# Canon talks EOS R3, and confirms that it is not the flagship mirrorless



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 3, 2021)

> PhotoWebExpo has posted an interview with the Head of Product and Consumer Expertise at Canon Russia, while most of it is what you’d expect in a Canon interview, there are some good nuggets of information.
> The original interview is in Russian, so obviously I have used Google Translate here. Below are a few answers that are probably worth noting.
> Which type of photographers is the Canon EOS R3 intended for?
> Canon is aiming this camera at professionals and advanced amateurs. The Canon EOS R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 3, 2021)

damn i wanted a high mp portrait camera but this i could tell this is like a sports camera by the body. guess this is a baby prototype R1 before the real deal comes out.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 3, 2021)

That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.


----------



## amorse (May 3, 2021)

"Wildlife, sports, racing, and photojournalism" sound very much like the bread and butter for the 1DXIII, even if the R3 is not supposed to replace it.


----------



## amorse (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.


I can't imagine them forgoing the R mount entirely - I would have guessed that if they weren't able to utilize some of the new mount options, they'd just use the EF protocol and be done with it - I assumed that was what Rokinon was doing


----------



## bernie_king (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.


I'm sure they're working on it. It's just going to take some time. I'm hoping soon! They could've just released lenses that used the EF protocol with an RF mount and that would've worked. I'm glad they're working to do it right. It'll be worth the wait. In the mean time, their EF ART lenses work great (at least mine do) so if you need one pick one up used and enjoy it.


----------



## Billybob (May 3, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> damn i wanted a high mp portrait camera but this i could tell this is like a sports camera by the body. guess this is a baby prototype R1 before the real deal comes out.


I wouldn't draw that conclusion. If the R3 is slotted between the r5 and and 1DX, then the resolution is also likely to be between the two. Actually, I'm optimistic (wishful thinking, perhaps?) that it will be a Sony A1 killer matching the Sony's resolution--or at least 45MP--with better AF and handling in an integrated "professional" body. The integrated body being smaller than the 1DX body is, for me, one of the most attractive features. Note that the Sony is already targeting this same audience, so I don't see how Canon can introduce a camera that doesn't at least match the Sony feature for feature including resolution and video.

I'll let other's speculate on what the R1 will offer. Perhaps it's a global sensor and QPAF that aren't quite ready yet.

The good thing about it not being the flagship camera is that perhaps the R3 might undercut the Sony A1 in price (maybe $5995? again, probably wishful thinking).


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.



Canon never opened up the EF mount. Opening the RF mount to third parties would require Canon to invest in supporting third party manufacturers, and that would likely be a logistical hassle.

I think the decision for third parties is if they want to go all-in on the RF technologies like the control ring.


----------



## sulla (May 3, 2021)

amorse said:


> "Wildlife, sports, racing, and photojournalism" sound very much like the bread and butter for the 1DXIII, even if the R3 is not supposed to replace it.


true. So the EOS R3 ist for: surprise, surprise: EVERYONE.

(what other categories of photography are there that do not fit this designation??) LOL


----------



## DBounce (May 3, 2021)

Well they certainly shared the RF mount with Red. And this explains why Canon is allowed to use the higher compressed raw flavors in camera.


----------



## John Wilde (May 3, 2021)

Poor neglected M. It deserves better,


----------



## Berowne (May 3, 2021)

Berowne said:


> Quad-Pixel is what I would believe, high Megapixel not. The R3 looks more like a Sport-Camera.



As I said.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 3, 2021)

Berowne said:


> As I said.



I wonder if the R3 will remain dual-pixel (as stated by Canon marketing material) to give the R1 something of its own.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 3, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Well they certainly shared the RF mount with Red. And this explains why Canon is allowed to use the higher compressed raw flavors in camera.


Canon shared the EF mount with RED and Canon RAW Light has been around a long time.
(I was surprised to see that the first RED Cameras had PL and Nikon mounts)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 3, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Poor neglected M. It deserves better,


I do not think Canon wants to try a high-priced M camera so it is not going to invest a lot of money.
In that regard, I do not think Canon ever took the M cameras seriously.


----------



## David Hull (May 3, 2021)

"Wildlife, sports, racing, and *photojournalism*"

I wonder if this camera is motivated, to some extent by AP's moving to Sony a while back. Maybe to run well in that market, they need something that doesn't cost like a "1" series but is more suited to PJ?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 3, 2021)

"The Canon EOS R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III."

While I believe this is true in this case, they always say this tho, Just the usual marketing talk.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 3, 2021)

*"What’s the future of the EOS M system?*​Canon couldn’t comment on the future of the system, but in this interview, the EOS M system was called “well equipped”. I’m not sure many would agree with that, but what do I know?"

About what I expected from Canon. In my vision, the M will go on for a few more years with pretty boring minor body updates, maybe an extra prime or new version of a slow kit lens. Then will slowly fade away with fewer and fewer updates but probably will never be officially discontinued.


----------



## Del Paso (May 3, 2021)

sulla said:


> true. So the EOS R3 ist for: surprise, surprise: EVERYONE.
> 
> (what other categories of photography are there that do not fit this designation??) LOL


Quite a few.
Landscapes, portraits, macro, architecture etc...


----------



## Krispy (May 3, 2021)

Need a release date and specs!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> If the R3 is slotted between the r5 and and 1DX, then the resolution is also likely to be between the two. Actually, I'm optimistic (wishful thinking, perhaps?) that it will be a Sony A1 killer matching the Sony's resolution--or at least 45MP--with better AF and handling in an integrated "professional" body. The integrated body being smaller than the 1DX body is, for me, one of the most attractive features.


I'm hoping for at least the EOS R resolution or greater. I was fine with the 1D X size, but a little smaller is ok, too. I hope the RRS L-bracket for the R3 is modular.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 3, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon never opened up the EF mount. Opening the RF mount to third parties would require Canon to invest in supporting third party manufacturers, and that would likely be a logistical hassle.
> 
> I think the decision for third parties is if they want to go all-in on the RF technologies like the control ring.


Canon didnt officially open(License) but somehow in last few years Sigma lenses were detected by Canon DSLRs(instead of spoofing seen previously) and applied correct lens profiles. Other than Control ring which won't be present, IBIS and Lens stabilisation won't work together with these 3rd party lenses.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 3, 2021)

Also in the original interview the Canon representative says the R3 will be in the same segment as rival Nikon Z9 and Sony A1, that is, the top rival cameras.

That suggests that the future R1 will be even more superior.


----------



## unfocused (May 3, 2021)

Where does it say there will even be an R1? 

Granted it's a Google translate, but the interview promises nothing about an R1.



> ...the EOS-1D X Mark III, which we keep as the *flagship model of the entire line...*



Other than a "we cannot comment on the company's plans for the release of new cameras" I can't find anything that implies there is an R1 and certainly nothing that would indicate an R1 in the near term.


----------



## Billybob (May 3, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Also in the original interview the Canon representative says the R3 will be in the same segment as rival Nikon Z9 and Sony A1, that is, the top rival cameras.
> 
> That suggests that the future R1 will be even more superior.


Well that segment is 45-50MP, so that gives me hope for a high-MP camera. 

The R1? that camera may be 2 (or more) years away--available late 2022 at the earliest--, so I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 3, 2021)

Slightly off-topic, but Laowa is releasing a 33mm f/0.95 with RF-mount... _for APS-C cameras?...._









Laowa Argus 33mm f/0.95 CF APO - LAOWA Camera Lenses


Laowa Argus 33mm f/0.95 CF APO is a magnificent f/0.95 Standard lens for the Cropped Frame(APS-C) camera. Achieving the APO design, enjoy the clear images wi...




www.venuslens.net





Yeah, I know. Several (all?) R cameras offers a crop-mode. And I think there also are RF-mount video-cameras with very similar sized sensors (don't remember name of format). But could it still be a sign of something else? Or just my wishful thinking?


----------



## pape2 (May 3, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Quite a few.
> Landscapes, portraits, macro, architecture etc...


I would be supriced if it cant deliver world class landscapes ,portraits,macro ,arhitecture too 
Hehe sounds like racing isnt sport


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon never opened up the EF mount. Opening the RF mount to third parties would require Canon to invest in supporting third party manufacturers, and that would likely be a logistical hassle.
> 
> I think the decision for third parties is if they want to go all-in on the RF technologies like the control ring.


People keep wishing Canon would just give away the mount tech. I don't understand the thinking behind that. Why should Canon help a competitor? That's a little like expecting Ford to accommodate Chevy engines. Makes no sense to me. Someone will say it'll help Canon sell bodies, when the big bucks are made by Canon through multiple lens sales... Along with a body.


----------



## Franklyok (May 3, 2021)

BSI sensor? Feels like this time the sensor is coming out of Sony factory, as is with so many other brandas: nikon fuji panasonic and others. They are all “designed” by their own and manufactured by sony. Any conspiracy here?


----------



## h2so4 (May 3, 2021)

Canon makes a lot of money out of lens sales. I don't know if you saw their latest financial statement but currently revenue and profit are up due to sales of cameras and lenses, I can't see them opening up access to the RF mount for some time to come. If you want the RF mount your going to pay Canon to get it.


----------



## AJ (May 3, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Slightly off-topic, but Laowa is releasing a 33mm f/0.95 with RF-mount... _for APS-C cameras?...._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fascinating. An APSC lens, not for M, not for EF-S, but for RF. The plot thickens.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 3, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Quite a few.
> Landscapes, portraits, macro, architecture etc...


Because they are practically impossible with the current 1 series....


----------



## privatebydesign (May 3, 2021)

AJ said:


> Fascinating. An APSC lens, not for M, not for EF-S, but for RF. The plot thickens.


That's not a plot or fascinating, the C line RF cameras have S35 sensors...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

h2so4 said:


> Canon makes a lot of money out of lens sales. I don't know if you saw their latest financial statement but currently revenue and profit are up due to sales of cameras and lenses, I can't see them opening up access to the RF mount for some time to come. If you want the RF mount your going to pay Canon to get it.


As pointed out above, Canon never licensed the EF lens mount/protocols to 3rd party lens makers like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. No reason those manufacturers cannot reverse-engineer the RF mount as they've done for the EF mount. Samyang/Rokinon are already selling RF-mount lenses with autofocus, including a 14/2.8 and 85/1.4. So if you want the RF mount, you can already pay someone other than Canon to get it.


----------



## LensFungus (May 3, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Poor neglected M. It deserves better,


I agree. Time to flush my EF-M equipment down the toilet.  Rule, Britannia!


----------



## AEWest (May 3, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Where does it say there will even be an R1?
> 
> Granted it's a Google translate, but the interview promises nothing about an R1.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine them keeping an EF mount 1Dx3 as their flagship camera for much longer as it is clear they are transitioning fairly quickly to RF.

Of course the 1 series has always been their flagship camera, so I do see an R1 by the end of 2022 at the latest.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As pointed out above, Canon never licensed the EF lens mount/protocols to 3rd party lens makers like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. No reason those manufacturers cannot reverse-engineer the RF mount as they've done for the EF mount. Samyang/Rokinon are already selling RF-mount lenses with autofocus, including a 14/2.8 and 85/1.4. So if you want the RF mount, you can already pay someone other than Canon to get it.


Is that 100% true? I thought Zeiss got some lens registration numbers for the body to know what they are (though only for manual focus lenses), and Red licensed the EF mount on some of their cameras.

Not denying the general point you are making though, and I thought I'd read (though it was probably from the internet so questionable) that for regulatory reasons Canon couldn't release the EF lens protocols to non Japanese lens manufacturers even if they wanted to.


----------



## armd (May 3, 2021)

This is pointing to an intermediate number of pixels (30-45), improved video, and some gee-whiz technology (eye focus). I suspect that they need to afford the R1 some room with global shutter and other innovations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Is that 100% true? I thought Zeiss got some lens registration numbers for the body to know what they are (though only for manual focus lenses), and Red licensed the EF mount on some of their cameras.
> 
> Not denying the general point you are making though, and I thought I'd read (though it was probably from the internet so questionable) that for regulatory reasons Canon couldn't release the EF lens protocols to non Japanese lens manufacturers even if they wanted to.


You're correct (which is why I didn't list Zeiss or Red, and those are really niche manufacturers anyway, relative to the volume of lenses that Tamron/Sigma/Tokina move).


----------



## Pixel (May 3, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I can't imagine them keeping an EF mount 1Dx3 as their flagship camera for much longer as it is clear they are transitioning fairly quickly to RF.
> 
> Of course the 1 series has always been their flagship camera, so I do see an R1 by the end of 2022 at the latest.


Flagships have four year cycles so it would make sense that the R3 is not a flagship. 
In two years we’ll get a mirrorless R flagship: EOS-1R


----------



## melgross (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.


Nah. Canon is the biggest one out there. They just had an excellent quarterly report. I have no doubt they will surpass Sony’s mirrorless sales. No one can easily ignore the mount. They figured out the EOS DSLR mount, and they’ll figure this one out too.


----------



## rbr (May 3, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I'm sure they're working on it. It's just going to take some time. I'm hoping soon! They could've just released lenses that used the EF protocol with an RF mount and that would've worked. I'm glad they're working to do it right. It'll be worth the wait. In the mean time, their EF ART lenses work great (at least mine do) so if you need one pick one up used and enjoy it.


I love my Sigma ART lenses on the R5. I also like the fact that I can use the drop in polarizing filter adapter on all my EF mount lenses on the R5. I'm not in any hurry to replace them with RF mount lenses. But I do look at some the DG DN ART lenses that Sigma is releasing for Sony and wish that they were usable on Canon cameras.


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 3, 2021)

No resolution, no care. haha I impatiently await a final number on the resolution and actual specifications. I know what I need and things I want in my next camera upgrade. Video is surprisingly more important for me than ever, thanks to the R5/R6.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're correct (which is why I didn't list Zeiss or Red, and those are really niche manufacturers anyway, relative to the volume of lenses that Tamron/Sigma/Tokina move).


