# The Canon EOS R3 is out in the wild



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 13, 2021)

> The Canon EOS R3 is inching closer to the full official announcement, and it looks like select photographers are getting their hands on the new Canon RF mount flagship.
> The Canon EOS R3 is apparently being used at the G7 summit in the United Kingdom this week.
> The early comments from shooters seem to be extremely positive, take this Nikon shooter for example.
> Canon EOS R3 Specifications:
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## dilbert (Jun 13, 2021)

Guess he's not tempted to try use adapters to get his lenses to work on the R3 then. Wonder what this type of commentary will do to the mindset of those looking to buy old DSLR gear. Damn. And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop. Obviously also not convinced that Nikon mirrorless was worth the jump. Canon RF, and in particular R3, is where it's at. EF, thank you for the good times, but you're history baby. p.s. EF-S and EF-M, sorry, you're EF too.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Jun 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Guess he's not tempted to try use adapters to get his lenses to work on the R3 then. Wonder what this type of commentary will do to the mindset of those looking to buy old DSLR gear. Damn. And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop. Obviously also not convinced that Nikon mirrorless was worth the jump. Canon RF, and in particular R3, is where it's at. EF, thank you for the good times, but you're history baby. p.s. EF-S and EF-M, sorry, you're EF too.


I think this is more of an indictment of shooting Nikon than mirrorless. I’m assuming eye control evf , FPS , responsiveness, and not seeing Nikon with this in the future.

Just think of the difference if you first use a R3 with 70-200 RF. Has to feel like the future. I sure feel like a bad man with the same setup with the battery gripped R5


----------



## dilbert (Jun 13, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> I think this is more of an indictment of shooting Nikon than mirrorless. I’m assuming eye control evf , FPS , responsiveness, and not seeing Nikon with this in the future.



You're making an assumption there that he hasn't tried Canon DSLRs. From his comment - refers to all DSLRs - and that he's tried "the other brand", I think that's a false assumption to make.


----------



## ildyria (Jun 13, 2021)

The big question is... how many mega pickles does the R3 has ?


----------



## Kiton (Jun 13, 2021)

ildyria said:


> The big question is... how many mega pickles does the R3 has ?


And can the electronic shutter be tamed with differ frame rate choices.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 13, 2021)

I wonder if the Nikon shooter will feel the same way when the Z9 is released. I'll be comparing the Z9 and R3 to see if I continue to put money into Z (which to me has better glass) or move back to Canon with their magic animal eye AF.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 13, 2021)

Japan is determined to hold the Olympics in July, even if Japan's coronavirus situation is still bad. That would be the obvious time to officially launch the R3.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jun 13, 2021)

Now someone please leak the MP please. I beg.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jun 13, 2021)

I've got my credit card out and waving it around but the deal killer will be the sensor resolution. If this comes out to be a 20Mp camera then I'm sticking with my R5! I'm not paying $6K to drop the resolution down to 1DX specs.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jun 13, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I've got my credit card out and waving it around but the deal killer will be the sensor resolution. If this comes out to be a 20Mp camera then I'm sticking with my R5! I'm not paying $6K to drop the resolution down to 1DX specs.



Can't agree with you more on this.


----------



## emailfortom (Jun 13, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> I think this is more of an indictment of shooting Nikon than mirrorless. I’m assuming eye control evf , FPS , responsiveness, and not seeing Nikon with this in the future.
> 
> Just think of the difference if you first use a R3 with 70-200 RF. Has to feel like the future. I sure feel like a bad man with the same setup with the battery gripped R5


I realize that I must be interpreting this post wrong. Are you suggesting that the R3 will not be able to take EF glass coupled with a converter?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I wonder if the Nikon shooter will feel the same way when the Z9 is released. I'll be comparing the Z9 and R3 to see if I continue to put money into Z (which to me has better glass) or move back to Canon with their magic animal eye AF.


I believe Z9 is supposed to go against A1 from Sony but R3 will be sitting below these 2 so it might be a value proposition to entry with seamless compatibility with older EF compared to Z cameras and iffy F mount compatibility.


----------



## canonmike (Jun 13, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I've got my credit card out and waving it around but the deal killer will be the sensor resolution. If this comes out to be a 20Mp camera then I'm sticking with my R5! I'm not paying $6K to drop the resolution down to 1DX specs.


Understand your thought process and we all have our purchase vs spec criteria and of course, it's your nickel, a very important consideration but at what R3 MP level would you then be all in????? And then, we don't know the price either but would you have the same opinion if the R3 were to come in at say, $4895.00? I'm asking myself these same questions, as we await the camera's release. I'm hoping for higher than 20MP as well but want to see the price before I make a final decision, regardless of the MP.


----------



## tomsop (Jun 13, 2021)

I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


----------



## AJ (Jun 13, 2021)

> NEW accessory shoe


What does that mean?


----------



## zonoskar (Jun 13, 2021)

I keep wondering if this is the high megapixel camera that was rumoured to be released in 2021.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2021)

AJ said:


> What does that mean?


It means it has an electronic port aligned with the hotshoe so hotshoe mounted accessories can have a more complicated interface with the camera. Like the M6 II Clip on EVF, Sony do a similar thing for mics that provide power to the mic from the camera and send audio to the camera directly.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


Trouble is the camera market is vastly diminished and all three of the big players have said they are aiming up market to the enthusiasts with good disposable income. If they can only sell 1/10 as many cameras they want to sell them for 10 times the money. So $400 Rebel kits are dead and $4,000 and up bodies have become the norm from all three.

on the flip side for people like you there are no end of crazy DSLR bargains to be had.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 13, 2021)

This is a good sign and makes me think that an announcement closer to the Olympics makes sense. I am planning on 1 or 2 photo trips in 2022 so I do see a R3 in the future. Depending on features, begs the question does it compliment or replace a R5 for wildlife photography...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 13, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> Can't agree with you more on this.


Canon have the processing power in the Digic X to pump 30mp @ 30 fps. Weather Canon will actually do this another question!


----------



## Kit. (Jun 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Guess he's not tempted to try use adapters to get his lenses to work on the R3 then. Wonder what this type of commentary will do to the mindset of those looking to buy old DSLR gear. Damn. And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop. Obviously also not convinced that Nikon mirrorless was worth the jump. Canon RF, and in particular R3, is where it's at. EF, thank you for the good times, but you're history baby. p.s. EF-S and EF-M, sorry, you're EF too.


My EF lenses work well on my R5, tyvm.

(time to buy that filter adapter, by the way... long overdue)


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Guess he's not tempted to try use adapters to get his lenses to work on the R3 then. Wonder what this type of commentary will do to the mindset of those looking to buy old DSLR gear. Damn. *And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop.* Obviously also not convinced that Nikon mirrorless was worth the jump. Canon RF, and in particular R3, is where it's at. EF, thank you for the good times, but you're history baby. p.s. EF-S and EF-M, sorry, you're EF too.



I know it’s been talked about on here before, becaue I’ve brought it up, but buying equipment itself is not an investment. People that say they are “investing in ‘piece of gear X’” are just saying that either 1) out of ignorance or 2) to make themselves feel better/justify to themselves about spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on something.

You are buying tools to use to make money, presuming you are a professional. If not, you are just buying equipment. On the whole, camera/electronic gear and the related accessories rarely appreciate, which is one of the major defining commonly accepted traits(hopefully) of an investment.

If I looked at the individual pieces of equipment I’ve purchased as investments, then I’d probably be the worst stock broker that ever lived, because almost NONE of it is worth anything close to what I paid for it, with the exception of a few used items. But even then, I have some used equipment that has depreciated to roughly 25% of their purchase prices in only a few years. Now, do I continue to make money WITH that equipment? Yes! But that is different than it being worth more money than I paid for it.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Jun 13, 2021)

emailfortom said:


> I realize that I must be interpreting this post wrong. Are you suggesting that the R3 will not be able to take EF glass coupled with a converter?


Not in the slightest.

I just think of how much better it was to move from optical to R to the R5 , autofocus, lenses, eye control, FPS in the ways that Canon has done it vs the competition.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 13, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I've got my credit card out and waving it around but the deal killer will be the sensor resolution. If this comes out to be a 20Mp camera then I'm sticking with my R5! I'm not paying $6K to drop the resolution down to 1DX specs.


I can't imagine Canon making it 20MP. They wouldn't want it to have the same MP as the much less expensive R6. Since it's a sports camera my guess is 30MP, which would make it more than a 1DX or D6.


----------



## bernie_king (Jun 13, 2021)

john1970 said:


> This is a good sign and makes me think that an announcement closer to the Olympics makes sense. I am planning on 1 or 2 photo trips in 2022 so I do see a R3 in the future. Depending on features, begs the question does it compliment or replace a R5 for wildlife photography...


