4 m.



What I didn't know until I saw it in person is that because the triptych was designed to be closed, the backs of the side panels are also painted.


----------



## entoman (Oct 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends on the art. This triptych by Hieronymus Bosch deserves closer study than the 4.3 m / 14' viewing distance that your diagonal measure guideline would suggest is optimum.
> 
> People viewing the painting at the Museo del Prado in Madrid tend to stand much closer than 4 m.


Yes, most people stand back from a large print or painting to take in the overall artwork, but they very often then approach as closely as they can, to study the finer details. It’s a natural human behaviour to get close and seek out the details.

As an aside, I should add the caveat that in museums and galleries people also tend to approach artworks closely simply because there are other folk blocking their view...

The *optimum* viewing distance for a photograph varies according to the size of the print, the level of detail “expected” to be seen, the subject matter, and the angle of view and camera-to-subject distance chosen by the photographer. A wide-angle landscape for example is usually best appreciated from a very short viewing distance, which helps to recreate the immersive experience felt by the photographer surrounded by nature’s glory.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 20, 2021)

Yes it’s old tech but I use a Canon 5DS for portraits as well as an EOS R. Against the grain of thought here I use a Canon R6 for landscapes and along with the RF24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L I’ve been more than happy with prints out of my Canon A3 printer which is as large as I print. Unless your cropping heavily which I often do with portraits (it’s interesting how different shots can look cropped from the original) then quality of lenses is just as important as how many MP your packing In determining picture quality. 
The EF 85mm F1.4L on the R6 still looks amazing as it does on the 5DS.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 21, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> ...(it’s interesting how different shots can look cropped from the original)...


^^^This^^^ Someone might argue, "If you get the composition right at the start..." Well, sometimes that doesn't happen, and sometimes we spot the photo/composition within the photo and can crop. Cropping can cover a multitude of sins. It can also be a very powerful creative tool. Even just going from the 5D Mark III to the megapixels of the R has been a huge help to me.

*I don't do street photography, but I imagine a high megapixel camera could really be useful for that.


----------



## BuffaloBird (Oct 21, 2021)

I predominantly shoot wildlife (birds), and I'm absolutely passing on this due to the low MP.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 21, 2021)

BuffaloBird said:


> I predominantly shoot wildlife (birds), and I'm absolutely passing on this due to the low MP.


Lately I've been more into wildlife/birds and trying to learn landscape too, so I initially balked when the 24MP rumors started and I wrote this camera off. By announcement day I'd rethought my approach and I ordered an R3 despite the low MP. My R5 will still be for landscape, but the R3 can definitely add value to the wildlife toolkit (not to mention portraiture, my original photographic pursuit). On any given outing, one will be the primary and the other can fill in nicely.

I suspect the tracking will be a big improvement over the R5 in practice, and I'm curious to see what the eye control AF and new sensor can do. I certainly don't need it, but I've been a one-camera guy since I got my R5 and I want that second body back so it might as well be this one. I think the two cameras complement each other well, much the way the 5DIV & 7DII did - each had something unique to offer. I don't think I'd ever want two identical bodies.

With supply being what it is, I figure I can do an extended test period and sell it used at not much of a loss after 3-6 months if I don't like it. It took the R5/R6 almost a year to be fairly widely available in the US at least so should be a fairly easy sell should it come to that. Anyway, I guess I just wanted to put a different perspective out there.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Real men want a massive engine in their car and more MP in their camera. Anyone who settles for a turbocharged V6 when there is an 8 L, 16 cylinder 1500 hp engine available, or anyone who settles for a 50 MP FF camera when there’s a 150 MP MF camera available, is a wuss.


Or men need big weapons, engines, megapixels, to compensate for other things.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 21, 2021)

I have a 13” x 19” print hanging on the wall of the Grand Pacific Glacier in Alaska. It looks great from any distance. I took it with a 4MP Casio in 2002. I am at a loss to explain it. It is not just a solid sheet of ice. There is much detail, particularly in the face toward the bay.

This discussion does give me an additional reason to avoid buying a GFX 100S: I would need to factor in the cost of a bigger printer to take advantage of that resolution.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 22, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I have a 13” x 19” print hanging on the wall of the Grand Pacific Glacier in Alaska. It looks great from any distance. I took it with a 4MP Casio in 2002. I am at a loss to explain it. It is not just a solid sheet of ice. There is much detail, particularly in the face toward the bay.
> 
> This discussion does give me an additional reason to avoid buying a GFX 100S: I would need to factor in the cost of a bigger printer to take advantage of that resolution.


That's about 127 pixels per inch.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 22, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> That's about 127 pixels per inch.


Or a little less, counting cropping for the aspect ratio. On the other hand, there is a small margin. But that resolution doesn’t sound so awful considering the 20MP and 26MP files I normally print. I think the Epson software does a rather good job interpolating and in doling out the eight inks.


----------