Do you know if the point about regulatory limitations about licensing EF AF protocols to non Japanese lens manufacturers is true too?


----------



## neurorx (May 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I wouldn't draw that conclusion. If the R3 is slotted between the r5 and and 1DX, then the resolution is also likely to be between the two. Actually, I'm optimistic (wishful thinking, perhaps?) that it will be a Sony A1 killer matching the Sony's resolution--or at least 45MP--with better AF and handling in an integrated "professional" body. The integrated body being smaller than the 1DX body is, for me, one of the most attractive features. Note that the Sony is already targeting this same audience, so I don't see how Canon can introduce a camera that doesn't at least match the Sony feature for feature including resolution and video.
> 
> I'll let other's speculate on what the R1 will offer. Perhaps it's a global sensor and QPAF that aren't quite ready yet.
> 
> The good thing about it not being the flagship camera is that perhaps the R3 might undercut the Sony A1 in price (maybe $5995? again, probably wishful thinking).


If it were similar to the R5 for stills, why would anyone want an R5 other than price?


----------



## neurorx (May 3, 2021)

I am hoping the R3 gives more low light capacity.


----------



## AEWest (May 3, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Flagships have four year cycles so it would make sense that the R3 is not a flagship.
> In two years we’ll get a mirrorless R flagship: EOS-1R


I believe that, because of the change in mount, they will accelerate the upgrade cycle this time and have the flagship ready in 2022.


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2021)

AJ said:


> Fascinating. An APSC lens, not for M, not for EF-S, but for RF. The plot thickens.


I doubt there is any plot here. Fully manual lenses just need a mechanical adapter to connect to any camera that fits in their BF range. You will see the same thing from Viltrox and others. For this kind of lens it makes the most sense to buy it with the shortest mount (on the lens side-typically Nikon F) and then use adapters so it will work on just about any camera, but some folks love "native" lenses, so the Chinese manufacturers will accommodate. If the lens was originally designed for mirrorless, then the variations make more sense since the BF distances are too close for adapters to be used. In any case, don't get your hopes up for an APS-c R.


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2021)

neurorx said:


> If it were similar to the R5 for stills, why would anyone want an R5 other than price?


Size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Do you know if the point about regulatory limitations about licensing EF AF protocols to non Japanese lens manufacturers is true too?


Sorry, no. First I've heard that one. It may be true, I've heard the argument that it's not in Canon's interest to license their AF protocols, but they could certainly do so in a fiscally logical way, i.e. charge 3rd parties for licensing (which may make it illogical for those 3rd parties to do so, because they'd have to pass those costs along to customers and that would narrow the cost gap).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe that, because of the change in mount, they will accelerate the upgrade cycle this time and have the flagship ready in 2022.


The EOS 1 was the first Canon professional body for EF lenses, it came out 2 years after they switched from FD to EF, and in that case there was no simple, optics-free adapter to allow use of the older lenses on the newer body.


----------



## peters (May 3, 2021)

sulla said:


> true. So the EOS R3 ist for: surprise, surprise: EVERYONE.
> 
> (what other categories of photography are there that do not fit this designation??) LOL


Everything where you need or want a higher resoluation or better Studio features.
Like Product photography (most bread and butter work there is I guess), landscape photograhy, wedding photography, portraits, Macro, Architecture... so pretty much most of the work...
All this will certainly be possible with the R3 no doubt (like it is possible with the 1DX), but if the resolution is lower than the R5, than I guess I will keep the R5 for most parts of my everyday work. Even if the R3 will be faster. Sports/Journalism is not everything ;-)


----------



## peters (May 3, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> People keep wishing Canon would just give away the mount tech. I don't understand the thinking behind that. Why should Canon help a competitor? That's a little like expecting Ford to accommodate Chevy engines. Makes no sense to me. Someone will say it'll help Canon sell bodies, when the big bucks are made by Canon through multiple lens sales... Along with a body.


Its certainly much better for the customers. 3rd party offered SO many great lenses, its what made the EF cameras so desirable. Many lenses never got a equivalent from Canon. 3rd party is great, competition is good for business in my opinion =) 
From Canons point of view I can totaly understand why they dont want this, but for customers its awesome =)


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2021)

No


Franklyok said:


> BSI sensor? Feels like this time the sensor is coming out of Sony factory, as is with so many other brandas: nikon fuji panasonic and others. They are all “designed” by their own and manufactured by sony. Any conspiracy here?


No conspiracy. Canon builds its own sensors.


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Flagships have four year cycles so it would make sense that the R3 is not a flagship.
> In two years we’ll get a mirrorless R flagship: EOS-1R


EF cycles have not much to do with RF.


----------



## peters (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As pointed out above, Canon never licensed the EF lens mount/protocols to 3rd party lens makers like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. No reason those manufacturers cannot reverse-engineer the RF mount as they've done for the EF mount. Samyang/Rokinon are already selling RF-mount lenses with autofocus, including a 14/2.8 and 85/1.4. So if you want the RF mount, you can already pay someone other than Canon to get it.


If Canon realy would want to stop this, they could maybe use some encryption on the AF communication. I guess it would be very easy to make reverse engineriing the new AF system as difficult as possible... I hope they dont do this though.


----------



## Dearl4 (May 3, 2021)

"Will Canon share the RF mount with other manufacturers?​It doesn’t look that way. Canon is likely to keep the mount a closed system, so the third parties will have to reverse engineer everything to make RF mount lenses to utilize the new technologies available in the RF mount."

Well if that's the case, I won't be investing in Canon's over-priced RF cameras or zoom lenses.
After testing both the C70 and FX3, I was far more impressed with what Sony has to offer anyway.


----------



## unfocused (May 3, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe that, because of the change in mount, they will accelerate the upgrade cycle this time and have the flagship ready in 2022.


Possibly. Or, they could compromise and release a flagship R1 in 2023, with development announcement in third quarter 2022.

My uninformed opinion:

With the R3 announcement Canon keeps emphasizing that the 1DxIII will remain the "flagship" camera. This may be simply a marketing strategy to keep 1DxIII sales from cratering, or it could be a recognition that the professional customer base for the 1D series is not itching to switch to mirrorless.

That's not to say that the enthusiast base, which probably accounts for more 1Dx sales than the professional base, doesn't want a mirrorless "pro" camera. That segment does and they will get it with the R3. But, with the R3 in the lineup, Canon may feel little urgency to release an R1 geared to the shrinking pool of professional users. Especially since the professional market is more conservative and was always going to be the last segment to move to mirrorless.

The R3 may become the camera of choice for the lucrative enthusiast market that wants the latest and greatest. It could also become a more affordable option for sports photographers and photojournalists who have to buy their own equipment (which is a lot higher percentage of the total market than it once was.) The R3 can also serve as a test bed for high end professional sports and Olympics photographers, allowing Canon to learn what works and doesn't work for these users. Canon could then concentrate on making the R1 a camera for this much smaller and shrinking base of professional users without feeling any urgency to rush the development -- especially since it's unlikely to be much of a profit generator for Canon. It could be a 2023 camera or it could be a 2024 camera, maintaining the traditional four year Olympic cycle.

It's also entirely possible that we are overestimating Canon's own knowledge of what they plan to do. We are in a new and perilous era for camera manufacturers. The market has been totally disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, making it extremely difficult to get a clear reading on where the market is headed. Even without the pandemic, the market was rapidly shifting and shrinking. One side effect of the pandemic that people don't think about is how it has limited the ability of manufacturers to field test equipment. If an R1 is in development, just where do people think it is being tested, given how many professional and college sporting events have been cancelled over the past year. The pandemic has impacted development cycles in ways that we may never know.


----------



## Tremotino (May 3, 2021)

Dearl4 said:


> "Will Canon share the RF mount with other manufacturers?​It doesn’t look that way. Canon is likely to keep the mount a closed system, so the third parties will have to reverse engineer everything to make RF mount lenses to utilize the new technologies available in the RF mount."
> 
> Well if that's the case, I won't be investing in Canon's over-priced RF cameras or zoom lenses.
> After testing both the C70 and FX3, I was far more impressed with what Sony has to offer anyway.


That's totally okay for me! Enjoy!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

peters said:


> Its certainly much better for the customers. 3rd party offered SO many great lenses, its what made the EF cameras so desirable. Many lenses never got a equivalent from Canon. 3rd party is great, competition is good for business in my opinion =)
> From Canons point of view I can totaly understand why they dont want this, but for customers its awesome =)


I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses (Schneider) and MP-E 65 (Venus, Mitakon), but again, Canon has versions.

The converse seems more true, for me at least – there's no 3rd party 600/4 for Canon, no 3rd party 11-24 or fisheye zoom, no TS-E Macro lenses.


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I wonder if the R3 will remain dual-pixel (as stated by Canon marketing material) to give the R1 something of its own.


That will probably depend on who makes the sensor.

Will it be: 
a) designed and manufactured entirely by Canon?
b) developed by Canon but manufactured by Sony?
c) upper substrate designed and manufactured by Canon, lower substrate by Sony?


----------



## Juppeck (May 3, 2021)

amorse said:


> I can't imagine them forgoing the R mount entirely - I would have guessed that if they weren't able to utilize some of the new mount options, they'd just use the EF protocol and be done with it - I assumed that was what Rokinon was doing


You forgot, that the IBIS requires a faster communication bus between lens and body. The EF protocol seems to be much slower and does not supports the commands who support IBIS.
Well, i am not interessting into RF lenses, but i would like to get some payable new lenses from sigma - like the new 105mm macro art or a stabilized 120-300 f/2.8 for my R or mybe an R5s, that i would like to see.


----------



## slclick (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses (Schneider) and MP-E 65 (Venus, Mitakon), but again, Canon has versions.
> 
> The converse seems more true, for me at least – there's no 3rd party 600/4 for Canon, no 3rd party 11-24 or fisheye zoom, no TS-E Macro lenses.


If Tammy makes an RF 150-600 G2 style I'd be all over it. I have seen numerous images with the EF adapted for birding on R5/6's and they are phenomenal.


----------



## Bahrd (May 3, 2021)

entoman said:


> That will probably depend on who makes the sensor.
> 
> Will it be:
> a) designed and manufactured entirely by Canon?
> ...


Why Sony? If anyone, Samsung is more than capable, I think.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2021)

slclick said:


> If Tammy makes an RF 150-600 G2 style I'd be all over it. I have seen numerous images with the EF adapted for birding on R5/6's and they are phenomenal.


Agree that a 150-600 is technically different, but really it's pretty close to the 100-500 – especially that resolution testing puts the Sigma @ 600mm on the same footing as the Canon at 500mm or the Canon + 1.4x TC at 700mm.

I still have the impression that the main 'difference' offered by Sigma/Tamron/Tokina is that they're cheaper than the Canon equivalents (and usually giving up something in the IQ arena for that cost reduction). But I'm open to alternative viewpoints. And certainly, cheaper is a significant advantage for many people.


----------



## miketcool (May 3, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Why Sony? If anyone, Samsung is more than capable, I think.


I think this is a non-issue. There is a semi-conductor shortage at the moment. There are a lot of new manufacturing strategies being implemented. Developed means it was designed and engineered by Canon’s extraordinary team. Who cares who they pick to make it. No one cries when they find out Samsung and LG are making displays for Apple.


----------



## amorse (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses (Schneider) and MP-E 65 (Venus, Mitakon), but again, Canon has versions.
> 
> The converse seems more true, for me at least – there's no 3rd party 600/4 for Canon, no 3rd party 11-24 or fisheye zoom, no TS-E Macro lenses.


I'm not usually one to dive into 3rd party lenses, but there have been a hand full of interest to me over the years that don't have a direct comparable on EF or RF. The one that stands out most for me right now would be the Sigma 14mm f/1.8. I've been using a Rokinon f/2.8 for years (my only third party lens) for landscape astrophotography and it leaves a bit to be desired. The Sigma isn't perfect, but it's the fastest you'll find at that focal length. Another one I find interesting is the Laowa 24mm macro probe lens - a specialty lens if I've ever seen one. I would never expect a comparable to be released by Canon, but it would be a fun toy for some really unique perspectives using the waterproof probe with a light built in.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 3, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Possibly. Or, they could compromise and release a flagship R1 in 2023, with development announcement in third quarter 2022.
> 
> My uninformed opinion:
> 
> ...


I like your thinking on this - and couldn't agree more. Well said.


----------



## Pixel (May 3, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> EF cycles have not much to do with RF.


It doesn't have anything to do with EF vs RF. This is decades of precedent. They've made it clear that the R3 is not the flagship and they've said the flagship is not soon around the corner either, so it makes sense that we have about two more years to go.


----------



## Pixel (May 3, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I like your thinking on this - and couldn't agree more. Well said


All you have to do is look at the litany of EF lenses that have been recently discontinued to know that EF is dead and the next flagship will be mirrorless.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 3, 2021)

Pixel said:


> All you have to do is look at the litany of EF lenses that have been recently discontinued to know that EF is dead and the next flagship will be mirrorless.


Don't disagree with you - but saying I agree with Unfocussed's thoughts on Canon's potential development routes.


----------



## canonmike (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.


Thinking about this 3rd party Mfg dilemma, I guess their embracing RF mount depends on how good their engineers are and just how capable they are in reverse engineering the RF mount.


----------



## dwarven (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.



I wonder what their current production capacity is. If they're already operating at full capacity then we most likely won't see Sigma/Tamron lenses for awhile, yeah. Still, I'm sure they have a small team working on the communications protocols just in case.


----------



## degos (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents?



120-300 f/2.8
45 or 50 f/1.8 stabilised
35-150 
And basically anything wide and with low coma

Canon's approach is to compete cross-platform with Nikon and Sony and not to acknowledge or compete with other lens brands on their own platform.


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2021)

Pixel said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with EF vs RF. This is decades of precedent. They've made it clear that the R3 is not the flagship and they've said the flagship is not soon around the corner either, so it makes sense that we have about two more years to go.