My guess would be compliment. While I'm still holding out hope for 45+ mp, I'm guessing probably around 32. Quite frankly it would be better there than 45 for moving subjects. 45mp brings additional challenges to things that move. For a fast action camera I would rather have 32mp and not have to worry about motion blur between the pixels as much. I'm pretty sure the ultimate wildlife kit from Canon will include an R5 and an R3. R5 for the slow moving (perched birds, etc...) and the R3 (BIF, running animals, etc...). If so I will sell my R6 and keep my R5 with the R3. If the R3 is an absolute replacement I may sell the R5 and R6 and buy 2 R3s


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


Echoing @privatebydesign 's comments. The stand-alone camera market for casual users is pretty much dead. If you are pleased with your iPhone photos, you might as well stick with the phone. There are no cameras that can compete in terms of both size and quality and certainly none that lets you make a call from them. I would correct your impression though that this site caters to professionals. The professional market is also shrinking and most of the people on this site are not professionals, but rather enthusiasts who earn little to nothing from their hobby, but are willing to spend lots of money to capture pictures in niche categories, like birding and wildlife. Or they are simply people who like owning the best and have sufficient disposable income to do so. Camera manufacturers are following the dollars and the dollars, as PBD pointed out, are in the enthusiast market.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Japan is determined to hold the Olympics in July, even if Japan's coronavirus situation is still bad. That would be the obvious time to officially launch the R3.


Unless Canon doesn't want to be associated with a potential health disaster.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> bodies ha





tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


If you can't get better pictures with your M5 than with your iPhone, you must not know how to use the M5. Are you shooting JPEGs in Auto mode? Do you have any longer glass? Do you have a RAW editor?. In a bright light, wide angle shot, the IPhone will look pretty good (if you don't mind overly processed images), but once the going gets tough (i.e. long distance, bad light, etc.), the M5 is a much better choice, but you do need some glass to go with it.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 13, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The stand-alone camera market for casual users is pretty much dead.


I don't think so. Canon doesn't like to mention it, but in both the USA and Japan their best selling mirrorless camera is the M50.


----------



## talkin73 (Jun 13, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> Can't agree with you more on this.


It would be odd marketing to hold out on that info as they have only to find it’s a 20-24 MP sensor. The reaction will likely either be neutral or negative, but it’s hard to imagine there are folks that specifically would not buy it just because of, say, a 45 MP sensor. Especially when you can make an electronic sensor that outputs smaller files if needed. If it has what will be a disappointing spec, saving that to the end seems like a poor marketing choice. A well known adage in crisis management is that bad news doesn’t get better with time.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 13, 2021)

It's repeatedly reported that the R3 will downsample to 4K (and I'm sure it'll have 3 x 2 aspect ratio for stills). Since it wouldn't make sense (to me) to downsample 5K to 4K, then I see 6K to 4K being the minimum, and a 6K x 4K sensor would be 25MP minimum - so that (to me) is the bottom MP possible for the R3. If they downsampled 7K (is there such a thing?) then 7K x 4.67K = 33K minimum, so that might be a possibility. The one I hope it is is 8K downsampled, so 8K x 5.33K = 43K minimum (maybe 45K like the R5). Anything downsampled to 4K will have a better image than ordinary 4K as well as less data transfer to cards and less heat if power is better managed (a crucial thing to improve after the R5). I could see downsampled 4K at 60 FPS without time limit being a goal they've set.

I really wish they'd add "motion trigger" ability to video (or high FPS continuous stills) so that you could leave a camera on a tripod and have it only record with sufficient motion happening (like a hummingbird landing on a feeder). Then you'd only have small bits of video or stills to worry about in post instead of gazillions of "nothing" to store and wade through in post.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 13, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> I believe Z9 is supposed to go against A1 from Sony but R3 will be sitting below these 2 so it might be a value proposition to entry with seamless compatibility with older EF compared to Z cameras and iffy F mount compatibility.


The R3 and Z9 will most likely compete with each other. The A1 isn't even a consideration without a built in grip and that naff lens selection.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 13, 2021)

RunAndGun said:


> I know it’s been talked about on here before, because I’ve brought it up, but buying equipment itself is not an investment. People that say they are “investing in ‘piece of gear X’” are just saying that either 1) out of ignorance or 2) to make themselves feel better/justify to themselves about spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on something.



Investing in capital assets and measuring a return on investment is standard practice for all businesses. Capital appreciation is just one form of return on investment. Income is another way of generating return on investment. Even if an asset depreciates in value, in can still serve to improve efficiency, take on work that they may not have been able to get before, or simply make work more enjoyable. Regardless, if you generate income with your equipment, buying equipment is an investment.

Trucking companies invest in new trucks. Medical offices invest in medical equipment. Photography businesses invest in cameras, lighting, and other gear.

If photography is a hobby, your premise is correct and it’s just an expense. A fun one, sure. But not an investment.

When one buys a bond and holds it to maturity to generate income, it doesn’t make it not an investment just because it didn’t go up in value. The investor realized a positive return while they held the investment.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> I don't think so. Canon doesn't like to mention it, but in both the USA and Japan their best selling mirrorless camera is the M50.


While it is the best selling mirrorless camera, "best selling" represents a much smaller universe than it was just a few years ago. There is no denying that the market has been bleeding customers for years now. Most, if not all, camera manufacturers have said they are concentrating on the enthusiast market, where the margins are better.


----------



## AEWest (Jun 13, 2021)

Let's hope one of the R3 shooters at the G7 sends an anonymous file to CR containing an image file at full resolution to finally answer one the world's most important questions.

Come on people! We know you read this. Throw us a bone!


----------



## SV (Jun 13, 2021)

"The Canon EOS R3 is out in the wild"...and yet we still don't know the sensor size in Megapixels


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 13, 2021)

I would not really expect a neutral review by someone who got early access to a camera. If he said that the camera is shit, he would not get an early access next time. 

Why should DLSRs be dead? Only DLSRs are real cameras. A mirrorless camera is just a smartphone camera with a bigger sensor. I might buy one, but only as a second camera. You can't replace an OVF. No digital copy of reality is as good as reality.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 13, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Let's hope one of the R3 shooters at the G7 sends an anonymous file to CR containing an image file at full resolution to finally answer one the world's most important questions.
> 
> Come on people! We know you read this. Throw us a bone!


Let's hope we (at CR) don't see a R3 photo posted here at "full resolution". If so, the longest side would only be around 2048 pixels! - YOWZA!


----------



## bernie_king (Jun 13, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I would not really expect a neutral review by someone who got early access to a camera. If he said that the camera is shit, he would not get an early access next time.
> 
> Why should DLSRs be dead? Only DLSRs are real cameras. A mirrorless camera is just a smartphone camera with a bigger sensor. I might buy one, but only as a second camera. You can't replace an OVF. No digital copy of reality is as good as reality.


Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter. Add in better AF/Tracking and its hard to beat. The DSLR is absolutely dead. Nobody is going to make another serious DSLR so unless you are happy with using what you have or what's available now until the end you'll have to go mirrorless eventually.


----------



## definedphotography (Jun 13, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> It's repeatedly reported that the R3 will downsample to 4K (and I'm sure it'll have 3 x 2 aspect ration for stills).



its also a new stacked sensor, so unlikely to be high MP unless Canon has other stacked sensors out in other camera systems.


----------



## rwvaughn (Jun 13, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


The name of the site is Canon Rumors. I've never seen a legitimate photographer shoot a wedding professionally with an IPhone. 

The RP is not much bigger than the M series and it's only a matter of time before the rebel line is replaced by smaller R series bodies. Physics dictates the size of really good fast glass and that's why the m series lenses are so slow.

Canon could produce some nice really fast m series glass but it would not be small. Sounds like you have accepted compromises and sounds like you can use an IPhone for the majority of your snapshots. Be happy with that.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2021)

definedphotography said:


> its also a new stacked sensor, so unlikely to be high MP unless Canon has other stacked sensors out in other camera systems.


Why would that be so?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 13, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter. Add in better AF/Tracking and its hard to beat. The DSLR is absolutely dead. Nobody is going to make another serious DSLR so unless you are happy with using what you have or what's available now until the end you'll have to go mirrorless eventually.


The main advantages of mirrorless cameras seem to be the autofocus and the high frame rate, but as I only take photos of architecture, I never had a problem with autofocus and never need more than three frames per second. Having IBIS is nice, but if Canon wanted, they could also put IBIS into a DSLR. 

It reminds me of electric cars. People are forced to buy an electric car sooner or later, because car manufacturers will only offer electric cars sooner of later. That does not mean that electric cars are better.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 13, 2021)

rwvaughn said:


> The name of the site is Canon Rumors. I've never seen a legitimate photographer shoot a wedding professionally with an IPhone.



But people do shoot both award winning videos and photos with cameras in phone. The above statement is as much a reflection of the expectation of custimers as anything else.


----------



## definedphotography (Jun 13, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Why would that be so?



its new tech (at least for Canon.) They're known to get the tech right before releasing it to the great unwashed


----------



## dilbert (Jun 13, 2021)

Kit. said:


> My EF lenses work well on my R5, tyvm.



Yes, Canon provides a EF-RF adapter to prevent people from realising that EOS EF -> EOS RF is a moment that they can consider choosing Sony/Nikon.

EF lenses can be made to work on RF cameras but the equivalent RF lenses will work better - for example, faster and more reliable autofocus.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 13, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Yes, Canon provides a EF-RF adapter to prevent people from realising that EOS EF -> EOS RF is a moment that they can consider choosing Sony/Nikon.
> 
> EF lenses can be made to work on RF cameras but the equivalent RF lenses will work better - for example, faster and more reliable autofocus.



While your second statement is true, I’ve also heard EF lenses adapted to RF cameras have faster and more reliable autofocus on RF than they do on their native EF mounts.


----------



## macrunning (Jun 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Trouble is the camera market is vastly diminished and all three of the big players have said they are aiming up market to the enthusiasts with good disposable income. If they can only sell 1/10 as many cameras they want to sell them for 10 times the money. So $400 Rebel kits are dead and $4,000 and up bodies have become the norm from all three.
> 
> on the flip side for people like you there are no end of crazy DSLR bargains to be had.


While I recognize this is the reality it doesn’t seem like the best business model. Lower cost of entry for people would get more people excited and wanting to buy equipment. It feels like the big 3 are almost pushing many people away and telling them they can have their iPhones. If they keep raising the prices so much, even enthusiasts like myself will eventually be tapped out. The pro photography world isn’t large enough to support the market on it’s own.


----------



## sulla (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It means it has an electronic port aligned with the hotshoe so hotshoe mounted accessories can have a more complicated interface with the camera. Like the M6 II Clip on EVF, Sony do a similar thing for mics that provide power to the mic from the camera and send audio to the camera directly.


Yes, but the question, what that means, also implicitly includes, whether it will be backwards-compatible and thus whether will still accept the old accessories like Speedlites and Speedlite-transmitters. (i guess the gps receiver won't be necessary on the R3).
Which I *assume* it will.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 14, 2021)

definedphotography said:


> its also a new stacked sensor, so unlikely to be high MP unless Canon has other stacked sensors out in other camera systems.


I don't see why it being a "new" stacked sensor inherently limits Canon from having a high MP sensor if it wanted to.
However, in my post, I did state my reasons that I thought it would be 25MP at a minimum (which is not a high MP sensor nowdays) or 2 other higher values if they wanted to.


----------



## bernie_king (Jun 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The main advantages of mirrorless cameras seem to be the autofocus and the high frame rate, but as I only take photos of architecture, I never had a problem with autofocus and never need more than three frames per second. Having IBIS is nice, but if Canon wanted, they could also put IBIS into a DSLR.
> 
> It reminds me of electric cars. People are forced to buy an electric car sooner or later, because car manufacturers will only offer electric cars sooner of later. That does not mean that electric cars are better.


The thing is though that they really are better. I've been doing this for 40 years and my keeper rate is definitely higher with the R5/R6 and I shot 1 Series cameras since the 1D2. I remember some of the same arguments from people when auto focus came out. 

Using your car analogy, I'm sure there was a time when people thought the automobile was unnecessary and that the horse was better because it didn't need gas. It's more than just AF and Frame Rate. It's the ability to view and adjust your shot in real time. No blown exposures, no blown focus. You know exactly what you're getting as you setup the shot. Probably no convincing you to even try it out, but I can tell you that after shooting mirrorless almost a year I would never buy another DSLR.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 14, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter. Add in better AF/Tracking and its hard to beat. The DSLR is absolutely dead. Nobody is going to make another serious DSLR so unless you are happy with using what you have or what's available now until the end you'll have to go mirrorless eventually.


I made the switch to the R5 from the mk4 and the only advantage to the DSLR is the longer battery life, and if I’m being honest the placement of the controls was more ergonomic on the mk4. I have larger hands and some carpal tunnel syndrome and it’s sometimes it’s more difficult ergonomically with the smaller form factor giving less room for manipulating the controls. I don’t understand the appeal of a smaller camera body, it’s not like you save that much room in a camera bag but you definitely lose some handling comfort. I am getting used to it though so some of it is muscle memory.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 14, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> My guess would be compliment. While I'm still holding out hope for 45+ mp, I'm guessing probably around 32. Quite frankly it would be better there than 45 for moving subjects. 45mp brings additional challenges to things that move. For a fast action camera I would rather have 32mp and not have to worry about motion blur between the pixels as much. I'm pretty sure the ultimate wildlife kit from Canon will include an R5 and an R3. R5 for the slow moving (perched birds, etc...) and the R3 (BIF, running animals, etc...). If so I will sell my R6 and keep my R5 with the R3. If the R3 is an absolute replacement I may sell the R5 and R6 and buy 2 R3s



I am thinking complement as well with the R5 and then the only question is what will the R1 bringing to the table in the next 12-24 months....


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> ... Only DLSRs are real cameras. ...


Only view cameras are real cameras.
Only pin-hole cameras are real cameras.

To me, a real camera is a widget that enables the user to capture images. A statement like "camera type X is the only real camera" is absurd.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Jun 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I would not really expect a neutral review by someone who got early access to a camera. If he said that the camera is shit, he would not get an early access next time.
> 
> Why should DLSRs be dead? Only DLSRs are real cameras. A mirrorless camera is just a smartphone camera with a bigger sensor. I might buy one, but only as a second camera. You can't replace an OVF. No digital copy of reality is as good as reality.


You do realize that the purpose of a viewfinder, whether OVF, EVF, LCD screen, or whatever, is to enable you to frame a shot, in order to produce a photo, which is, by definition (at least for digital cameras, whether DSLR or not) a digital copy of reality? Anyone who obsesses over the viewfinder has obviously lost sight of the whole purpose of photography. It sounds like you would be better served by a pair of binoculars than by a camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

macrunning said:


> While I recognize this is the reality it doesn’t seem like the best business model. Lower cost of entry for people would get more people excited and wanting to buy equipment. It feels like the big 3 are almost pushing many people away and telling them they can have their iPhones. If they keep raising the prices so much, even enthusiasts like myself will eventually be tapped out. The pro photography world isn’t large enough to support the market on it’s own.


Two things, first, they tried that business model and it failed because of the camera phone model. And second, most pros have a lot less money to spend on gear than ‘enthusiasts’.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

sulla said:


> Yes, but the question, what that means, also implicitly includes, whether it will be backwards-compatible and thus whether will still accept the old accessories like Speedlites and Speedlite-transmitters. (i guess the gps receiver won't be necessary on the R3).
> Which I *assume* it will.


It doesn’t imply that but it will be 100% backwards compatible. All earlier EX Speedlites will work on the R3.


----------



## Khristo (Jun 14, 2021)

I just keep telling myself that my 5D3 and my 10 EF L lenses are every bit as good as the day I bought them...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

Khristo said:


> I just keep telling myself that my 5D3 and my 10 EF L lenses are every bit as good as the day I bought them...


They are!


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jun 14, 2021)

The R3 will get in the right hands well before the Olympics. Last thing you want is the best photographers in the world not knowing their way around a new camera for a major sporting event.


----------



## DPhotoR (Jun 14, 2021)

I treat my cameras (and lenses) like I treat my cars. Regular maintenance and drive them until there is no physical way to repair them. Some people prefer new cars...good on them. The new (mirrorless) cameras do not offer anything I need to complete work (at this time). When my Canon bodies die in about 3-5 years, I'll revisit mirrorless. And as someone said in the forum earlier, a simple adaptor is all I'll need to attach the lenses.


----------



## digigal (Jun 14, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I made the switch to the R5 from the mk4 and the only advantage to the DSLR is the longer battery life, and if I’m being honest the placement of the controls was more ergonomic on the mk4. I have larger hands and some carpal tunnel syndrome and it’s sometimes it’s more difficult ergonomically with the smaller form factor giving less room for manipulating the controls. I don’t understand the appeal of a smaller camera body, it’s not like you save that much room in a camera bag but you definitely lose some handling comfort. I am getting used to it though so some of it is muscle memory.


I have very small hands so the smaller R5 form factor has been great for me BUT the teeny, tiny back buttons that I use for different back button focus options are not so great for me because I do most of my shooting in cold weather with thick gloves which means it's almost impossible for me to discriminate the buttons by feel because of their small size. My solution has been to build them up with moldable silicone to be able to feel them through my gloves. The camera was great unmodified when I was not wearing gloves. 
Catherine


----------



## DPhotoR (Jun 14, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I made the switch to the R5 from the mk4 and the only advantage to the DSLR is the longer battery life, and if I’m being honest the placement of the controls was more ergonomic on the mk4. I have larger hands and some carpal tunnel syndrome and it’s sometimes it’s more difficult ergonomically with the smaller form factor giving less room for manipulating the controls. I don’t understand the appeal of a smaller camera body, it’s not like you save that much room in a camera bag but you definitely lose some handling comfort. I am getting used to it though so some of it is muscle memory.


Ah, make it smaller...
Brings back fond memories of the dot.com era when mobile phones got smaller and smaller. Look where we are today.

Juan you make a good point and maybe the camera body size will eventually find that optimum size. Until then, I leave you with memories of SNL poking fun at how small a cell phone would be.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 14, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> I can't imagine Canon making it 20MP. They wouldn't want it to have the same MP as the much less expensive R6. Since it's a sports camera my guess is 30MP, which would make it more than a 1DX or D6.


The last time a Canon integrated grip body DIDN'T disappoint on megapixels was 2012 with the original 1DX, 9 years ago. And each and every time since, most people on this and other forums predicted a 20-50 percent increase.