If it is two more years, it still has nothing to do with the EF past. Nothing.


----------



## Jethro (May 3, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If it is two more years, it still has nothing to do with the EF past. Nothing.


I think it will have more to do with the timing of the R3 shipping. Assuming that is (early to mid) 2022, they would want some clean air before the R1, to encourage early adopters to buy the R3 and not sit on their hands to see what the full R1 specs were etc. So, maybe announcement / specs for the R1 late 2022, release some time in 2023. As has been pointed out, there is no immediate need to replace the 1Dxiii.


----------



## slclick (May 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree that a 150-600 is technically different, but really it's pretty close to the 100-500 – especially that resolution testing puts the Sigma @ 600mm on the same footing as the Canon at 500mm or the Canon + 1.4x TC at 700mm.
> 
> I still have the impression that the main 'difference' offered by Sigma/Tamron/Tokina is that they're cheaper than the Canon equivalents (and usually giving up something in the IQ arena for that cost reduction). But I'm open to alternative viewpoints. And certainly, cheaper is a significant advantage for many people.


I agree with you and I usually have stuck with L glass (pay once) but I have felt the G2 was one of the few lenses by a 3rd party, along with the Sigma 24-35 Art which could have a red ring. It is a tremendous value and occasionally on sale to boot. I suspect once Sigma and Tamron get into the RF game (which they will without a doubt) that the EF 3rd party lenses will see a price drop. Everyone wins!.


----------



## AEWest (May 3, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Thinking about this 3rd party Mfg dilemma, I guess their embracing RF mount depends on how good their engineers are and just how capable they are in reverse engineering the RF mount.


It would be great if Canon licensed lower margin consumer level lenses to third parties, just to fill up the lens lineup at that end of the market. That would provide a gateway into the RF system at a more reasonable price than is currently the case.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 3, 2021)

This video made me think that 30 FPS RAW photos with an unlimited buffer may be a loophole to RED's RAW video patents.
The funny thing is that Canon is the one company with hybrid cameras with internal RAW already.








The Canon R3 Has the Potential to Transform Photography


What can be done in photo and video appears to be converging.




petapixel.com


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> It would be great if Canon licensed lower margin consumer level lenses to third parties,


I am not sure that would be practical.
Sigma would not want to agree to that since such a license would prevent them from making high-end RF lenses.
That would give the cheap brands a big advantage.
Canon also wants to sell lenses as much as they want to sell cameras.
They have no incentive to create cheap competition.


----------



## sdz (May 4, 2021)

Even though the R3 promises a lot but remains vaporware, Canon has told us that it can make a camera that bests the R3! I wonder what that would be?

Of course, Canon might make cameras for specific market segments. But, what little we know about the R3 indicates that it will occupy the market the 1-series cameras took as its home. I suspect the next 1-series offering will be a Wunderkamera.


----------



## reef58 (May 4, 2021)

Dearl4 said:


> "Will Canon share the RF mount with other manufacturers?​It doesn’t look that way. Canon is likely to keep the mount a closed system, so the third parties will have to reverse engineer everything to make RF mount lenses to utilize the new technologies available in the RF mount."
> 
> Well if that's the case, I won't be investing in Canon's over-priced RF cameras or zoom lenses.
> After testing both the C70 and FX3, I was far more impressed with what Sony has to offer anyway.


If the FX3 was far more impressive why would you care if the RF was opened source?


----------



## peters (May 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses (Schneider) and MP-E 65 (Venus, Mitakon), but again, Canon has versions.
> 
> The converse seems more true, for me at least – there's no 3rd party 600/4 for Canon, no 3rd party 11-24 or fisheye zoom, no TS-E Macro lenses.


Hm, okay, maybe not many lenses, but certainly quite some some. 

Until recently Canon got no 50mm that was as good as the Sigma 50mm Art. The 1,2L was noteable less sharp and slower.
I think there was no wide angle with IS and f 2,8 like the Tamron 15-30 f2,8 VC which I used a lot for a lot of beautiful, handheld shots in low light.
Laowa got lots of unique lenses. The 24mm macro Probe is certainly VERY unique. Also they got the insane 15mm Macro (unique look) and some nice 2X Macros (Canons Macro was only 1X I think?). The Zero Distortion 12mm also got a lot of good feedback, a light and sharp Super Wide lense.
Tamron got the first 35mm IS lense I think. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600 was also very popular, I am not sure if Canon got a comparable lense?
Cinema lenses is another world, I guess there are plenty lenses to be found. Also vintage lenses which are adaptable are very unique. 
These are not all "irreplaceable", there are at least similar options from canon. But its a nice addition. Laowa certainly is unique.

And whats also very important for the market are the affordable lenses. You are correct, Canon offers everything a photographer actualy needs (especialy high end lenses like the 600 f4 you mentioned) - but the competition certainly produced some very good and affordable lenses. The Sigma Art Series for example even beat some high end L lenses in image Quality (50mm, 24-104 at the time, 105mm and 135mm come to mind which are all extremely sharp) AND untercut the price by 50% or more at the same time. Same goes for Tamron G2 Series, Thats a very welcoming set of options. 

I think a bigger market and more options/competition is always good for the customer =)


----------



## dirtyvu (May 4, 2021)

peters said:


> Hm, okay, maybe not many lenses, but certainly quite some some.
> 
> I think there was no wide angle with IS and f 2,8 like the Tamron 15-30 f2,8 VC which I used a lot for a lot of beautiful, handheld shots in low light.
> 
> ...



Agree that more third party options would be great. 

However, the Tamron 15-30 2.8 (which I own) is great FOR ITS PRICE. But it doesn't match up against the 15-35 2.8 RF lens (I rented it to see what it was like). This 15-35 produces much nicer pics and it has that image stabilization in it too.

And some of your other lenses have RF equivalents. Again, it would be nice to have cheaper options available than just Canon's RF lenses. But a lot of times, you get what you pay for in terms of lens quality.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 4, 2021)

entoman said:


> That will probably depend on who makes the sensor.
> 
> Will it be:
> a) designed and manufactured entirely by Canon?
> ...



Canon never used a Sony sensor in a Canon interchangeable camera. Why they would start now? They are pretty competent making their own sensors. The R5 sensor is up there with the best.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 4, 2021)

As long as the R3 is not another low res 20MP'ish sensor, I don't care how they label it. Keep it at around 50MP max, give it more advanced video features than the R5, bigger body should eliminate heat issues, QPAF, 1/250s sensor scan speed, dual CFE, 2x the AF processing speed of the R5, even more sealing and with the eye controlled AF, it's basically as good as it gets. Even if the R1 had global shutter, I don't find that much of an upgrade over stacked sensor, so hard to see what they would do to move it much higher up the food chain than the R3. Maybe it'll get 40fps.
I'm hoping the R3 comes in at around $5K, where the APS-H 1 series used to sit.
Big mistake not to liocense the RF mount to third party, why not get paid to use the mount and allow the thrid parties to flesh out the eco-system. Sony is killing for third party support. The fact we'll probably never see Voigtlander APO lenses on RF is majorly disappointing not to mention much more affordable Sigma Art and Sport lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 4, 2021)

peters said:


> I think a bigger market and more options/competition is always good for the customer =)


Certainly true for consumers but what is the benefit to Canon to open their RF mount specs? 
I would love to see some small/light primes/pancakes. A couple of great wide aperture astrolandscape lenses would also be fantastic as they don't exist in Canon's EF catalogue

Sony opened up their mount because there were limited lenses available at the beginning except adapted Canon lenses. If Sony had closed it then their system would have died IMHO. Canon (inadvertently) enabled Sony's success as a competitor in FF


----------



## jam05 (May 4, 2021)

This is getting the same hype as would a 1Dx3 at the same time prior to an Olympics


----------



## unfocused (May 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? ...


Here are a few that come to mind:

Sigma contemporary 150-600 zoom
Sigma sports 150-600 zoom
Tamron 150-600 zoom
Sigma sport 120-300 f2.8 zoom
Tokina 11-20 f2.8 zoom (APS-C)
Sigma art 105 f1.4

There are others, but these are just the ones I could come up off the top of my head. Great, of course, is a purely subjective term that depends on a combination of quality, versatility, price and other factors.

But, more to the point, I don't really get the discussion of Canon sharing their mount with others. Third party manufacturers has never had any problem reverse engineering the EF mount and I'm sure they are more than capable of doing the same with the RF mount.


----------



## Ditboy (May 4, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> *"What’s the future of the EOS M system?*​Canon couldn’t comment on the future of the system, but in this interview, the EOS M system was called “well equipped”. I’m not sure many would agree with that, but what do I know?"
> 
> About what I expected from Canon. In my vision, the M will go on for a few more years with pretty boring minor body updates, maybe an extra prime or new version of a slow kit lens. Then will slowly fade away with fewer and fewer updates but probably will never be officially discontinued.


Why I switched to Fujifilm.


----------



## AEWest (May 4, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> As long as the R3 is not another low res 20MP'ish sensor, I don't care how they label it. Keep it at around 50MP max, give it more advanced video features than the R5, bigger body should eliminate heat issues, QPAF, 1/250s sensor scan speed, dual CFE, 2x the AF processing speed of the R5, even more sealing and with the eye controlled AF, it's basically as good as it gets. Even if the R1 had global shutter, I don't find that much of an upgrade over stacked sensor, so hard to see what they would do to move it much higher up the food chain than the R3. Maybe it'll get 40fps.
> I'm hoping the R3 comes in at around $5K, where the APS-H 1 series used to sit.
> Big mistake not to liocense the RF mount to third party, why not get paid to use the mount and allow the thrid parties to flesh out the eco-system. Sony is killing for third party support. The fact we'll probably never see Voigtlander APO lenses on RF is majorly disappointing not to mention much more affordable Sigma Art and Sport lenses.


I suspect that the R1 will be a studio monster with at least 100mp and global shutter to sync flash at any speed.


----------



## pape2 (May 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I suspect that the R1 will be a studio monster with at least 100mp and global shutter to sync flash at any speed.


Studio monsters are no more needed ,there are high resolution tricks.
They will work perfectly with big studio tripods what ever trick they are.


----------



## Diltiazem (May 4, 2021)

More and more I get the feeling that the resolution will be less than R5. Probably will be similar to R/5DIV. I think the majority will be happy with this resolution. This will be Canon's best action camera so far and the video will be better than R5 without overheating issues.


----------



## Bahrd (May 4, 2021)

miketcool said:


> I think this is a non-issue. There is a semi-conductor shortage at the moment. There are a lot of new manufacturing strategies being implemented. Developed means it was designed and engineered by Canon’s extraordinary team. Who cares who they pick to make it. No one cries when they find out Samsung and LG are making displays for Apple.


I agree, however, was rather thinking what incentives would it be for Sony?


----------



## Cyborx (May 4, 2021)

Pretty sure the price will be Flagship, as we know from Canon. 
But; the good news is, with the R5 and R6 Canon has built a camera that delivers actually SHARP pictures. And thats a first.


----------



## Chig (May 4, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Pretty sure the price will be Flagship, as we know from Canon.
> But; the good news is, with the R5 and R6 Canon has built a camera that delivers actually SHARP pictures. And thats a first.


All modern cameras deliver sharp pictures even smartphones , if your pictures aren't sharp you're doing something wrong


----------



## Isaacheus (May 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses (Schneider) and MP-E 65 (Venus, Mitakon), but again, Canon has versions.
> 
> The converse seems more true, for me at least – there's no 3rd party 600/4 for Canon, no 3rd party 11-24 or fisheye zoom, no TS-E Macro lenses.


I found Sigma great at filling in the fast wide lenses in ef myself, the 14mm 1.8 and 20mm 1.4 in particular, with the 18-35mm 1.8 being unique also. 

Otherwise Sigma/Tamron etc do allow for some cheaper/lighter options over the first party offerings, which doesn't hurt overall appeal of a system


----------



## miketcool (May 4, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I agree, however, was rather thinking what incentives would it be for Sony?


Monetary. They get paid to make them.


----------



## Bahrd (May 4, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Monetary. They get paid to make them.


As you said there is a "chip shortage" - and car and phone manufacturers are a more significant part of the clientele. 
We will see (or not) soon anyway...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (May 4, 2021)

If this is not the flagship camera, I hope it will also have a bon-flagship price. Something around 5000 Euros and not 7200 Euros like the 1D X. I hope the EU will force Canon to open up the mount for others. Otherwise it is anti-competitive beheviour. Maybe we should al send some emails to the right recipients in Brussels.

Sigma EF lenses have a big advantage though. For around 100 Euros you can change them to a different mount. I am not sure of that will be possible with RF lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 4, 2021)

Chig said:


> All modern cameras deliver sharp pictures even smartphones


A lot of that sharpness is artificial, especially with smartphones.
Modern cameras and lenses do help, but it still takes skill to capture sharp images before artificial sharpening.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 4, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Something around 5000 Euros and not 7200 Euros like the 1D X. I hope the EU will force Canon to open up the mount for others. Otherwise it is anti-competitive beheviour.



It is not anti-competitive at all.
No one has the obligation to share technology and anyone can read the patents.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 4, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Quite a few.
> Landscapes, portraits, macro, architecture etc...


basically anything that benefit from lots of detail which makes me think the MP would be lower than an A1 but who knows with tech advancement.


----------



## TravelerNick (May 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses



It's not just about great it's about choice. There are niche lenses that a large company like Canon is never going to bother with. But the third party companies can spread those niche lenses over multiple mounts


----------



## 12Broncos (May 4, 2021)

I'm not concerned that it isn't the flagship. I'm just excited it's coming!


----------



## Skux (May 4, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> "The Canon EOS R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III."
> 
> While I believe this is true in this case, they always say this tho, Just the usual marketing talk.