So, Lucy has the ball and places it down for the kick. You really want to go for the field goal, Charlie?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> The last time a Canon integrated grip body DIDN'T disappoint on megapixels was 2012 with the original 1DX, 9 years ago.


I suspect some 1Ds III owners were disappointed that the successor to their 21 MP sensor had only 18 MP.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> on the flip side for people like you there are no end of crazy DSLR bargains to be had.


Yeah, Private, I've noticed that. I picked up a couple 6D mark Is for remote camera work out in the woods for <$400 each, with a sensor about as good as the 6D Mark II and the RP. Add a home-brew IR trigger and a piece of canvas clipped over it to keep the weather off, and I'm paying less than a nice game camera.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jun 14, 2021)

R3 will be the R6 on steroids. The R1 will be the R5 on steroids. Would be a shame if same censors or MP.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> If you can't get better pictures with your M5 than with your iPhone, you must not know how to use the M5...



Or perhaps he just knows how to use the iPhone.


----------



## Kuau (Jun 14, 2021)

I just can’t understand why Canon is keeping the wraps on the MP count. With the R3 already in the hands of some “pros” I just don’t get it.
Since switching from the original A9 then A9ll to the R5 having those 45mp has been a game changer for me, the ability to crop and now not have to shoot as tight. I mostly Shoot Alpine ski racing


----------



## Kuau (Jun 14, 2021)

eosuser1234 said:


> R3 will be the R6 on steroids. The R1 will be the R5 on steroids. Would be a shame if same censors or MP.


I hope your wrong though I’m starting to feel you maybe right


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect some 1Ds III owners were disappointed that the successor to their 21 MP sensor had only 18 MP.


I was! So much so that I skipped the 1D X and waited for the 1D X II


----------



## Cmam (Jun 14, 2021)

I am not sure why the opinion of this Lee Blease guy is cited - he is working as a photographer only since May (!), as stated in his another tweet. I'd better hear to someone with experience.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 14, 2021)

Kuau said:


> I just can’t understand why Canon is keeping the wraps on the MP count.


"This suspense is terrible. I hope it will last."

- Oscar Wilde


----------



## snappy604 (Jun 14, 2021)

AJ said:


> NEW accessory shoe


What does that mean?


think Yeezy or some other over priced shoes.... ;-)


----------



## sulla (Jun 14, 2021)

Khristo said:


> I just keep telling myself that my 5D3 and my 10 EF L lenses are every bit as good as the day I bought them...


And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary
And every bit more competent for the job than necessary


----------



## sulla (Jun 14, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> think Yeezy or some other over priced shoes.... ;-)


oh, new Canon fangear!!!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 14, 2021)

Come on Canon don't gimp the camera, no crap 20MP sensor. I know the fan boys will be outraged, but couldn't care less, anything under 30MP will be bitterly disappointing. With a price only slightly under the A1, I'll take 50MP any day of the year for a $500 more. If the AF is outstanding, and it can decidedly beat the A1 I could live with 24MP, just. Would love to see it have equal res to the R5 and offer 8K free of heat issues.


----------



## Chig (Jun 14, 2021)

Kuau said:


> I just can’t understand why Canon is keeping the wraps on the MP count. With the R3 already in the hands of some “pros” I just don’t get it.
> Since switching from the original A9 then A9ll to the R5 having those 45mp has been a game changer for me, the ability to crop and now not have to shoot as tight. I mostly Shoot Alpine ski racing


R7 crop sensor might be better for you if it's like the R3 but with a cropped stacked sensor of say 30-35mp


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I was! So much so that I skipped the 1D X and waited for the 1D X II


Given the fact that the 1DsIII was 21mp, the 1DX was 18 and the mark II is 20.2, isn’t this rather psychological than practical ? I’d challenge anyone to see the difference.


----------



## Rivermist (Jun 14, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


I see your point but the situation is maybe not as dire as you portray it to be. For sure there are folks on this site that have serious (pro) needs and/or seriously deep pockets, but there are average joes here too. Another respondent does make the point that the diminishing population of people willing to carry a separate camera is pushing prices up some, but all is not Rolls Royce and Lamborghinis. I settled on the RP to get my toes wet in mirrorless, and there are already well-priced pre-owned or refurbished units out there to soften the blow. The non-L lenses are better in quality than their equivalents in EF, and the cameras are performing real-time corrections for such lenses as well. $1,000 may not be totally realistic but at $1,500 you have choices that may not cover full-fledged 4K video but do very well for full-frame stills. Second-hand FD lenses open up budget-oriented options for creative shooting as well. New mirrorless lens mounts have spurred manufacturers to re-think their offerings and these are exciting times. Think about the 600mm and 800mm f:11 lenses as an example. Even if you are not buying now, the insights of fellow light-chasers into creative uses of new or older glass and equipment can inspire creativity on prior-generation gear, pending winning the state lottery.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Wow, I can't remember the last time I saw an opinion I respect less than yours. Canon has INDEED replaced the OVF, and hasn't made an OVF camera--or lens for one--in years. And you clearly have no understanding of the incredible photographs being made with the RF or other mirrorless camera lines.
> 
> 
> Seriously you might as well argue that only film cameras are real cameras. That would sound as intelligent as what you're saying.


The problem I have with OVFs is more philosphical. There is a value of seeing something with your own eyes. That's why I also to not like drone photography. The photos may look amazing, but they are "virtual" because nobody was actually up there with the drone and looking through the viewfinder. That is the basic idea of photography for me: You see something with your won eyes and capture that moment. Of course the exact moment you capture can't be seen because of the viewfinder blackout, but it is still a large difference to an EVF.

We probably live hundreds of kilometres apart, if you live in Switzerland, but technically I could have an R5, do a video with it, send you the video and you watch that video with your viewfinder. Then you would see exactly what I saw. For you it would look exactly as real as for me. That is the problem with a copy. It is not the original thing.

In 2015 the Queen visited my hometown. She passed by with her car, had her window down and waved. Prince Philip was sitting next to her. I was able to take some photos when they passed and saw both of them through my OVF. If I had an EVF back then, I would only have seen a digital copy of them. The same digital copy that I could send somebody else who then watches it on a screen or in another EVF. I am not so much into celebrities, but it was important for me to see them with my own eyes. I had the same feeling on the Olympic closing ceremony on Rio de Janeiro. I was very happy that I got a ticket and watched most of the show through my OVF to take tons of photos. Even if EVFS look more and more like reality, you know that they are not real. At some point in future they might build robots that look and behave like humans, but they will still be robots.

As I mainly shoot still subjects like buildings, I don't really see how a mirrorless camera can help me produce images a DSLR can't. Do the new optical formulas really make such a difference?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Yes, Canon provides a EF-RF adapter to prevent people from realising that EOS EF -> EOS RF is a moment that they can consider choosing Sony/Nikon.
> 
> EF lenses can be made to work on RF cameras but the equivalent RF lenses will work better - for example, faster and more reliable autofocus.



You left out the part about more expensive for the same focal length(s) and maximum apertures...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

macrunning said:


> While I recognize this is the reality it doesn’t seem like the best business model. Lower cost of entry for people would get more people excited and wanting to buy equipment. It feels like the big 3 are almost pushing many people away and telling them they can have their iPhones. If they keep raising the prices so much, even enthusiasts like myself will eventually be tapped out. The pro photography world isn’t large enough to support the market on it’s own.



The only thing the mass market are excited about when it comes to taking pictures is whether the hottest new smartphone with the "best" camera is an iPhone or an Android phone. Canon (or Nikon, or Sony, or Panasonic, or Olympus...) didn't push those folks away - they left to answer the siren call of the smartphone that can allow them to take better photos (including processing photos to make them look a lot better than they really look) without knowing anything about operating a camera, and then share those photos instantly with anyone in the world using a device they always have in their pocket already.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Two things, first, they tried that business model and it failed because of the camera phone model. And second, most pros have a lot less money to spend on gear than ‘enthusiasts’.



One reason pros these days have less money to spend on gear than they did in the past is because many well heeled "enthusiasts" are willing to do for nothing, other than sideline access and/or seeing their credited images published by media outlets, the same work pros once did for a living.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

eosuser1234 said:


> The R3 will get in the right hands well before the Olympics. Last thing you want is the best photographers in the world not knowing their way around a new camera for a major sporting event.



Unless they are residents of Japan, it looks more and more like the "best photographers in the world" will not be at the Tokyo Olympics if the only foreigners allowed in are the athletes and no one else.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

digigal said:


> I have very small hands so the smaller R5 form factor has been great for me BUT the teeny, tiny back buttons that I use for different back button focus options are not so great for me because I do most of my shooting in cold weather with thick gloves which means it's almost impossible for me to discriminate the buttons by feel because of their small size. My solution has been to build them up with moldable silicone to be able to feel them through my gloves. The camera was great unmodified when I was not wearing gloves.
> Catherine
> View attachment 198286



That hinky cover might have something to do with it. Even if you cut out holes for the buttons, they still feel shorter due to the thickness of the cover.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect some 1Ds III owners were disappointed that the successor to their 21 MP sensor had only 18 MP.



But then they got the 5D Mark III the same year.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

eosuser1234 said:


> R3 will be the R6 on steroids. The R1 will be the R5 on steroids. Would be a shame if same censors or MP.



Since no current Canon stills camera has a BSI sensor and the R3 does, it won't be the same sensor. One would assume the R1 will also be a new BSI sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Kuau said:


> I just can’t understand why Canon is keeping the wraps on the MP count. With the R3 already in the hands of some “pros” I just don’t get it.
> Since switching from the original A9 then A9ll to the R5 having those 45mp has been a game changer for me, the ability to crop and now not have to shoot as tight. I mostly Shoot Alpine ski racing



Because Canon almost always reserves any information regarding resolution until the official release announcement. It's the way they've always done it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Wow, I can't remember the last time I saw an opinion I respect less than yours. Canon has INDEED replaced the OVF, and hasn't made an OVF camera--or lens for one--in years. And you clearly have no understanding of the incredible photographs being made with the RF or other mirrorless camera lines.
> 
> 
> Seriously you might as well argue that only film cameras are real cameras. That would sound as intelligent as what you're saying.



The 1D X Mark III would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Come on Canon don't gimp the camera, no crap 20MP sensor. I know the fan boys will be outraged, but couldn't care less, anything under 30MP will be bitterly disappointing. With a price only slightly under the A1, I'll take 50MP any day of the year for a $500 more. If the AF is outstanding, and it can decidedly beat the A1 I could live with 24MP, just. Would love to see it have equal res to the R5 and offer 8K free of heat issues.



There's practically no functional difference between 20 MP and 24 MP. If 20 MP isn't enough, you need to go to around 30 MP to notice any significant difference.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 14, 2021)

I still hope that one day Canon will let us choose between two or three different sensors and also between different memory card slots. At least in those two points cameras should become modular. That does not mean that one option has to be cheaper than the other one. Just let us choose between 20 MP and 60 MP or something like that! That would make everyone happy.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 14, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> [..]
> I really wish they'd add "motion trigger" ability to video (or high FPS continuous stills) so that you could leave a camera on a tripod and have it only record with sufficient motion happening (like a hummingbird landing on a feeder). Then you'd only have small bits of video or stills to worry about in post instead of gazillions of "nothing" to store and wade through in post.


If they add such a thing, I hope they add software focus limiters as well. The past few days I've been trying to film damselflies shedding their larval skin, which they tend to do on reeds which are swinging in the wind. The AF on the R5 is good enough to track motion, but if a hard gust blows it out of the frame, I don't want the lens to focus on the other side of the pond.

First attempt, with an R5 + 180mm L macro: 





The 180mm has glacial AF, I really hope Canon releases an RF version with quad-nano-USM-turbo AF.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 14, 2021)

I guess Boris Johnson was used as an AF tracking test subject when he took a plunge in the sea after the G7 meeting was finished (he did, German news broadcasted a video yesterday). Well, he shouldn't be a challenge for any AF system


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 14, 2021)

zonoskar said:


> I keep wondering if this is the high megapixel camera that was rumoured to be released in 2021.


I guess not, the R3 seems to be designed for action, but we have to wait until more specific & reliable (!) specs are out.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 14, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


Smartphones are really good for most needs to shoot images and videos. So, if you were the typical user of cheaper ILC cameras with one kit zoom that you never changed, it really makes sense to say good-bye. Interchangeable lens cameras nowadays are mostly an interesting option for people with more special needs which forces them to use special lenses.

One example are tele lenses. Smartphone cameras are limited to a maximum focal lenghts that would be about 100mm in FF equivalent, (1) because of the small space available in a smartphone, and (2) because longer focal lenghts result in even smaller sensors in those mini-cameras. So, if you need a longer tele for your photography, you will always need a bigger system. Another area is shooting with very fast lenses to get a shallow depth-of field to isolate e.g. a portrait from background an get a nice bokeh. Today's better smartphones imitate this effect with their multi-cameras, time-of-flight laser sensors for precise distance metering, plus massive algorithms. But those algorithms produce errors and artifacts, e.g. by smearing out contours of haircuts, you may know this effect in a very stark pronounced way from video chats in which your partner has activated a virtual background. Good smartphones are much better already, but on a bigger print you'd see those artifacts.

All this sums up to the fact, that it is logical for camera makers to concentrate on a smaller, more premium market for enthusiasts and pros. The classical point & shoot market is mostly eaten by smartphones, which represent a disruptive tech. The great thing about a smartphone is that you always have it in your pocket. Plus, if you use it in the street, nobody gets paranoid about it, because everyone is offender by her- or himself, using frequently their own smartphones. But if you today use a classical camera for street photography, even a vintage analogue one with not any connection to social networks, you easily attract aggression.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Unless they are residents of Japan, it looks more and more like the "best photographers in the world" will not be at the Tokyo Olympics if the only foreigners allowed in are the athletes and no one else.


The top photo agencies will have their staff there, as well as sporting organizations speciality photographers as well. But, yes the overall number of press is cut by half. Fans and family members of athletes are not admitted.


----------



## PerKr (Jun 14, 2021)

If it took the guy until now to realise the advantages of mirrorless... His opinion just isn't valid at all. Same goes for anyone who doesn't recognize the advantages that DSLR 's offer. Posting statements like that supposedly-Nikon-using-guy is troll behaviour. But it's good to hear that the R3 is out and about and making impressions. And if more people are bashing DSLR's like that, well, prices falling is good for me personally.

The DSLR as a tool for most professional uses has been ******* for a long time. We all knew for years that at some point the switch was going to happen. We also all know that just because a new tool is superior in most ways, that doesn't render the old tool useless. Personally, as much as I like EVF cameras and want a good fast one, I find myself wanting something simpler relatively often. Yes, the EVF will give a somewhat accurate preview of the resulting image but it also has me looking at precisely that when I should be more concerned about getting the shot. And as I look more and more at that preview, tweaking my settings to get it right, I miss out on the learning, on getting the settings right without relying on that crutch. Yes, I do sometimes just prefer an EVF and a simple AF system, precisely for its simplicity. Especially at those times when the EVF system just does not add anything but complexity. But I can definitely see the advantages of mirrorless.


----------



## Tremotino (Jun 14, 2021)

This camera will shoot 30fps with 21MP full sensor read out (native MP count).
And 10 fps with 84MP full sensor read out (MP count "trick")

What I'm not sure is, if it will have quadpixels or if it's too early for this round.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The main advantages of mirrorless cameras seem to be the autofocus and the high frame rate, but as I only take photos of architecture,


Why would you need an OVF for that?

Isn't precise focusing allowed by EVF and live view better for that, especially with tilt-shift lenses?



Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem I have with OVFs is more philosphical. There is a value of seeing something with your own eyes. That's why I also to not like drone photography. The photos may look amazing, but they are "virtual" because nobody was actually up there with the drone and looking through the viewfinder. That is the basic idea of photography for me: You see something with your won eyes and capture that moment. Of course the exact moment you capture can't be seen because of the viewfinder blackout, but it is still a large difference to an EVF.
> 
> We probably live hundreds of kilometres apart, if you live in Switzerland, but technically I could have an R5, do a video with it, send you the video and you watch that video with your viewfinder. Then you would see exactly what I saw. For you it would look exactly as real as for me. That is the problem with a copy. It is not the original thing.
> 
> In 2015 the Queen visited my hometown. She passed by with her car, had her window down and waved. Prince Philip was sitting next to her. I was able to take some photos when they passed and saw both of them through my OVF. If I had an EVF back then, I would only have seen a digital copy of them. The same digital copy that I could send somebody else who then watches it on a screen or in another EVF. I am not so much into celebrities, but it was important for me to see them with my own eyes. I had the same feeling on the Olympic closing ceremony on Rio de Janeiro. I was very happy that I got a ticket and watched most of the show through my OVF to take tons of photos. Even if EVFS look more and more like reality, you know that they are not real. At some point in future they might build robots that look and behave like humans, but they will still be robots.


Looks more like a cult than philosophy, TBH.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> But then they got the 5D Mark III the same year.


But that’s not a 1-series.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 14, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Why would you need an OVF for that?
> 
> Isn't precise focusing allowed by EVF and live view better for that, especially with tilt-shift lenses?


Usually I use a wide angle like 15mm and f/8. So everything from about 1 metre to infinity is sharp. I would not even need autofocus for that. Even if I use 200mm for a skyscraper that is 500 metres away from me, the depth of field is huge. Everything from 125 metres to infitity will be in focus at f/8 with some rough guess of the focus. My shots usually do not have any bokeh at all. I prefer to have everything sharp. 

Even with a tilt-shift lens like the 17mm f/4 it is very hard to get the focus wrong. I am not sure if live view would help at all, if everything looks still sharp after turning the focus wheel a little.

Of course live view is a nice addition, as it does not take away the mirror. Having more features is always appreciated.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 14, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I keep coming back to this site for news on what watered down newly released spec-d camera can I buy with my $1000 budget and the majority of the posts are all on the cadillacs. I understand there are people who make their living needing the very best equipment. I am in a different category - average guy who needs a reason to ditch the IPhone and pick up a camera that costs just as much as the IPhone but gives me good pics and 4K video. No such thing from Canon besides maybe the M6 mark II. I have an M5 and my iPhone does just as well for the majority of the shots and gives me 4K video. I don’t want to carry a brick just to get marginally better results. Like having something that fits in a pocket. I think I am probably done owning a stand alone camera. I think I am the majority but this site caters to the pro’s who can’t make that choice for obvius reasons - which is why this site will have a hard time growing.