Yup. This is the R1 in all but name, they just don't want to call it that for a few reasons:

- they don't want to make 1DX owners feel bad about their year-old camera already being made obsolete

- they feel the 'real' R1 isn't ready and want to make a splash when they finally get quad pixel autofocus (or whatever feature they have planned) ready

- they want to avoid direct comparisons against the Sony A9, whether on price or features

Look at the form factor. There's no way Canon is going to have both an R1 and R3 exist alongside each other. Once Canon finally feels like they can make a good enough camera called the R1, they'll quietly forget about the R3, just like they did with the EOS R.


----------



## Ph0t0 (May 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious – what great 3rd party lenses are there for which there are no Canon equivalents? The optically stellar manual focus Zeiss lenses come to mind (although there are Canon L-series equivalents, just slightly less optically impressive and much cheaper). There are a handful of 3rd party options for lenses like the TS-E lenses (Schneider) and MP-E 65 (Venus, Mitakon), but again, Canon has versions.
> 
> The converse seems more true, for me at least – there's no 3rd party 600/4 for Canon, no 3rd party 11-24 or fisheye zoom, no TS-E Macro lenses.


Well Sigma 14mm 1.8 and sigma 20mm 1.4 both helped me make some nice shots in low light situations. And I don't really know what the Canon equivalent is for these lenses.

I also used Sigma 20-35 f2.0 for a couple of low light reportages.

I don't own a 120-300mm 2.8 but I can imagine a couple of scenarios where that lens would be usefull.

And then there are a bunch of lenses that have a Canon equivalents or something in similar focal range, but are cheaper and do the job just as well. Sigma 40mm 1.4 is one of those lenses that I use a lot. It is really sharp and I actually sold my 35mm and 50mm to use the 40mm insteead.

And then the Sigma... 135mm 1.8 
Sure Canon has an old 135mm 2.0 model, but it is a bit outdated and too soft for my taste.


Since mirorless cameras have a different AF system I think that makes fast aperture lenses (where focus accuracy is critical) much easier to use. And therefore maybe gives companises even more incentive to produce some niche fast aperture third party lenses.
Heck, I even find I use my 24mm TS-E more just because now I also habe the option to zoom in preview the focus in the viewfinder while shooting handheld.


----------



## Billybob (May 4, 2021)

neurorx said:


> If it were similar to the R5 for stills, why would anyone want an R5 other than price?


Well, Canon has already stated that the R3 is slotted between the R5 and 1DX, so I'm expecting it to be better than the R5 for stills in every way. My only question is whether it will match or exceed the R5's resolution. While I think that it will be at least 45MP (see my previous posts), there's not enough information available yet to be certain of that conjecture.

To address your question, the R3 will differ from the R5 in price and form factor. I'm hoping that it will come in under $6000, but I would not be surprised if it matched the Sony A1's $6500 price.


----------



## GoldWing (May 4, 2021)

amorse said:


> "Wildlife, sports, racing, and photojournalism" sound very much like the bread and butter for the 1DXIII, even if the R3 is not supposed to replace it.


Just more bait and switch from Canon. The R1 will decide if Canon makes a HUGE amount of money transitioning over their professional base. It represents many billions of dollars if they get it right.


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is not anti-competitive at all.
> No one has the obligation to share technology and anyone can read the patents.


I always saw it as "competitive" behavior. How these people view it as anti-competitive is a mystery to me. Let Canon develop the tech/mount, and then give it away to competitors who'll cut Canon off at the knees? Weird.


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Just more bait and switch from Canon. The R1 will decide if Canon makes a HUGE amount of money transitioning over their professional base. It represents many billions of dollars if they get it right.


I don't believe the "professional base" is worth as much as one might think. This is an industry in steep decline... especially the sports photographer and photojournalism base. The wedding and portrait photographers don't have much call for an R1. That's a much bigger "base", though also in decline.


----------



## pape2 (May 4, 2021)

Dunno wedding getting pretty rough


----------



## AlanF (May 4, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I always saw it as "competitive" behavior. How these people view it as anti-competitive is a mystery to me. Let Canon develop the tech/mount, and then give it away to competitors who'll cut Canon off at the knees? Weird.


Patent law allows you to patent a mount for your camera but you are not allowed to patent accessories that fit on to that mount. And that is to prevent a monopoly situation. Similarly, US and other intellectual property law allows reverse engineering of coding protocols if it enables third party devices to work better. It might stop Canon making even more profit but the law is there to protect us the consumer .


----------



## AquaVideo (May 4, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Well they certainly shared the RF mount with Red. And this explains why Canon is allowed to use the higher compressed raw flavors in camera.


Long time Reduser, first time poster: I don't think its true that Canon shared (do you have some evidence?) Red's just gotten some RF lens control capability in BETA fairly recently - probably just reverse engineered. Also, thought I read somewhere that although they won the patent suit with apple on compressed raw it may be somehow limited to 4K and below so cameras above 4K aren't subject. .R3D has been a big part of Red's success but in fairness I've never been convinced that compression of it was patentable. Compression of large files - particularly of media files, has been widespread and either open or licensable for free for at least 30 years - so the idea and execution (.r3d is a flavor of wavelet (JPEG2000?) compression) so fairly obvious and obvious extensions of existing technologies are not supposed to be patentable. Patents like that come down to patent lawyer language, someone's willing to contest, and the USPTO's ability to understand the technology.

This is just stuff they I have vague knowledge of and not heavily researched so take it all with a grain of salt.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2021)

peters said:


> Hm, okay, maybe not many lenses, but certainly quite some some.
> 
> Until recently Canon got no 50mm that was as good as the Sigma 50mm Art. The 1,2L was noteable less sharp and slower.
> I think there was no wide angle with IS and f 2,8 like the Tamron 15-30 f2,8 VC which I used a lot for a lot of beautiful, handheld shots in low light.
> ...



Thanks, agree that some Laowa offerings are unique. Regarding the 2x macro, Canon has had the MP-E 65 for decades, that's a 1x-5x macro. I forgot about the 12/2.8.



unfocused said:


> Here are a few that come to mind:
> 
> Sigma contemporary 150-600 zoom
> Sigma sports 150-600 zoom
> ...



I had certainly considered the 150-600mm zooms from Sigma/Tamron, but IMO those don't really count – Canon's 100-400mm II and more so the RF 100-500 offer much better IQ, sufficiently better that either cropping to the 600mm framing (where the 150-600 lenses are weakest) yields similar or better IQ, and adding a 1.4x TC to a Canon 100-400/500 yields a longer lens with similar IQ. The Sigma/Tamron are actually pretty good at the short end, but I doubt anyone is buying a 150-600mm lens to use it in the 150-300mm range. 

On balance, while there are a handful of unique offerings, on balance I think the main advantage the 3rd party lenses deliver is lower cost, which as I stated is certainly a meaningful advantage.


----------



## peters (May 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I had certainly considered the 150-600mm zooms from Sigma/Tamron, but IMO those don't really count – Canon's 100-400mm II and more so the RF 100-500 offer much better IQ, sufficiently better that either cropping to the 600mm framing (where the 150-600 lenses are weakest) yields similar or better IQ, and adding a 1.4x TC to a Canon 100-400/500 yields a longer lens with similar IQ. The Sigma/Tamron are actually pretty good at the short end, but I doubt anyone is buying a 150-600mm lens to use it in the 150-300mm range.
> 
> On balance, while there are a handful of unique offerings, on balance I think the main advantage the 3rd party lenses deliver is lower cost, which as I stated is certainly a meaningful advantage.


Ha, I totaly agree on the 100-400! 
I had the 150-600 Tamron, but now I have the 100-400 Canon. The Image Quality is indeed a bit better, even If cropped in to match the 600mm framing. Given the much lower weight and size, its indeed the better lense for me.
I am curious about the 150-600 Sigma Sports lense- this looks pretty impressive build. But I guess its still not worth the weight over the 100-400 or ne new RF 100-500 which also looks interesting. 
I agree with you on the quality aspect =)


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because they are practically impossible with the current 1 series....
> View attachment 197399
> 
> View attachment 197398
> ...


Great shots  Let’s not forget the “My gear will make me a better photographer “ crowd.


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2021)

slclick said:


> If Tammy makes an RF 150-600 G2 style I'd be all over it. I have seen numerous images with the EF adapted for birding on R5/6's and they are phenomenal.


I’ve been thinking the same. I have a love/hate relationship with Tamron. Under really bright conditions, my Tamron 45mm is a POS. Other than that, it’s a really nice lens. Also used to have Tamron’s 15-30. Another nice lens.

I’ve recently moved to a tiny town in the Arkansas Ozarks. I’m very tempted to get into birding again. While I’d love a great white, a good zoom would be more practical for me, and far less money.


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Patent law allows you to patent a mount for your camera but you are not allowed to patent accessories that fit on to that mount. And that is to prevent a monopoly situation. Similarly, US and other intellectual property law allows reverse engineering of coding protocols if it enables third party devices to work better. It might stop Canon making even more profit but the law is there to protect us the consumer .


I understand that. What I don’t get is people demanding Canon help the competition.


----------



## snapshot (May 4, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I understand that. What I don’t get is people demanding Canon help the competition.


demand is a strong word. and helping the competition is never what somebody wants to do. on the otherhand, building a community of partnerships might create a larger market for your stuff. there is value in having the ability to accessorize and build a system using components within an active community of suppliers. and i am ok with folks choosing components based upon interoperability and adherence to formal and informal standards.


----------



## GoldWing (May 4, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't believe the "professional base" is worth as much as one might think. This is an industry in steep decline... especially the sports photographer and photojournalism base. The wedding and portrait photographers don't have much call for an R1. That's a much bigger "base", though also in decline.


Canon still owns the space, it's theirs to lose. 

If the R1 can't best the A1 or even their own R5 the Agencies, Leagues, Teams, Magazines, TV Networks, Digital Media, Colleges and every photographer is not transitioning away fron every 1DXMKIII, II and I out there.

Thats a BIG built-in Canon base to start with even before SONY, Nikon shooters decide to switch to Canon.

I generally will start with two new bodies and get a third for a kit and glass optimized for same. 

If each photographer and their associated entity does the same.... Like I said..... Canon will make billions. It's Canon's game, field and ball. Why would they not enjoy the money? Relative to today's matket... It will be "dominence" and that is what Canon wants to maintain as the leader in global sports photography.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 4, 2021)

snapshot said:


> demand is a strong word. and helping the competition is never what somebody wants to do. on the otherhand, building a community of partnerships might create a larger market for your stuff. there is value in having the ability to accessorize and build a system using components within an active community of suppliers. and i am ok with folks choosing components based upon interoperability and adherence to formal and informal standards.


Canon does partner with companies for accessories.
8K RAW to the Ninja V+ is an example of that.
Lenses are quite different.
That would be like Bic licensing razor blades or pen refills or Keurig licensing out coffee pods.
If you take a look at lenses then I believe you will see that lens makers mostly put out lower-cost versions of the best-selling lenses.
That makes it harder for Canon to sell lenses.
While I do agree with your point that affordable third-party lenses help boost the system which adds value to Canon cameras and the lineup, I do not see that as a strong incentive for Canon to help them.

PS: If Sigma adapts their entire mirrorless line to E-mount and RF-mount then the L-mount is properly screwed save for Leica.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 4, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't believe the "professional base" is worth as much as one might think.


Who do you think buys most of the $15K+ lenses?
There might not be very many but they spend a lot of money.
The same goes for the cinema line.
Canon mostly sells C100, C200, and C70 but most people use photo lenses with those.
The C300 and up crowd buy the expensive cinema lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If this is not the flagship camera, I hope it will also have a bon-flagship price. Something around 5000 Euros and not 7200 Euros like the 1D X. I hope the EU will force Canon to open up the mount for others. Otherwise it is anti-competitive beheviour. Maybe we should al send some emails to the right recipients in Brussels.
> 
> Sigma EF lenses have a big advantage though. For around 100 Euros you can change them to a different mount. I am not sure of that will be possible with RF lenses.


Maybe anti-competitive but no one has forced Canon to open their RF protocols in the past. There is a difference between physical mount and their proprietary electrical communication. One could argue that there is nothing to stop 3rd parties making RF mount compatible lenses and manual lenses currently do exist. Reverse engineered EF protocols also exist in the marketplace and can be used on RF mount ie they work but wouldn't be the latest AF speed and IS/IBIS capabilities.

There has been examples in the past of OEMs being forced to open up their protocols/APIs to 3rd parties eg pritner cartridges and PC browsers. These are mass market consumer products and HP/Microsoft etc actively stopped 3rd parties which caused the anti-competitive legal challenges which is not the case for Canon. It could also be argued that the RF system is not a consumer product space due to cost and limited volume.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 5, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> There has been examples in the past of OEMs being forced to open up their protocols/APIs to 3rd parties eg Printer cartridges


That is not what happened.
Printer companies were suing third-party cartridge makers for patent violations and lost.
The third-party cartridges were reverse-engineered just like RF lenses will be.

PS: The same thing happened with Keurig cups


----------



## BakaBokeh (May 5, 2021)

Hmm. Never really thought about that. There is a 2-way communication protocol between lens and camera body with the RF lens mount. So unless there's a way to provide firmware updates to camera bodies about third party lenses or at least a way to manually enter third party lens information, they would not be able to leverage those proprietary RF features. It's not just the control ring, there's IBIS and AF as well. Now I see why we haven't really had full fledged RF mount lenses from third parties yet.


----------



## Pixel (May 5, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If it is two more years, it still has nothing to do with the EF past. Nothing.