I keep waiting for any kind of Powershot update. I really want to see Powershots with advanced features like the eye autofocus, animal tracking, and possibly more computational photography tricks.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 14, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I really wish they'd add "motion trigger" ability to video (or high FPS continuous stills) so that you could leave a camera on a tripod and have it only record with sufficient motion happening (like a hummingbird landing on a feeder). Then you'd only have small bits of video or stills to worry about in post instead of gazillions of "nothing" to store and wade through in post.


I want this feature from many m43 cameras: Pre-photos or something like this.... the camera is recording 1-2secs before pushing the button! 
Would be awesome for birds flying out of the tree-hole etc.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 14, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> I want this feature from many m43 cameras: Pre-photos or something like this.... the camera is recording 1-2secs before pushing the button!
> Would be awesome for birds flying out of the tree-hole etc.


The EOS M6II can kinda do that, in burst mode you can have it pre-record to a ring buffer that's 0.5 seconds. It didn't work for what I wanted to capture, solitary bees emerging out of their burrow and flying away, since the sensor readout is way too slow to freeze the wings.

Having used my R5 in e-shutter card filling mode a lot the past few days, I have to ask: do you want the pre-shooting to be stopped down or with a fully opened aperture? I can really notice how slow the aperture is in my 180L when it stops down when taking a picture.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 14, 2021)

dilbert said:


> You're making an assumption there that he hasn't tried Canon DSLRs. From his comment - refers to all DSLRs - and that he's tried "the other brand", I think that's a false assumption to make.


Honestly I think you are speculating that his speculation is wrong.


----------



## harrylarsen (Jun 14, 2021)

Kom nu med alle data på R3


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Given the fact that the 1DsIII was 21mp, the 1DX was 18 and the mark II is 20.2, isn’t this rather psychological than practical ? I’d challenge anyone to see the difference.


Possibly, but to me who does make prints and did resample some 21 mp images I felt spending $6,000 and dropping pixel numbers by 15% yet prioritizing frame rates, that I didn’t really need, didn’t feel like a worthwhile upgrade to me.

I know the argument about linear resolution, but the way I looked at it was to look at a print, in that instance you are seeing 15% less information with a print from an 18mp sensor than you are if you already have a 21mp sensor (all else being equal).

And that final bit was the bit that made me go to the 1DX II, all else was not equal, the pixel quality especially at high, iso but even at base iso, was noticeably better than my 1DS III’s.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Buying a $1000 lens that increases your total income over time by say $900 without requiring more working hours, leaving you the lens to sell for $300, is a lens that made money for you. It was a good investment.


Equipment should pay for itself several times over, not be bought thinking you will be able to capitalize on scrap value. "Good" investment, not really.


----------



## sandhar (Jun 14, 2021)

digigal said:


> I have very small hands so the smaller R5 form factor has been great for me BUT the teeny, tiny back buttons that I use for different back button focus options are not so great for me because I do most of my shooting in cold weather with thick gloves which means it's almost impossible for me to discriminate the buttons by feel because of their small size. My solution has been to build them up with moldable silicone to be able to feel them through my gloves. The camera was great unmodified when I was not wearing gloves.
> Catherine
> View attachment 198286


Hi Catherine .. where did you get the body wrap for your R5 ?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Possibly, but to me who does make prints and did resample some 21 mp images I felt spending $6,000 and dropping pixel numbers by 15% yet prioritizing frame rates, that I didn’t really need, didn’t feel like a worthwhile upgrade to me.
> 
> I know the argument about linear resolution, but the way I looked at it was to look at a print, in that instance you are seeing 15% less information with a print from an 18mp sensor than you are if you already have a 21mp sensor (all else being equal).
> 
> And that final bit was the bit that made me go to the 1DX II, all else was not equal, the pixel quality especially at high, iso but even at base iso, was noticeably better than my 1DS III’s.


You definitely need to grab one of the last 5DSRs while they are going cheap !


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> You definitely need to grab one of the last 5DSRs while they are going cheap !


I have been so tempted so often, and you are right I should! But the things that have held me back are I have embraced more sports and action shooting where the mp simply aren't an advantage, and the AF.

If Canon had done a modest 5DS upgrade, so it was based on the 5D IV vs the 5D III for my uses I think I'd have found it more appealing.

In the meantime I am happy stitching images like this, below, to get me 35 mp on an effective 24mm x 70mm sensor with my TS-E50.


----------



## TAF (Jun 14, 2021)

Is it to soon to hope that the new sensor tech will migrate to the (notional) R6Mk2? Small hands...prefer small bodies...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> But that’s not a 1-series.



Nope, it isn't. But a lot of folks who once used 1Ds bodies for studio work and weddings switched over to the 5-series anyway.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Unless they are residents of Japan, it looks more and more like the "best photographers in the world" will not be at the Tokyo Olympics if the only foreigners allowed in are the athletes and no one else.


You may be right, but I'd guess that the best (or at least best known) Olympic photographers would get special permission to attend. The Olympic commitee and those in control are pushing the Olympics to make money via broadcast income as the #1 priority (IMHO) and not having the best photographers attend would be against their best interest.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 14, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> If they add such a thing, I hope they add software focus limiters as well. The past few days I've been trying to film damselflies shedding their larval skin, which they tend to do on reeds which are swinging in the wind. The AF on the R5 is good enough to track motion, but if a hard gust blows it out of the frame, I don't want the lens to focus on the other side of the pond.
> 
> First attempt, with an R5 + 180mm L macro:
> 
> ...


Yes, I absolutely wish Canon would add the menu ability to specify actual numbers for max & min limits to the focus distance allowed. That would be useful in general, but particularly critical for motion trigger long duration tripod video/intervalometer use. It would also help a lot in using their new zoom lenses that (regrettably) often have a 2 way switch (far only / all distances) instead of 3 way switches (far only / all distances / close only).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Unless they are residents of Japan, it looks more and more like the "best photographers in the world" will not be at the Tokyo Olympics if the only foreigners allowed in are the athletes and no one else.


Don’t tell Goldmember that He might have a fit.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 14, 2021)

Khristo said:


> I just keep telling myself that my 5D3 and my 10 EF L lenses are every bit as good as the day I bought them...


You, too, do *not* suffer from lens rot. 

(I was beginning to think I was the only one.)


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 14, 2021)

dilbert said:


> And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop.


No I didn't. My lenses work as well today as they did yesterday, and will work just as well tomorrow if/when I add an RF body.


----------



## Mmm Toast (Jun 14, 2021)

That appears to be a $6,000 camera with a $500 lens on it in the twitter post. Nearly feels like a meme.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 14, 2021)

Khristo said:


> I just keep telling myself that my 5D3 and my 10 EF L lenses are every bit as good as the day I bought them...


From the stills side, the improvements brought by mirrorless can be useful. But they're simply not going to alter the nature of photography or render you, with an 'old mirror flapper', unable to produce competitive work. Any claim that DSLRs and their lenses from the past decade are dead is hyperbole. This is especially true of your lenses which adapt seamlessly to R bodies.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 15, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Investing in capital assets and measuring a return on investment is standard practice for all businesses. Capital appreciation is just one form of return on investment. Income is another way of generating return on investment. Even if an asset depreciates in value, in can still serve to improve efficiency, take on work that they may not have been able to get before, or simply make work more enjoyable. Regardless, if you generate income with your equipment, buying equipment is an investment.
> 
> Trucking companies invest in new trucks. Medical offices invest in medical equipment. Photography businesses invest in cameras, lighting, and other gear.
> 
> ...





SwissFrank said:


> Buying a $1000 lens that increases your total income over time by say $900 without requiring more working hours, leaving you the lens to sell for $300, is a lens that made money for you. It was a good investment.



Maybe we're just getting into philosophical territory, but I don't generally consider buying a piece of gear an "investment" itself. Investing in the business? Yes.


----------



## dcm (Jun 15, 2021)

Mmm Toast said:


> That appears to be a $6,000 camera with a $500 lens on it in the twitter post. Nearly feels like a meme.


I see this all the time. Sometimes you work with what you have. 

Back around 2003 my daughter had her senior portrait taken from a high end photog studio at a resort hotel we were visiting. Photographer showed up with a 1DS and an EF 28-135. He said the studio wanted the best cameras but only got them cheap lenses. Photos were fine - he knew how to work with what he had.

More recently a local group showed up to take video in my garden (including a drone). They had a 5D4 and EF 50/1.8 STM. It worked fine for their purposes. 

Who knows - they might have slapped a cheap lens on it because they couldn't show the unannounced lens they were working with before that shot.


----------



## dcm (Jun 15, 2021)

RunAndGun said:


> Maybe we're just getting into philosophical territory, but I don't generally consider buying a piece of gear an "investment" itself. Investing in the business? Yes.