Any "FanBoy" should know that Canon flagships have four year cycles and there can't be two flagships at once. So I'm betting the farm on a 2023 release.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That is not what happened.
> Printer companies were suing third-party cartridge makers for patent violations and lost.
> The third-party cartridges were reverse-engineered just like RF lenses will be.
> 
> PS: The same thing happened with Keurig cups


In 2016, HP issued an optional firmware update to allow 3rd party ink from their "_dynamic security feature_". Yes, they were reverse engineered but HP updated their firmware to reject 3rd party cartridges and refilled HP cartridges. There wasn't an anti-competitor lawsuit but HP were clever enough to retract their stance. A lot of consumers would have voted with their feet to buy alternative printers if they didn't.
https://arstechnica.com/information...op-sabotaging-non-hp-ink-cartridges-eff-says/


----------



## chasingrealness (May 5, 2021)

Skux said:


> Yup. This is the R1 in all but name, they just don't want to call it that for a few reasons:
> 
> - they don't want to make 1DX owners feel bad about their year-old camera already being made obsolete
> 
> ...


I’m happy to be one of the people buying the R3 in order to find the R&D that makes the R1 happen for the people who will need that much camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2021)

Skux said:


> Yup. This is the R1 in all but name, they just don't want to call it that for a few reasons:
> 
> - they don't want to make 1DX owners feel bad about their year-old camera already being made obsolete
> 
> ...


Nonsense. 

- The 1DX III won’t be made obsolete irrespective of what MILC camera comes out, most 1DX III users know why they have a DSLR and what it will always do better than a MILC.

- Canon have a very long history of not putting all their newest tech in 1 series cameras, particularly ergonomic and interface tech. Like the R’s sliding control which was universally dismissed yet an updated version in the 1DX III is almost universally loved. I’d expect to see some tech in the R3 that won’t be in the R1 but, depending on how it is evaluated by the market, would make it into an R1 II.

- Why? Regardless of a name it will be compared against all manor of competitors and other Canon models.

As to the form factor, look back to the EOS3 and EOS1V for a history lesson on why you could be 100% wrong. On paper the 3 had ‘more’ tech, yet the 1V was much more expensive and was the ‘pro’ model.

Pro’s do not demand the latest tech, they demand reliability and durability along with a healthy dose of familiarity.


----------



## neurorx (May 5, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Well, Canon has already stated that the R3 is slotted between the R5 and 1DX, so I'm expecting it to be better than the R5 for stills in every way. My only question is whether it will match or exceed the R5's resolution. While I think that it will be at least 45MP (see my previous posts), there's not enough information available yet to be certain of that conjecture.
> 
> To address your question, the R3 will differ from the R5 in price and form factor. I'm hoping that it will come in under $6000, but I would not be surprised if it matched the Sony A1's $6500 price.


But a sports camera at 45 mp is a bit unusual, no? Won’t that limit low light capabilities and on location upload and transfers?


----------



## snapshot (May 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon does partner with companies for accessories.
> 8K RAW to the Ninja V+ is an example of that.
> Lenses are quite different.
> That would be like Bic licensing razor blades or pen refills or Keurig licensing out coffee pods.
> ...



I am not sure L-mount is an open standard. Seems like only Panasonic, Leica and Sigma are developing products for it. 
E-mount might be half-open in that a lens or adapter could be designed based upon Sony specifications after registering and accepting a non-disclosure agreement. I suspect these terms have encouraged Sigma, Tamron and others to build up the e-mount ecosystem. Interesting that Sony is willing to license the razor blades. Perhaps the margins on cheaper versions of popular lenses arent great.


----------



## Billybob (May 5, 2021)

neurorx said:


> But a sports camera at 45 mp is a bit unusual, no? Won’t that limit low light capabilities and on location upload and transfers?


Well, the Sony A1 is a sports camera, and it has 50MP. Low light is not an issue. It's more a function of sensor size than sensor resolution. The A1 when down-rezzed has no more noise than the 24MP A9 cameras. Curiously, the 61MP A7r IV on DPR received a low-light score that is almost identical to the 1DX MIII score and trailed the Sony A1 score by a very small margin. Thus, low light prowess is not incompatible with high-MP count.

As for transfer speed, do correct me if I'm wrong, but most photojournalists who upload files shoot jpeg. Again, the Sony A1 addresses this problem by allowing "light" jpeg/HEIF shooting to produce small files while maintaining IQ similar to or better than standard jpeg. The camera also can downsize images in-camera to a 21MP jpeg size. I expect Canon to replicate these and or add other tricks to make meeting deadlines as quick and easy as possible. Thus, transfer speed should be no slower than with current tools. Accordingly, the needs of photojournalists is no barrier to producing a high-MP flagship camera. Frankly several commentators, including Tom Hogan (primarily a Nikon and Sony guy, not that that matters), thinks that the days of low-MP-count flagship cameras are history. I tend to agree with Sony and Nikon already committed to this approach. Of course, I'm not betting the farm.


----------



## AEWest (May 5, 2021)

neurorx said:


> But a sports camera at 45 mp is a bit unusual, no? Won’t that limit low light capabilities and on location upload and transfers?


In the past, yes 45 mp would be too much info to process at high speed. The R5 and A1 have shown that processors and sensors now have the horsepower to process these files at up to 30fps.

Transfer speeds have also increased significantly.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Who do you think buys most of the $15K+ lenses?
> There might not be very many but they spend a lot of money.
> The same goes for the cinema line.
> Canon mostly sells C100, C200, and C70 but most people use photo lenses with those.
> The C300 and up crowd buy the expensive cinema lenses.


Who buys most of the $15k lenses? Well heeled enthusiasts, that's who. They aren't professionals. It's the same group that buys most of the 1DX, R5, and R6.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 5, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> So unless there's a way to provide firmware updates to camera bodies about third party lenses or at least a way to manually enter third party lens information, they would not be able to leverage those proprietary RF features. It's not just the control ring, there's IBIS and AF as well.


That will happen will any new camera feature that interacts with the lens.
R5 and R6 were the first Canons with IBIS and all existing lenses needed firmware updates.
It is not really worth it for Sigma to offer firmware updates for every system which I guess is an advantage Panasonic and Leica have over Canon and Sony.

By the way, Sony only officially supports Sony lenses as well and lens companies make no promises to add future Sony lens features.


----------



## stevelee (May 5, 2021)

Chig said:


> All modern cameras deliver sharp pictures even smartphones , if your pictures aren't sharp you're doing something wrong


Like taking just one shot with the R5.


----------



## PerKr (May 5, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> In 2016, HP issued an optional firmware update to allow 3rd party ink from their "_dynamic security feature_". Yes, they were reverse engineered but HP updated their firmware to reject 3rd party cartridges and refilled HP cartridges. There wasn't an anti-competitor lawsuit but HP were clever enough to retract their stance. A lot of consumers would have voted with their feet to buy alternative printers if they didn't.
> https://arstechnica.com/information...op-sabotaging-non-hp-ink-cartridges-eff-says/



The equivalent of your HP example would be if Canon added something to the camera and lens firmwares to make it impossible to use third-party lenses.
I don't think anyone expects Canon to suddenly update firmware with the intention of making third-party lenses useless. They haven't done that in the past, any malfunctions were down to the third party manufacturers not getting the protocols just right, i.e. they didn't reverse engineer as good as they should have.

RF-mount is no different than EF-mount, F-mount, Minolta A-mount and so on in this regard. Third party manufacturers are free to reverse engineer and develop their own lenses. Canon isn't going to provide them with all the information to get it just right as that would negate a lot of their advantage as a lens manufacturer. Manufacturers who have optioned to license their mounts have put in place certain conditions to protect themselves but they also tend to lack the capacity required to develop and manufacture their own high end lenses in a way that makes a serious impact, or just lack the confidence in their mount at the time (Sony E-mount was a daring experiment that paid off, eventually, but compare that to what canon did with RF or nikon with Z)

Sigma and Tamron have figured out the EF mount pretty good. Figuring out how the EF to RF adapter works should be easy. Making lenses based on that should be no more difficult. And if it is, maybe they just shouldn't be in the business.
Anyone complaining about Canon not simply sharing with Sigma and Tamron every bit of information needed to replicate what Canon themselves are doing is just showing his or her ignorance when it comes to how a business works.


----------



## john1970 (May 5, 2021)

Not surprised that the R3 is not the flagship mirrorless. My money would be on a R1 mirrorless flagship for the 2022 Winter Olympics. I would anticipate a development announcement in summer of 2022, a formal announcement in the fall of 2022, and availability in early Q1 2023.


----------



## neurorx (May 5, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Well, the Sony A1 is a sports camera, and it has 50MP. Low light is not an issue. It's more a function of sensor size than sensor resolution. The A1 when down-rezzed has no more noise than the 24MP A9 cameras. Curiously, the 61MP A7r IV on DPR received a low-light score that is almost identical to the 1DX MIII score and trailed the Sony A1 score by a very small margin. Thus, low light prowess is not incompatible with high-MP count.
> 
> As for transfer speed, do correct me if I'm wrong, but most photojournalists who upload files shoot jpeg. Again, the Sony A1 addresses this problem by allowing "light" jpeg/HEIF shooting to produce small files while maintaining IQ similar to or better than standard jpeg. The camera also can downsize images in-camera to a 21MP jpeg size. I expect Canon to replicate these and or add other tricks to make meeting deadlines as quick and easy as possible. Thus, transfer speed should be no slower than with current tools. Accordingly, the needs of photojournalists is no barrier to producing a high-MP flagship camera. Frankly several commentators, including Tom Hogan (primarily a Nikon and Sony guy, not that that matters), thinks that the days of low-MP-count flagship cameras are history. I tend to agree with Sony and Nikon already committed to this approach. Of course, I'm not betting the farm.


Thank you this is very helpful.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2021)

snapshot said:


> demand is a strong word. and helping the competition is never what somebody wants to do. on the otherhand, building a community of partnerships might create a larger market for your stuff. there is value in having the ability to accessorize and build a system using components within an active community of suppliers. and i am ok with folks choosing components based upon interoperability and adherence to formal and informal standards.


These threads are full of people demanding Canon share their tech with third parties.


----------



## entoman (May 5, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Canon never used a Sony sensor in a Canon interchangeable camera. Why they would start now? They are pretty competent making their own sensors. The R5 sensor is up there with the best.


I own an R5 and have used a7Riv (but not a1) so I can confirm that the R5 sensor is among the best. In fact it's marginally better in terms of noise control/sharpness balance, compared to the a1 if dpr studio comparison scenes are any guide.

But a jump from 20fps (R5) to 30fps (R3) will require not only a faster processor, but also faster readout, to eliminate rolling shutter, particularly as the R3 is an all out sports wildlife photojournalism camera (according to Canon).

Now maybe, just maybe, Canon has had a leap in tech and manufacturing ability that will enable them to produce a sensor that is on par or better than the a1 sensor, in terms of noise control, sharpness, readout speed and dynamic range. IF that's the case I'll be extremely happy, as no one wants Sony to have a monopoly (not even Sony themselves, as they know that competition is what drives product improvement). But equally, IF Canon don't yet have that ability, or if it proves too expensive to do it in house, they may well decide to deal with Sony. Canon have stated several times in interviews that they are willing to use other company's sensors if they are more suitable for specific products.


----------



## entoman (May 5, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Why Sony? If anyone, Samsung is more than capable, I think.


Because Sony have already shown that they can produce the best FF sensor, with the a1.

There are several other companies making sensors, but Samsung have no expertise in large sensors, and much of the performance of their smartphones is more do do with firmware tech than with sensor tech. As far as FF sensors are concerned, Sony, Canon and Panasonic are running neck to neck.

My viewpoint is that I'd really like it if Canon jumped ahead of Sony and had a truly world-beating sensor in the R3, but equally I'd buy the R3 if it had a Sony sensor. I just want the best sensor available, and I don't care who makes it. People take brand-worship too far IMO.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 5, 2021)

entoman said:


> no one wants Sony to have a monopoly (not even Sony themselves


"Citation Needed"
Everyone that I know of would be a monopoly if they could including myself.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 5, 2021)

entoman said:


> As far as FF sensors are concerned, Sony, Canon and Panasonic are running neck to neck.


Doesn't Sony make the full-frame sensors for Panasonic?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2021)

entoman said:


> My viewpoint is that I'd really like it if Canon jumped ahead of Sony and had a truly world-beating sensor in the R3, but equally I'd buy the R3 if it had a Sony sensor. I just want the best sensor available, and I don't care who makes it. People take brand-worship too far IMO.


Some people take brand-worship too far. Others take sensor-worship too far.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some people take brand-worship too far. Others take sensor-worship too far.


I do wish Canon could license the tech from the symmetrical RGBW sensor that Black Magic uses in the URSA Mini Pro 12K.
Symmetrical sensors seem perfect for hybrid cameras.
I would still want Canon to make it since I trust their quality control over BMD. 
R+G+B+W = W which makes it so much more flexible for oversampling and binning.


----------



## Billybob (May 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> "Citation Needed"
> Everyone that I know of would be a monopoly if they could including myself.


So true. No one wants the _other guy_ to have a monopoly. But me? Absolutely.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2021)

Skux said:


> Yup. This is the R1 in all but name, they just don't want to call it that for a few reasons:
> 
> - they don't want to make 1DX owners feel bad about their year-old camera already being made obsolete
> 
> ...


What's in a name. Features, build, etc. make a flagship. Name has nothing to do with it. Canon could call it "fluffy" and it would not matter. Somehow, I don't think the "feelings" of 1DX III owners are a concern. I don't know, maybe sensitive owners of 1DX III would feel butthurt. Those people are idiots anyway. BTW: Year old cameras are not obsolete.


----------



## RGF (May 5, 2021)

Will the R1 simply be a R3 Mark II?
Will there be a market for both a R1 and R3? Seems like there may be too much overlap


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2021)

PerKr said:


> The equivalent of your HP example would be if Canon added something to the camera and lens firmwares to make it impossible to use third-party lenses.
> I don't think anyone expects Canon to suddenly update firmware with the intention of making third-party lenses useless. They haven't done that in the past, any malfunctions were down to the third party manufacturers not getting the protocols just right, i.e. they didn't reverse engineer as good as they should have.
> 
> RF-mount is no different than EF-mount, F-mount, Minolta A-mount and so on in this regard. Third party manufacturers are free to reverse engineer and develop their own lenses. Canon isn't going to provide them with all the information to get it just right as that would negate a lot of their advantage as a lens manufacturer. Manufacturers who have optioned to license their mounts have put in place certain conditions to protect themselves but they also tend to lack the capacity required to develop and manufacture their own high end lenses in a way that makes a serious impact, or just lack the confidence in their mount at the time (Sony E-mount was a daring experiment that paid off, eventually, but compare that to what canon did with RF or nikon with Z)
> ...


I think that we are in agreement  
As long as Canon maintains EF backward compatibiility which is an obvious choice then 3rd parties can have no issue. It is entirely possible that Canon has encrypted their RF protocols meaning that they can never be reverse engineered. Even if they haven't then the complexities of combined AF/IBIS may be hard to decipher. Noting that Canon have not provided (unfortunately) the option to deselect IBIS and keep OIS operational.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What's in a name. Features, build, etc. make a flagship. Name has nothing to do with it. Canon could call it "fluffy" and it would not matter. Somehow, I don't think the "feelings" of 1DX III owners are a concern. I don't know, maybe sensitive owners of 1DX III would feel butthurt. Those people are idiots anyway. BTW: Year old cameras are not obsolete.


I used to think that way, but then a bunch of folks here wrote that they won't get the R3 because it is not the R1 even though we do not know much about it.
They made it seem like it could have everything they would ever need and want but will not buy it because something better is coming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I used to think that way, but then a bunch of folks here wrote that they won't get the R3 because it is not the R1 even though we do not know much about it.
> They made it seem like it could have everything they would ever need and want but will not buy it because something better is coming.


Some people just wish. They won’t buy the R3 because an R1 is coming. The won’t buy an R1 because an R1 Mark II is coming. And so on. Meanwhile, they’ll keep shooting with their T1i and 18-55mm kit lens.


----------



## AEWest (May 6, 2021)

RGF said:


> Will the R1 simply be a R3 Mark II?
> Will there be a market for both a R1 and R3? Seems like there may be too much overlap


No, There will be too much overlap between the 1dx3 and R3. I think that the R1 will be 100+mp with global shutter.


----------



## Cyborx (May 6, 2021)

Chig said:


> All modern cameras deliver sharp pictures even smartphones , if your pictures aren't sharp you're doing something wrong


I’m affraid you don’t know what you’re talking about my friend. Camera’s like the 1dx mark I in combination with EF lenses always have a certain amount of diversion. The difference in sharpness compared to the R5 is insane. If you don’t agree to that you better stick to shooting birds


----------



## Bahrd (May 6, 2021)

entoman said:


> My viewpoint is that I'd really like it if Canon jumped ahead of Sony and had a truly world-beating sensor in the R3, but equally I'd buy the R3 if it had a Sony sensor. I just want the best sensor available, and I don't care who makes it. People take brand-worship too far IMO.


Yes, they do. I just wondered: had such a deal been true what short- and long-term incendivities for Canon, Sony and Samsung would have been.


----------



## Ozarker (May 6, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I used to think that way, but then a bunch of folks here wrote that they won't get the R3 because it is not the R1 even though we do not know much about it.
> They made it seem like it could have everything they would ever need and want but will not buy it because something better is coming.


I'm not buying anything until Canon releases the R.5!


----------



## SteveC (May 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm not buying anything until Canon releases the R.5!


 You clearly lack ambition.

The ambitious amongst us are waiting for the Canon R minus 1300.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I’m affraid you don’t know what you’re talking about my friend. Camera’s like the 1dx mark I in combination with EF lenses always have a certain amount of diversion.


Funny, you claim someone else doesn’t know what they’re talking about then proceed to spout nonsense about image ‘diversion’.

Incidentally, my 1D X can produce very sharp images, without diversion, sinestration or farkenluffle.


----------



## Cyborx (May 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Funny, you claim someone else doesn’t know what they’re talking about then proceed to spout nonsense about image ‘diversion’.
> 
> Incidentally, my 1D X can produce very sharp images, without diversion, sinestration or farkenluffle.


Sure, just put an R5 image and a 1Dx image next to eachother and there is absolutely no difference in sharpness. Whatever bro! In my opinion Canon has -with the R5- finally produced a camera that is crispy sharp. A little too late unfortunately with all semi pro’s and even pro’s made the switch to Sony.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Funny, you claim someone else doesn’t know what they’re talking about then proceed to spout nonsense about image ‘diversion’.
> 
> Incidentally, my 1D X can produce very sharp images, without diversion, sinestration or *farkenluffle*.


Neuro wins word of the day!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Sure, just put an R5 image and a 1Dx image next to eachother and there is absolutely no difference in sharpness. Whatever bro! In my opinion Canon has -with the R5- finally produced a camera that is crispy sharp. A little too late unfortunately with all semi pro’s and even pro’s made the switch to Sony.


You are correct, there is absolutely no difference in sharpness!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Sure, just put an R5 image and a 1Dx image next to eachother and there is absolutely no difference in sharpness. Whatever bro! In my opinion Canon has -with the R5- finally produced a camera that is crispy sharp. A little too late unfortunately with all semi pro’s and even pro’s made the switch to Sony.


Lol @ claims of the mass exodus to Sony that is not supported by any market data.

Impressive how you completely ignored your terminology fail, bravo.

And if you have a 1D X and can't get sharp images, that's what the IT folks call a wetware error. Yes, the R5 has a different OLPF/AA filter, and that means different post-processing approaches are needed, but good RAW converters handle the necessary sharpening exceptionally well from either body. And sure, the extra MP of the R5 help when not viewing at 100%, but that's just basic optics.


----------



## ClickIt_AC (May 7, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It may not be THE (R1) Flagship but if it is meant to be above R5, surely then it would be the LATEST flagship when it is released? Strange marketing strategy to talk it down before it is even released!


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 7, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That part about 3rd parties getting access is a worrying sign which would mean that Sigma and Tamron may either take long to make lenses or just decide its not worth the effort in short term.


This was always Canon's (and Nikon's) policy. But today 3rd party lens makers should have better tools for quicker analysis of different settings and therefore faster reverse engineering.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 7, 2021)

"The camera will be smaller than the EOS-1D X Mark III as well."

I like this news in particular


----------



## Franklyok (May 7, 2021)

And sony does it still better ? 7R4 , 64 mpx , 2 ms read out.

I feel now as id Canon is Iphone and Sony is Android.


----------



## st jack photography (May 7, 2021)

Berowne said:
Quad-Pixel is what I would believe, high Megapixel not. The R3 looks more like a Sport-Camera.




Berowne said:


> As I said.



This camera seems designed to be a 1D-lite with a lower price point, suspected higher MP and slower burst speed than a 1D/R1. This is how my brain is categorizing the R3 at present: *R6 is to R5 as R3 is to R1.* Pure speculation, but possible.
There have to be numerous Canon buyers who cant afford or need a 1D but would look at something nicer than a R5/5D. This thinking proved sound regarding the RP and 6D/R6 series.
Anecdote: I shot with high megapixel 5DSr for several years (as a product shooter) and it helped me with my product photo business, but it often hurt my street photography. Given my shoot style and content, I would never go for a purely high-MP body again. I could easily be wrong, but a camera aimed at "photojournalists" sounds good for street photography, if the body size is favorable. So I could be talked into a camera that fits my street photo mentality. I respect high-MP, but the cons are too many for me.

Quad-P is likely, given the BSI, plus refined/faster AF and cooler operation. *High megapixel is very unlikely. *
Given the problems with high-MP sensors, it makes sense to have the high-MP camera come dead last.


----------



## AEWest (May 7, 2021)

I still can't figure out how the R3 slots in below the 1Dx3 based on the limited info we have received. The R3 will be faster, likely more resolution, have a BSI sensor, also fully weather sealed pro build with a built in grip, have better autofocus and most likely better video (assumption given that it is mirrorless). What features does the 1Dx3 have that the R3 would be lacking? 

What is it that makes the 1Dx3 better, especially considering that the 1Dx3 cannot accept any of the great new RF glass whereas the R3 can take EF glass?


----------



## Franklyok (May 7, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I still can't figure out how the R3 slots in below the 1Dx3 based on the limited info we have received. The R3 will be faster, likely more resolution, have a BSI sensor, also fully weather sealed pro build with a built in grip, have better autofocus and most likely better video (assumption given that it is mirrorless). What features does the 1Dx3 have that the R3 would be lacking?
> 
> What is it that makes the 1Dx3 better, especially considering that the 1Dx3 cannot accept any of the great new RF glass whereas the R3 can take EF glass?


Well, I think the comparing was generalization 1D (R1) line vs R3 line.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2021)

AEWest said:


> What is it that makes the 1Dx3 better, especially considering that the 1Dx3 cannot accept any of the great new RF glass whereas the R3 can take EF glass?


C’mon, man…the 1D X III is bigger, and bigger is better.


----------



## AEWest (May 7, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Well, I think the comparing was generalization 1D (R1) line vs R3 line.


In the interview with the Russian Canon Rep, the question was asked of which type of photographers is the Canon EOS R3 intended for. The translated response:
“The Canon R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III. The camera will be intended for wildlife, sports, racing and photojournalism.”

Umm...isn't that the exact same target market as the 1Dx3? How is that not replacing the 1Dx3 other than the number "3" behind the model vs. "1"? Is this just marketing doublespeak by Canon?

And I don't think that it was a generalization of the "1" line vs "3" line. As per Canon's April 14th development announcement: "This camera will usher in a new category to the EOS R system, positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1DX Mark III cameras."


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2021)

AEWest said:


> In the interview with the Russian Canon Rep, the question was asked of which type of photographers is the Canon EOS R3 intended for. The translated response:
> “The Canon R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III. The camera will be intended for wildlife, sports, racing and photojournalism.”
> 
> Umm...isn't that the exact same target market as the 1Dx3? How is that not replacing the 1Dx3 other than the number "3" behind the model vs. "1"? Is this just marketing doublespeak by Canon?
> ...


Think Ford Ranger vs F-150. Same market, different tool.


----------



## st jack photography (May 10, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Think Ford Ranger vs F-150. Same market, different tool.


Yeah, I agree. A 1D and a supposed 1R will differ from a 3R in one main way: the 1D/1R will put burst shoot speed and buffer size as its number one priority, maybe followed by a beefed-up autofocus tracking system. This will cause the sensor to be rather small (20-26mp or so), but allow for massive runs of action shots at 1/500.
Presumably an R3 will be more of a hybrid of a 5R and 1D/R1.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> Yeah, I agree. A 1D and a supposed 1R will differ from a 3R in one main way: the 1D/1R will put burst shoot speed and buffer size as its number one priority, maybe followed by a beefed-up autofocus tracking system. This will cause the sensor to be rather small (20-26mp or so), but allow for massive runs of action shots at 1/500.
> Presumably an R3 will be more of a hybrid of a 5R and 1D/R1.


No I don’t see that, the 1R will have to have one or two big features over the R3, and at this point I’d expect it to be a global shutter, which is a $2,000 option on the cinema cameras already.

Buffer sizes are unlimited already, fps really have become something of a sideshow too. If an R5 can do 20 fps at 45mp, a 26mp R1 would be well over 40 fps.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No I don’t see that, the 1R will have to have one or two big features over the R3, and at this point I’d expect it to be a global shutter, which is a $2,000 option on the cinema cameras already.
> 
> Buffer sizes are unlimited already, fps really have become something of a sideshow too. If an R5 can do 20 fps at 45mp, a 26mp R1 would be well over 40 fps.


I think the R3 will be sports camera at 50mp, R1 studio camera at 100mp, with global shutter to flash sync at any speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I think the R3 will be sports camera at 50mp, R1 studio camera at 100mp, with global shutter to flash sync at any speed.


Time will tell, but I disagree on a 'studio' 1-series. Canon unified the 1D (generally thought of as 'sports') and 1Ds (generally thought of as 'studio') lines into the 1D X as the sole flagship model, in large part due to the contraction of the professional market. That trend has continued, so I highly doubt they will split the 1-series back into two lines, or offer something less than a 1-series for pro sports photographers. The R3 is aimed at the high-end enthusiast market, a 'baby 1-series' so to speak. It will have a relatively high MP count, fast frame rate, good build. The R1 will be a replacement for the 1D X III, and will be broadly similar to it in intent (not too high in MP, blazing frame rate, tank-like build, and I do agree on the global shutter).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I think the R3 will be sports camera at 50mp, R1 studio camera at 100mp, with global shutter to flash sync at any speed.


I don’t see anyway Canon are going to change the 1 series market segment like that. The R1 will have higher fps than the R3 and lower mp. The global shutter will be so that motion is stopped in sports, it will provide new possibilities for some sports shots. I’m thinking golf swings with no curve in the club, etc.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t see anyway Canon are going to change the 1 series market segment like that. The R1 will have higher fps than the R3 and lower mp. The global shutter will be so that motion is stopped in sports, it will provide new possibilities for some sports shots. I’m thinking golf swings with no curve in the club, etc.


I believe that the R3 will replace the 1Dx3 as Canon's pro sports shooter despite what Canon marketing says. Didn’t they also say that the R5 wasn't replacing the 5D series when in fact it did?

Also, the tilt shift lens article talks about a coming high mp camera. The R1?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe that the R3 will replace the 1Dx3 as Canon's pro sports shooter despite what Canon marketing says. Didn’t they also say that the R5 wasn't replacing the 5D series when in fact it did?
> 
> Also, the tilt shift lens article talks about a coming high mp camera. The R1?


Customers, whether pro or otherwise, rarely like to 'step down'. Replacing their 1-series with an R3? Not a good strategy on Canon's part. 

As for the high-MP camera, more likely an R5s.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe that the R3 will replace the 1Dx3 as Canon's pro sports shooter despite what Canon marketing says. Didn’t they also say that the R5 wasn't replacing the 5D series when in fact it did?
> 
> Also, the tilt shift lens article talks about a coming high mp camera. The R1?