Agreed. If I purchase something for investment in and of itself, I'm expecting it's intrinsic value to increase like gold or property. I don't really expect cameras or lenses to increase in value on their own. They are simply tools to get the shot and an investment you make in the business as you said. Like the trips you take to capture images you can sell. The tools depreciate and have some residual value you may be able to recoup, but that's it.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Echoing @privatebydesign 's comments. The stand-alone camera market for casual users is pretty much dead. If you are pleased with your iPhone photos, you might as well stick with the phone. There are no cameras that can compete in terms of both size and quality and certainly none that lets you make a call from them. I would correct your impression though that this site caters to professionals. The professional market is also shrinking and most of the people on this site are not professionals, but rather enthusiasts who earn little to nothing from their hobby, but are willing to spend lots of money to capture pictures in niche categories, like birding and wildlife. Or they are simply people who like owning the best and have sufficient disposable income to do so. Camera manufacturers are following the dollars and the dollars, as PBD pointed out, are in the enthusiast market.



It's worth pointing out too that this site has always focused on rumours about higher end gear. I don't remember people dissecting the latest Rebel over dozens of threads. They just get announced with little fanfare.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> If you can't get better pictures with your M5 than with your iPhone, you must not know how to use the M5. Are you shooting JPEGs in Auto mode? Do you have any longer glass? Do you have a RAW editor?. In a bright light, wide angle shot, the IPhone will look pretty good (if you don't mind overly processed images), but once the going gets tough (i.e. long distance, bad light, etc.), the M5 is a much better choice, but you do need some glass to go with it.



Actually the latest phones can exceed dedicated cameras in low light, at least handheld. Night Mode is nothing short of miraculous.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 15, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Actually the latest phones can exceed dedicated cameras in low light, at least handheld. Night Mode is nothing short of miraculous.


Night mode fixes camera motion, but doesn't work if the scene has multiple motion vectors.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

The stand-alone camera market for casual users is pretty much dead. 


John Wilde said:


> I don't think so. Canon doesn't like to mention it, but in both the USA and Japan their best selling mirrorless camera is the M50.


The M eco system is alive but Canon has it in stasis for whatever reason.
I believe the original poster was referring to the compact camera market (and maybe the xxxD SLRs) which are practically deceased. I was shooting a very contrasty sunrise on the weekend and my iPhone handled it surprisingly well. Definitely good enough for social media with only a touch of post processing. The R5 raw image I took was slightly different with a narrow aperture for a sun star which needed extra processing due to the filters I was using. It is better but was a lot more work. If printing then it is a no-brainer if there is a choice of phone vs SLR. I shoot mostly for subjects/niches that I can't do with a phone simply because there is no point in trying to compete.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter. Add in better AF/Tracking and its hard to beat. The DSLR is absolutely dead. Nobody is going to make another serious DSLR so unless you are happy with using what you have or what's available now until the end you'll have to go mirrorless eventually.


Agreed. The main drawbacks for mirrorless was OVF battery life and clarity of vision (even if not what the sensor is seeing. EVF refresh rate and resolution which are getting much better and with options to improve refresh rate at the expense of battery life. Lower end ML bodies will still suffer from poorer EVF refresh and quality
No prism or AF sensor needed, No microAF adjustment. The list is very long for ML benefits and quality will trickle down to lower end models over time


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Yes, Canon provides a EF-RF adapter to prevent people from realising that EOS EF -> EOS RF is a moment that they can consider choosing Sony/Nikon.
> 
> EF lenses can be made to work on RF cameras but the equivalent RF lenses will work better - for example, faster and more reliable autofocus.


But there aren't RF versions of all EF lens and to some extent never will be... and certainly not for the same money. There wasn't a moment for me to switch systems as my EF lenses which I still use today were worth more than any switching costs.

That said, the RF24-105mm/4 is cheaper than the EF24-105mm/4 for some reason.


----------



## maulanawale (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> From the stills side, the improvements brought by mirrorless can be useful. But they're simply not going to alter the nature of photography or render you, with an 'old mirror flapper', unable to produce competitive work. Any claim that DSLRs and their lenses from the past decade are dead is hyperbole. This is especially true of your lenses which adapt seamlessly to R bodies.


+1

Granted I don't have data to prove it and this is just my personal opinion, but if the number of profesional wildlife photographers I follow are any indication, many pros have held on to their DSLR's for longer when compared to amateurs and "semi pros". So if it works for them, clearly it's good enough for your average shooter. I'm all in with mirrorless but still keep an eye out for good DLSR bargains. 5D's, 1D's. . .those were the cameras I dreamed of years ago and with the advent of the 'unmirrored" cameras, eventually will be able to add them to my collection for a fraction of the cost and 100% of the enjoyment.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem I have with OVFs is more philosphical. There is a value of seeing something with your own eyes. That's why I also to not like drone photography. The photos may look amazing, but they are "virtual" because nobody was actually up there with the drone and looking through the viewfinder. That is the basic idea of photography for me: You see something with your won eyes and capture that moment. Of course the exact moment you capture can't be seen because of the viewfinder blackout, but it is still a large difference to an EVF.


But would it be okay if a still or video was taken from a helicopter or cessna etc? How would you tell the difference?


----------



## Joules (Jun 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Don’t tell Goldmember that He might have a fit.


Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his member


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2021)

Joules said:


> Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his member


It was intentional. I used to respect his input but now his rants seem more appropriate to a Mike Myers character. He claims to head up the worlds biggest and best 25 sports photographers and would buy 75 R1’s, little realizing that number isn’t a drop in the ocean of 1 series sales however high profile his clients are. A decent presser will have nearly that many and a CPS supported major sports event would have way more than that as free loaners to any accredited shooter.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> But would it be okay if a still or video was taken from a helicopter or cessna etc? How would you tell the difference?


You might not see the difference, but the photo from a helicopter with the photographer behind it would be "real", because he was really there. Imagine in a few years from now it would be possible to rent a drone in another country without going there. You could sit in Europe and stear a drone in Australia and take photos of places you have never been to and might never go to. A photo should always capture the moment that the photographer really experienced. He has to be behind the camera or at least next to it. Otherwise only the camera saw that moment. Of course it is nice that we have cameras on Mars without going there on our own, but on earth we should always try to be close to the camera.

As I focus on skyscrapers, drone shots would be very tempting of course. The best view towards a skyscraper usually is from about half its height and some cities still allow drone shots without special permits. However I am proud that all of my photos so far are taken by me behind the camera. In Frankfurt I really was in a helicopter and looked down on the skyscrapers, even if modern drones could do even sharper images that are not spoiled by the curved and reflective helicopter front window. If I get the chance to go up on a tower that usually is not open to public, I get some of those exclusive shots of other buildings that are still real. 

With an EVF you are also behind the camera, but while you are looking through your viewfinder, you do not see reality any more.

Of course what our eyes see isn't reality either. Colours to not really exist. They are just a way for our brain to visualize some wavelenghts of light. The fact that the world in reality is dark, is quite creepy. However light going directly into our eyes after getting reflected from objects is the closest we can get to "reality".


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Investing in capital assets and measuring a return on investment is standard practice for all businesses. Capital appreciation is just one form of return on investment. Income is another way of generating return on investment. Even if an asset depreciates in value, in can still serve to improve efficiency, take on work that they may not have been able to get before, or simply make work more enjoyable. Regardless, if you generate income with your equipment, buying equipment is an investment.
> 
> Trucking companies invest in new trucks. Medical offices invest in medical equipment. Photography businesses invest in cameras, lighting, and other gear.
> 
> ...



Accountants call them "Capital Expenditures", not "Capital Investments".


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

Joules said:


> Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his member



Well, his posts for the past year or so at least make him sound like a real D... ahem, Member.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> From the stills side, the improvements brought by mirrorless can be useful. But they're simply not going to alter the nature of photography or render you, with an 'old mirror flapper', unable to produce competitive work. Any claim that DSLRs and their lenses from the past decade are dead is hyperbole. This is especially true of your lenses which adapt seamlessly to R bodies.



They're not dead, they're just less competitive.

Faster shooting due to the lack of a mirror?
Faster focus tracking by the lens?
No mirror blackout?
Eye focus?

The lack of these things doesn't make the craft useless and professional photographer unable to work, but having these tools in your belt can make it easier for you to get the right shot and perhaps give you a competitive advantage over the photographer that doesn't have the above capabilities.

None of the above has anything to do with composition or being able to select when the right moment is about to appear but it can have a positive input when it comes to capturing the right moment.



https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/05832613d8c89efc19a7eaf3ccbc5a60793a410e/0_155_4645_2787/master/4645.jpg?width=940&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=a57a1235aa31962c0234a0760bde46c3



(I'd say there is a 90% chance that was captured with a Canon DSLR)


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

dilbert said:


> They're not dead, they're just less competitive.
> 
> Faster shooting due to the lack of a mirror?
> Faster focus tracking by the lens?
> ...


Opinions are going to vary on faster shooting. And even I have to admit that there are likely edge cases where an extremely high fps really does help. But I've found in general higher fps rates simply create more work for me. My ability to capture peak moments did not diminish in the slightest from dropping down to 5 fps. (I basically use my 5Ds for everything now including sports, action, and wildlife.) If anything being able to zoom back a bit (100-400) knowing I can crop in helped more than faster fps on other bodies (more lead time to shutter release). Maybe 30 fps will be the rate to change that perception, but I kind of doubt it. Outside of edge cases it's just a lot of frames of the same thing.