That high megapixel R1 is just something I can’t get my head around. Canon are nothing if not conservative and they have been most conservative with the 1 series. For them to abandon that is more than a quantum shift and I just don’t see that as a necessary move on their part. Don’t forget the EOS 3 had more features than the 1V yet the 1V was the 1 series and more expensive.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Customers, whether pro or otherwise, rarely like to 'step down'. Replacing their 1-series with an R3? Not a good strategy on Canon's part.
> 
> As for the high-MP camera, more likely an R5s.


So far from what we know it seems that the R3 does replace the 1Dx3, with it's focus on speed. I think Canon is trying to protect the value of the 1Dx3 by saying it slots in above the R3. 
I just don't know what features it has that would be superior to the R3. Maybe connectivity? Battery life? Ruggedness?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> So far from what we know it seems that the R3 does replace the 1Dx3,


So, you read, "Canon says this camera is a new line for the EOS R system. It will be slotted between the EOS R5 and a future flagship camera, the EOS R3 is not the EOS R flagship," and you conclude that the R3 is a replacement for a 1-series camera.

Well, everyone is welcome to their own opinion. Even those who opine that the earth is flat.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, you read, "Canon says this camera is a new line for the EOS R system. It will be slotted between the EOS R5 and a future flagship camera, the EOS R3 is not the EOS R flagship," and you conclude that the R3 is a replacement for a 1-series camera.
> 
> Well, everyone is welcome to their own opinion. Even those who opine that the earth is flat.


Actually Canon clearly stated that the R3 was slotted below the 1Dx3, not a future 1 series R camera if you read the development announcement. You seem to be changing their words.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Actually Canon clearly stated that the R3 was slotted below the 1Dx3, not a future 1 series R camera if you read the development announcement. You seem to be changing their words.


Exactly. So if Canon said the is R3 slotted below the 1D X III, and you stated that the R3 is a replacement for the 1D X III, who is changing their words? 

Oh, you want a replacement for your Ferrari? Here, how about this nice Mercedes? Yeah, good luck with that.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. So if Canon said the is R3 slotted below the 1D X III, and you stated that the R3 is a replacement for the 1D X III, who is changing their words?
> 
> Oh, you want a replacement for your Ferrari? Here, how about this nice Mercedes? Yeah, good luck with that.


I didn't change my words, I question Canon's words. I am asking a simple question: in what way is the 1Dx3 superior to the R3? Canon marketing speak is one thing (take it with a grain of salt), but based on info already provided by Canon, the R3 will be their pro sports camera. 

If that's the case, what role will a future R1 have? 50fps? I doubt it. That is why I believe it will be a high MP studio camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I didn't change my words, I question Canon's words. I am asking a simple question: in what way is the 1Dx3 superior to the R3? Canon marketing speak is one thing (take it with a grain of salt), but based on info already provided by Canon, the R3 will be their pro sports camera.
> 
> If that's the case, what role will a future R1 have? 50fps? I doubt it. That is why I believe it will be a high MP studio camera.


I don’t think that is the question you should ask because the R3 is much newer than the 1DXIII, the question you should ask is if the R1 is the ‘replacement’ for the 1DX III what does it have over the last of the DSLR 1 series cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I didn't change my words, I question Canon's words. I am asking a simple question: in what way is the 1Dx3 superior to the R3? Canon marketing speak is one thing (take it with a grain of salt), but based on info already provided by Canon, the R3 will be their pro sports camera.
> 
> If that's the case, what role will a future R1 have? 50fps? I doubt it. That is why I believe it will be a high MP studio camera.


You made a statement, "...from what we know it seems that the R3 does replace the 1Dx3." There are really no facts to support that statement. It's certainly not what Canon stated, in fact Canon's statements contradict yours. Who do you think is more likely correct, the company that is making the camera, or some random person on the internet? 

There can be no answer to your 'simple question' because we do not know the specs of the R3. Simple example, the RAW buffer depth of the 1D X III is >1000 shots, the RAW buffer depth of the R5 is 180 shots, so if the R3 has a RAW buffer depth of (for example) 300 shots, that would be inferior to the 1D X III and slot in between the R5 and the 1D X III. 

As I said, you can believe what you want – some people believe the earth is flat, too.


----------



## JohnC (May 10, 2021)

Perhaps the R3 is going to somewhat take the place of what we considered the 5D series to be at one time.... the step before the 1D series. The R5 is extremely capable. Perhaps the 3 designation will give you an action body (R3) and a high res body (R3s). This would create a price point between the R5 and eventual 1 series in RF mount, and would certainly create a level that many pros would take advantage of. 

In addition, I suspect the R3 becomes somewhat of a gateway into the 1 series at some point.

It's all speculation, but creating that different level allows them to define another price point. I could easily see the R3 and R3s slotting in at the 5500 range, while a 1 series lives in the 8's.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2021)

I don’t understand people’s confusion with this. The R3 looks to be the equivalent of the EOS3, the R1 will replace the 1 series cameras.

So it seems to me we are going to have R6, R5, R3, and R1 ranges with MkII etc generations. The R5 will probably have R5s and R5C variants, but those variants might be based on the R3.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You made a statement, "...from what we know it seems that the R3 does replace the 1Dx3." There are really no facts to support that statement. It's certainly not what Canon stated, in fact Canon's statements contradict yours. Who do you think is more likely correct, the company that is making the camera, or some random person on the internet?
> 
> There can be no answer to your 'simple question' because we do not know the specs of the R3. Simple example, the RAW buffer depth of the 1D X III is >1000 shots, the RAW buffer depth of the R5 is 180 shots, so if the R3 has a RAW buffer depth of (for example) 300 shots, that would be inferior to the 1D X III and slot in between the R5 and the 1D X III.
> 
> As I said, you can believe what you want – some people believe the earth is flat, too.


Here is a translated quote from a Russian Canon rep (not some random person on the Internet as you say):
" Canon is aiming this camera at professionals and advanced amateurs. The Canon EOS R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.
The camera will be intended for wildlife, sports, racing, and photojournalism."

It seems to me that his two sentences contradict each other. Aren't those uses exactly who the 1Dx3 is for? So how is not a replacement to the 1Dx3 if it is faster, most likely higher resolution, better autofocus, has an RF mount, does have a built in grip like the 1Dx3, probably better video given that it's mirrorless. It's true that we don't know the buffer size, but I imagine it will be substantial if it can pump out 30fps.

Here is a quote from Canon's own development announcement:
The camera body will be entirely new and accentuates the camera’s high-performance design. It’s a one-piece design, integrating the body with a vertical grip section. The weather and dust-resistance will be equivalent to that of EOS-1D class cameras — an essential consideration for nature, wildlife, sports and photojournalism content creators working in extreme conditions.

Again, based on the info we know now, how will the R3 be inferior to the 1Dx3? Even if the 1Dx3 has a larger buffer, the R3 still seems to beat it in most other areas. Technology marches on. And the earth is round.


----------



## JohnC (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Here is a translated quote from a Russian Canon rep (not some random person on the Internet as you say):
> " Canon is aiming this camera at professionals and advanced amateurs. The Canon EOS R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.
> The camera will be intended for wildlife, sports, racing, and photojournalism."
> 
> ...


I could be reading too much into it, but I think the statement that it isn't intended to replace the 1DX III is a subtle hint that there WILL be a replacement for it, and this is not it. In other words, watch and see what is coming. What is coming will likely be measurably better than the R3 or the 1DX is now. In other words it is an attempt to prevent the confusion that you have just outlined.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Here is a translated quote from a Russian Canon rep (not some random person on the Internet as you say):
> " Canon is aiming this camera at professionals and advanced amateurs. The Canon EOS R3 is not intended to replace the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.
> The camera will be intended for wildlife, sports, racing, and photojournalism."


So in a way, Canon is saying the R3 is, "...a perfect camera for action." That's a direct quote from Canon...in their brochure for the EOS 7D.

You're reading too much into all this. Canon stated the R3 will slot in between the 1D X III and the R5, and so it will. In fact, @JohnC was most likely hitting the nail on the head by suggesting that the cost of the R3 will be between that of the 1D X III and R5 (launch prices, that is).


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 10, 2021)

Here's my take (as we each have our own). I believe the R3 will surpass the 1DX3 in most items, however in the grand scheme of things Canon isn't saying that because they have a R1 planned.

Here's an analogy I think is fair... take high performance cars of a certain vintage (I won't go into brands as to not skew things). Say brands A, B, & C are all relative to each other with A being a entry level muscle/sports car, B the high end muscle/sports car, and C being the supercar. Now take the same brands many years later... it is completely possible for a new B car to beat an older C car (due to the tech available at the time). I believe we are now seeing this for the 5, 3, & 1 series (mimicking the examples for A, B, & C respectively).


----------



## TravelerNick (May 11, 2021)

The simple answer is the R1 will have things that would be too extreme for the R3.

ND filters even better the electronic ones would be that sort of thing. 

The R1 will likely have better battery life than the R3. Bigger battery to start with.

In comparison the R3 might end up playing safe. More of an updated R5 with some new tech to test out.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So in a way, Canon is saying the R3 is, "...a perfect camera for action." That's a direct quote from Canon...in their brochure for the EOS 7D.
> 
> You're reading too much into all this. Canon stated the R3 will slot in between the 1D X III and the R5, and so it will. In fact, @JohnC was most likely hitting the nail on the head by suggesting that the cost of the R3 will be between that of the 1D X III and R5 (launch prices, that is).


I dont see why you people are arguing. It does seem like the R3 is aimed towards sports or journalism. I believe it will take the place of the 1dxiii or sports camera in the mirrorless lineup FOR NOW especially with advancements in tech. Speed seems to be it's purpose and they didn't even mention video at all. I feel like the wording is tricky because they want to tell us there is going to be an official R1 flagship without actually officially telling us. When the R1 comes out it will be a "generation" above the 1dxiii aka a mirrorless 1dx4 except I dont think there will be a 1dx4. You heard it here first.


----------



## TravelerNick (May 12, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Speed seems to be it's purpose and they didn't even mention video at all.











Canon announces development of the EOS R3 full-frame mirrorless camera that delivers high speed, high sensitivity and high reliability to expand users' range of photographic possibilities | Canon Global


TOKYO, April 14, 2021—Canon Inc. announced today that the company is currently developing the new EOS R3 full-frame mirrorless camera, which will feature a newly developed 35mm full-frame, back illuminated, stacked CMOS sensor and a DIGIC X image processor.




global.canon







> The EOS R3 aims to provide professional-level quality for both stills and video capture, even for moving subjects.





> the camera significantly reduces image warping



The second one implies at least a fast readout sensor. Something that's important for video.

Not to forget it's 2021. Video doesn't need to be mentioned. They don't mention it'll shoot colour either. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion it only does B&W


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 12, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Canon announces development of the EOS R3 full-frame mirrorless camera that delivers high speed, high sensitivity and high reliability to expand users' range of photographic possibilities | Canon Global
> 
> 
> TOKYO, April 14, 2021—Canon Inc. announced today that the company is currently developing the new EOS R3 full-frame mirrorless camera, which will feature a newly developed 35mm full-frame, back illuminated, stacked CMOS sensor and a DIGIC X image processor.
> ...


I havent heard anyone really complaining about rolling shutter in current cameras for video. so if it is important i dont know how much of that is a priority in filming since most people dont pan back and forth much to for it to be a big issue when it does occur. I guess sports videographers might see the most benefit? I think most people are concerned about DR, sharpness, noise, codecs resolution, and framerates when it comes to video. These things canon didnt mention unlike they did somewhat with R5 which made everyone want that camera for video.


----------



## TravelerNick (May 12, 2021)

I think rolling shutter is one of those things that doesn't matter until it does. 

I've seen people claiming a global shutter will help with golfers during the swing. 

But in general they likely wouldn't want to market a slower sensor than the A1. Even if 99% would never notice.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 12, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> I think rolling shutter is one of those things that doesn't matter until it does.
> 
> I've seen people claiming a global shutter will help with golfers during the swing.
> 
> But in general they likely wouldn't want to market a slower sensor than the A1. Even if 99% would never notice.


I see that on the photo side of things. I believe you only notice rolling shutter in video when moving the camera very fast which isnt a normal thing to do when recording in most situations. Even then you will just get a smear of footage at normal speed. i guess if you do slo mo during a footage of panning you will get terrible results. ALl i am saying as of now this camera isnt being marketed towards videography as of now but i am not saying it wont be good for video right now all modern mirrorless cameras can do acceptable video in the right hands. This camera fills in the void on not having a 1D series mirrorless. THis must mean canon has big plans or arent ready to do release a flagship.


----------



## Emyr Evans (May 12, 2021)

In this order of professional - and price:


R1
R3
R5
R6
This really isn't that difficult to understand. Perhaps the fact that neither 1. nor 2. are out yet is causing the confusion.


----------



## Kit Chan (May 12, 2021)

Canon should open the RF mount to me.


----------



## AEWest (May 12, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> In this order of professional - and price:
> 
> 
> R1
> ...


Yes, of course from a pricing point of view. But what about camera features? It appears to me that the R3 will be an Alpha1 with a pro build, built in grip and Canon ergonomics and at least 45mp. Therefore a worthy sucessor to the 1Dx3 as an action camera.

So what could an R1 bring? If the above is true, I can't imagine that the R1 will be sports oriented. Too much overlap in features with the R3. Instead I expect it will be a high MP (100+) studio camera with global shutter.


----------



## Ozarker (May 12, 2021)

Whatever the R1 vs R3 happens to be, these are exciting times. They'd be even more exciting if I had any got dang money!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Yes, of course from a pricing point of view. But what about camera features? It appears to me that the R3 will be an Alpha1 with a pro build, built in grip and Canon ergonomics and at least 45mp. Therefore a worthy sucessor to the 1Dx3 as an action camera.
> 
> So what could an R1 bring? If the above is true, I can't imagine that the R1 will be sports oriented. Too much overlap in features with the R3. Instead I expect it will be a high MP (100+) studio camera with global shutter.


Global shutter! AF point linked spot metering. Lower MP, amateurs might ‘need’ them but many pros know they don’t only not need them but they don’t actually want them (until 5G actually works). Higher built quality, weather resistance and durability (shutter cycles etc).

Most amateurs (certainly forum dwellers) are feature driven, most pros are reliability and familiarity driven, if exactly the same camera was available with less features but was considerably more reliable and durable, and more expensive, some pros would buy it.


----------



## Emyr Evans (May 12, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Yes, of course from a pricing point of view. But what about camera features? It appears to me that the R3 will be an Alpha1 with a pro build, built in grip and Canon ergonomics and at least 45mp. Therefore a worthy sucessor to the 1Dx3 as an action camera.
> 
> So what could an R1 bring? If the above is true, I can't imagine that the R1 will be sports oriented. Too much overlap in features with the R3. Instead I expect it will be a high MP (100+) studio camera with global shutter.


Since you ask - these are just my thoughts; just for fun:

R1 will have (main differentiators from R3):


Bigger body (slightly) than R3
8K video at 60 fps
4K video at 240 fps
Digix X1 processor, probably dual (next generation to the one in the R5 and R3)
pre-record function (like Olympus has for example)
84MP sensor for high resolution stuff, but with a 'trick' to 1/4 down to 21Mp for insane fps (60 fps anyone?)
£/$ 8,000 (R3 = £/$ 6,000)
Possibly a global shutter also.

Waw, that was fun!


----------



## MiJax (May 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Global shutter! AF point linked spot metering. Lower MP, amateurs might ‘need’ them but many pros know they don’t only not need them but they don’t actually want them (until 5G actually works). Higher built quality, weather resistance and durability (shutter cycles etc).
> 
> Most amateurs (certainly forum dwellers) are feature driven, most pros are reliability and familiarity driven, if exactly the same camera was available with less features but was considerably more reliable and durable, and more expensive, some pros would buy it.


All the pros I shoot with have a slightly different mindset. The only thing that matters is, NOT missing the shot. That's it. Sure, reliability plays a part, but I can't remember the last Canon body that failed on me (even going back to a Rebel XT in the solid rain with no cover or weather sealed mount). The bodies are pretty well built. Quite simply, the pros I shoot with, want a body that doesn't get in the way and offers them the best opportunity to make the shot. Also, all the pros I shoot with buy their own gear, so it has to be a good value as well. Meaning features matter to them. Its different as an agency photog that checks gear out, but these guys buy their gear and its got to make sense for the use case and well for their personal needs. 

I guess what I'm saying isn't too different from you, but is more focused on what matters to the larger audience of buyers in this range (working pros and advanced enthusiasts). And to the larger audience that uses their $7,000 purchase for business and play (or just play), certain features matter.


----------



## [email protected] (May 17, 2021)

The "pro" or "flagship" level of a camera tier system primarily serves to divide the market into pricing categories to maximize revenue, as a company should do. The best camera for a product photographer is unlikely to be the same best camera for a PJ and for a wedding shooter, so we can eliminate the idea that there is a "best" at the upper end of the body market. 

Canon can and does nerf some of its better bodies by preventing them from having spot-focus-tracked-metering and a couple other goodies, with an eye for creating a higher, "best" tier roughly along the lines of what a lot of pros need (but not all). Not only is it able to charge more for this camera series, but it is also able to create a branding with it that mines money from dentists who wish to borrow some camera masculinity. 

If Canon called the R3 the R1 and charged $7k for it, it would be the new flagship by dint of its price and positioning. The male-dominated profession of photography is as prone to fashion trends as any other. Canon might continue its price stratification with the 1 series for some time more if it doesn't succumb to the temptation of keeping it in the 20 megapixel range.

My wife runs a wildlife magazine, and the percentage of shots purchased by them that come from a 1 series has been steadily going down since the 5DsR and then the high-res Sony bodies came out. As a wildlife shooter myself, I'm mildly annoyed that Canon nerfs some of those features. When shooting Sony it was great to be able to enjoy those same features on both the A9 and A7 series, which I - as appropriate - used for different purposes.


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2021)

In Germany, a well known website (Idealo) has published 2 different "offers" by retailers for the R3:
- Euro 7299
- Or, even worse, Euro 9999 !!!!!
Sheer madness...
And no, these generous offers do NOT include the RF 1,2/35.
But be reassured, in both cases, shipping is free!
Is Canon going the Leica way?


----------



## TravelerNick (May 18, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> In Germany, a wellknown website (Idealo) has published 2 different "offers" by retailers for the R3:
> - Euro 7299
> - Or, even worse, Euro 9999 !!!!!
> Sheer madness...
> ...



I doubt any retailer is in the position to publish prices just yet. All they're likely doing is updating the website to get ready . It's not unusual for shops to do that with inflated prices. 

Are they even taking orders?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> In Germany, a wellknown website (Idealo) has published 2 different "offers" by retailers for the R3:
> - Euro 7299
> - Or, even worse, Euro 9999 !!!!!
> Sheer madness...
> ...


They just sound like placeholders to me.


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> I doubt any retailer is in the position to publish prices just yet. All they're likely doing is updating the website to get ready . It's not unusual for shops to do that with inflated prices.
> 
> Are they even taking orders?


I'm afraid they are...(preorders)


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> They just sound like placeholders to me.


Also my opinion, but they take preorders...maybe they'll correct the price afterwards.
Yet, knowing how expensive Canons are in Europe (EOS R 5's lowest price is about Euro 5300!), 7300 even -sadly- seem realistic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2021)

On amazon.com there are 3rd party sellers listing the RF 100-500 for $3100 and $3500 (vs. the list price of $2700). There's a sucker born every minute.

Now, since you mentioned Leica, perhaps you might consider _their_ R3 (the SLR from the 1970's). They're much cheaper than Canon's upcoming version.


----------



## arbitrage (May 19, 2021)

My guess is that the R3 will be more in line with the A9II as far as MPs and price (no 8K). The R1 will be in line with the A1 as far as price and MPs (8K) but may also bring advancements like global shutter and/or QPAF. Canon already said dual-pixel AF for the R3 in the official press release so QPAF is not coming to it.

The few people I know that had the 1DXIII have now sold it just because of the R5. I'd be surprised that many who haven't dumped it already will not dump it once the R3 is out. The R1 will be a whole other story.


----------



## R1-7D (May 19, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> My guess is that the R3 will be more in line with the A9II as far as MPs and price (no 8K). The R1 will be in line with the A1 as far as price and MPs (8K) but may also bring advancements like global shutter and/or QPAF. Canon already said dual-pixel AF for the R3 in the official press release so QPAF is not coming to it.



I just can't see this occurring. Canon has stated (Russian executive interview) that this camera will be directly competing against the A1 and Z9. Why would Canon bring out a 24-30 megapixel camera to compete against two 8K capable cameras? From a marketing perspective, it would fall flat...

I'm more inclined to believe the opposite of what you say - ie: the R3 will be an 8K capable camera with a similar price point to the A1 and Z9. The R1 will be lower resolution, have a global shutter, along with other improvements to its focusing capabilities, and be priced even higher than what's currently out there.


----------



## Ph0t0 (May 20, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Also my opinion, but they take preorders...maybe they'll correct the price afterwards.
> Yet, knowing how expensive Canons are in Europe (EOS R 5's lowest price is about Euro 5300!), 7300 even -sadly- seem realistic.


It's about 4200eur.


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2021)

Ph0t0 said:


> It's about 4200eur.


Here in .nl the R5 street price is €4549, grey import takes it down to €4200.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 21, 2021)

I think Canon will struggle to create a distinction between the R3 and R1.
I can’t see the R1 being bigger in size (there would be no practical reason to be bigger - battery size would be likely to be the same). Weather sealing would be the same.
They’d be down to say focusing ability , it would be very poor of Canon to only implement a better focusing system on an R1. It would be at best a software enhancement.
They could distinguish based in MP. 45 v 100 MP. I think there would likely be a trade off here. The 45MP might be superior at high ISO. 
They could distinguish based on FPS but that is a real diminishing return. There’s very limited uses where 30 FPS is more useful than 20 FPS
I think they will find it hard to make an R1 a compelling prospect with an R3 in existence. It’s existence and high price might improve the sales of the R3 once both exist.
(It sort of reminds me when Olympus brought out the M1X and I thought what was the point with the OMD EM 1 Mark III in existence - bigger battery and a few software tricks were the main improvements)


----------



## JohnC (May 21, 2021)

Take half of 45 mp, 23ish mp. and a theoretical 60fps. They probably have the means to make video and stills shooting nearly the same thing. Pick the frame you want, if you want. My suspicion is that’s a game changer for some applications. Who knows? We will see.

One thing I’m pretty confident about....If Canon has decided a clear distinction is possible then it most likely is. While they haven’t been the fastest moving company with regards to technology, when they do take a significant leap forward it usually sticks. Not too many failed projects littering the floor.


----------



## AEWest (May 21, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I think Canon will struggle to create a distinction between the R3 and R1.
> I can’t see the R1 being bigger in size (there would be no practical reason to be bigger - battery size would be likely to be the same). Weather sealing would be the same.
> They’d be down to say focusing ability , it would be very poor of Canon to only implement a better focusing system on an R1. It would be at best a software enhancement.
> They could distinguish based in MP. 45 v 100 MP. I think there would likely be a trade off here. The 45MP might be superior at high ISO.
> ...


I continue to believe that the R3 will be for the sportshooter, and 100+ MP R1 for studio, with global shutter and perhaps pixel binning option to allow for occasional medium to high frame rate shooting.

The R3 will simply be too good for an R1 to outclass it for sports and wildlife, and therefore the R1 needs to serve a whole different purpose.


----------



## entoman (May 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some people take brand-worship too far. Others take sensor-worship too far.


Yes, sensor worship is just as bad - modern sensors are all extremely good and there isn't much to choose between e.g. a!, Z7ii, R5 and S1R in terms of sensor output. What really counts is the overall design, usability and durability of the camera - and access to the lenses desired.


----------



## entoman (May 21, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Doesn't Sony make the full-frame sensors for Panasonic?


Yes I believe thay do. They also make the sensors for Nikon cameras. The implementation is different in each camera though, so colour output, noise and AF are handled differently by each brand. I wouldn't choose a camera purely on the basis of the sensor - best to look at the overall package - ergonomics, durability, AF performance, lens system and compatability with existing gear.


----------



## entoman (May 21, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> "Citation Needed"
> Everyone that I know of would be a monopoly if they could including myself.


No citation available, but monopolies are bad news for everyone. They stifle competition, increase prices and lead to stagnation. Sensible companies welcome competition - it helps them to improve their own products, it drives down prices to make mass market sales possible, and it creates a much more exciting and inspiring atmosphere among the designers and engineers. What a boring world it would be if everyone owned the same camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I think Canon will struggle to create a distinction between the R3 and R1.


Global shutter, QPAF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2021)

entoman said:


> What a boring world it would be if everyone owned the same camera.


If that camera was Canon, then Canon, Inc. would not find such a world boring at all.

There’s a very good reason anti-trust legislation exists.


----------



## entoman (May 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Global shutter, QPAF.


Also, more importantly, the R1 will have higher build quality, better weather-sealing, and greater long-term durability. I think these will be seen as far more important than either global shutter or QPAF, by the target users.

The distinction I see, is that the R3 will be aimed at wedding and event photographers, and affluent amateur sports and wildlife photographers.

The R1 will be directed at professional sports photographers, war photographers etc, who need the ultimate in ruggedness.

Meanwhile I'll be happy with my R5...


----------



## AEWest (May 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> Also, more importantly, the R1 will have higher build quality, better weather-sealing, and greater long-term durability. I think these will be seen as far more important than either global shutter or QPAF, by the target users.
> 
> The distinction I see, is that the R3 will be aimed at wedding and event photographers, and affluent amateur sports and wildlife photographers.
> 
> ...


Except that Canon said in the R3 press release that "The weather and dust- resistance will be equivalent to that of EOS-1D class cameras..."

So unless the R1 is bullet proof, durability won't be an advantage over the R3.


----------



## entoman (Jun 2, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Except that Canon said in the R3 press release that "The weather and dust- resistance will be equivalent to that of EOS-1D class cameras..."
> 
> So unless the R1 is bullet proof, durability won't be an advantage over the R3.


In which case, I agree with Hector1970, that Canon will find it hard to create a distinction between R3 and R1.

Global shutter - possibly, but will it really be so much better than a fast-readout R3 when it comes to rolling shutter artefacts?
QPAF - sounds great again, but it looks like the R3 will have pretty near perfect AF anyway.
8K - not in the R3, but possibly in the R1.

The R1 will have to do something unique *and* seriously valuable, in order to justify its existence...


----------



## AEWest (Jun 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> In which case, I agree with Hector1970, that Canon will find it hard to create a distinction between R3 and R1.
> 
> Global shutter - possibly, but will it really be so much better than a fast-readout R3 when it comes to rolling shutter artefacts?
> QPAF - sounds great again, but it looks like the R3 will have pretty near perfect AF anyway.
> ...


I think it will be a very high MP camera, 100+ with global shutter


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I think it will be a very high MP camera, 100+ with global shutter


Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream...


----------



## entoman (Jun 13, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I think it will be a very high MP camera, 100+ with global shutter


Unlikely, as it's 99% certain that Canon already has a stills-orientated 90-100MP "R5s" in the pipeline.

It will probably have 8K, but I'd expect no higher than 50MP.

It's unlikely that there will be any radically new tech, as Canon nearly always tests new tech on lower end models before putting them in the flagship, so I'm not even sure whether it will have global shutter or QPAF. It will definitely need to have a new and more powerful battery, but I think the other main selling points will be ruggedness and a sensor with super-fast readout that eliminates rolling shutter.

Always fun to speculate and dream about which features will gradually filter down into more affordable models.


----------