Are any RF lenses actually faster at AF tracking? I would be surprised if this was the case versus recent EF L glass. And if so, does it matter? Once the subject is acquired tracking speed has not been an issue for me on L teles all the way back to the 7D. Camera subject recognition and AF point selection seems to be a better example of where mirrorless has improved things. But I'm not convinced it has improved things so much as to render a 5D3 less competitive.

Mirror blackout is preferable to continuous shooting lag which is an issue even on the R5/R6 and Sony A9s. Perhaps this will be solved with the R3.

Eye focus is one of the more interesting advancements. And an advancement that can bump up the keeper rate with really fast primes and models. But I honestly have not had a problem nailing the eye in those situations going all the way back to the 7D. So the question becomes: how many frames of the same person with razor thin focus do I need? Does a 95% keeper rate vs. 90% really change photography for me? I would likely rank the R3's extreme low light AF capabilities (going by pre-release specs) higher than eye AF in terms of practical impact.

Some of my opinions are no doubt influenced by experience. A newbie can likely pickup an R3 and nail focus on a model's eye with a f/1.2 prime. Not as likely with a DSLR.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter.


Yes and no. EVF lets you preview exposure and color balance, and it's close enough to make meaningful decisions about those things. But it is by far the worst preview available between EVF, rear screen, home monitor, and the real scene (OVF). Color, contrast, and dynamic range are all way off. I have yet to see an EVF that didn't feel like a VGA monitor from the 90s. I can also still perceive some pixelization, though that varies by user.

If an EVF looked like my 4k calibrated monitor or even a good rear screen I could perhaps jump without missing an OVF. That's not the case right now.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 15, 2021)

My very old camera can only do 12 fps and 14 fps without refocussing after each shot, but I hardly ever use it, because each frame reduces the life of the shutter. If you shoot in burst mode very often, the 400,000 photos that are promised for the camera are soon behind you and then you might need a new shutter for a lot of money. How will that chance with electronic shutter? Will there be no limit on the number of frames?

Also it is quite a pain to look through all those images, I once took about 1,000 photos of Rafael Nadal during a match and it takes a lot of time to find the best shots. How would that change if you have 30 fps and press the shutter button even more often? You might end up with 5,000 or 10,000 shots. Without some help of some artificial intelligence that finds the best shots, you might need days to go through all those shots. And what would you do with the lower 99% of those images? Delete them? For a photographer it is always hard to delete a photo. because you never know if you could need it again. That attitude has to change. Otherwise you will drown in images.

So far I only saw the EVF of the original EOS R at Photokina in 2018. I was not very convinced yet. Unfortunately there might not be a next Photokina any time soon. So I wonder if I have to order an R3 without having ever looked through the viewfinder. I hope there will be some Youtube videos that give me some impression of the quality.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Accountants call them "Capital Expenditures", not "Capital Investments".



Depends. Look up GASB. Net investment in capital assets.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Eye focus is one of the more interesting advancements. And an advancement that can bump up the keeper rate with really fast primes and models. But I honestly have not had a problem nailing the eye in those situations going all the way back to the 7D. So the question becomes: how many frames of the same person with razor thin focus do I need? Does a 95% keeper rate vs. 90% really change photography for me? I would likely rank the R3's extreme low light AF capabilities (going by pre-release specs) higher than eye AF in terms of practical impact.
> 
> Some of my opinions are no doubt influenced by experience. A newbie can likely pickup an R3 and nail focus on a model's eye with a f/1.2 prime. Not as likely with a DSLR.


I recently picked up a RP at a good price, and already had an adapter, being a forward thinking guy  
Where I notice the difference in AF is when shooting at a wideish aperture and off centre of the frame. With the RP I can shoot with impunity at f/1.8 even well off centre. I can’t reliably do this with any of my dslrs.


----------



## bernie_king (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Yes and no. EVF lets you preview exposure and color balance, and it's close enough to make meaningful decisions about those things. But it is by far the worst preview available between EVF, rear screen, home monitor, and the real scene (OVF). Color, contrast, and dynamic range are all way off. I have yet to see an EVF that didn't feel like a VGA monitor from the 90s. I can also still perceive some pixelization, though that varies by user.
> 
> If an EVF looked like my 4k calibrated monitor or even a good rear screen I could perhaps jump without missing an OVF. That's not the case right now.


That really hasn't been my experience, but to each his own. I have stopped previewing my photos on the back screen on the R5 in favor of the EVF. It's just higher resolution and you don't have to deal with glare. As far as it looking like a VGA monitor, have you tried a modern EVF?


----------



## dilbert (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Are any RF lenses actually faster at AF tracking?



Lets see. (1) The RF interface allows for a much faster exchange of information between the lens and camera (2) The RF interface allows for the camera to supply the lens with more power (this is especially significant for larger lenses with heavy elements.)

To summarise, it isn't the lens that's necessarily faster but it is the RF system that allows for faster and more accurate focus.



dtaylor said:


> Mirror blackout is preferable to continuous shooting lag which is an issue even on the R5/R6 and Sony A9s. Perhaps this will be solved with the R3.



I'll puat one in the opinion bucket as there are many who sing the praise of no blackout.



dtaylor said:


> Eye focus is one of the more interesting advancements. And an advancement that can bump up the keeper rate with really fast primes and models. But I honestly have not had a problem nailing the eye in those situations going all the way back to the 7D.



Either you've not read the stories or I was opaque in my question. I was referring to the camera tracking the photographer's eye to determine what to focus on - not the camera nailing focus on an eye (a commonly talked about feature elsewhere.)

Look, I get it. You've got an EF camera plus EF lenses and you want to defend that because you're defending your own decisions to spend money on it. At the time that was the probably the right thing to do. Technology has moved on and it isn't going to wait for any of us. Newer is always going to be better - if it wasn't, nobody would buy into it. The conservatives amongst us will always resist change and the progressives will always welcome it with open arms.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I recently picked up a RP at a good price, and already had an adapter, being a forward thinking guy
> Where I notice the difference in AF is when shooting at a wideish aperture and off centre of the frame. With the RP I can shoot with impunity at f/1.8 even well off centre. I can’t reliably do this with any of my dslrs.



And on DSLRs with live view, that's able to focus when the normal focusing cannot. The writing has been on the wall for OVFs for some time.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I recently picked up a RP at a good price, and already had an adapter, being a forward thinking guy
> Where I notice the difference in AF is when shooting at a wideish aperture and off centre of the frame. With the RP I can shoot with impunity at f/1.8 even well off centre. I can’t reliably do this with any of my dslrs.


That's a fair observation as DSLR AF modules tend to be less accurate off center.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> That really hasn't been my experience, but to each his own. I have stopped previewing my photos on the back screen on the R5 in favor of the EVF. It's just higher resolution and you don't have to deal with glare. As far as it looking like a VGA monitor, have you tried a modern EVF?


Does the Sony A9 count? That's probably the highest IQ EVF I've had real stick time on.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Lets see. (1) The RF interface allows for a much faster exchange of information between the lens and camera


From what I've seen the RF interface adds pins for a serial channel for exchanging more complex data like lens corrections. Otherwise it's EF. And the EF pins/protocol would ever prove to be the upper bound on AF performance. Computing distance and moving lens elements would always be slower than the frequency at which EF signals are exchanged.



dilbert said:


> (2) The RF interface allows for the camera to supply the lens with more power (this is especially significant for larger lenses with heavy elements.)


A number of 1D bodies do this, as does the 7D mark II. Did RF provide for an even higher power limit here? Do any R bodies use it yet?



dilbert said:


> I'll puat one in the opinion bucket as there are many who sing the praise of no blackout.


The existence of frame lag under continuous shooting is not opinion, it's observable fact. The significance of frame lag is more a matter of opinion. Someone who never holds the shutter button down long enough to encounter it may indeed find mirror blackout to be worse. But photographers have complained that they can lose erratically moving subjects, and it's hard to argue that mirror blackout is worse than this.

On the R3 this may prove to be a moot point. If it can shoot at 30 fps then it can likely (?) feed the EVF at 30 fps under continuous shooting. That should be sufficient to never fall behind even if it's 'jerky' compared to 60 or 120 Hz refresh when not shooting.



dilbert said:


> Either you've not read the stories or I was opaque in my question. I was referring to the camera tracking the photographer's eye to determine what to focus on - not the camera nailing focus on an eye (a commonly talked about feature elsewhere.)


You have to be more specific since 'eye focus' can mean either one. I've had this before on an EOS 3. It's neat, it's not a game changer.



dilbert said:


> Look, I get it. You've got an EF camera plus EF lenses and you want to defend that because you're defending your own decisions to spend money on it.


No, I simply don't find mirrorless tech to be 'game changing' in a way that would render DSLRs from the last decade uncompetitive. It's simply not the same as, say, the move from film to digital.



dilbert said:


> Newer is always going to be better - if it wasn't, nobody would buy into it.


The question is whether newer leads to any real, consistent, and widespread improvements in published photography. I can look at small format work from, say, 1995 and 2005 and see the impact of digital in terms of both technical IQ and creative freedom. Likewise when comparing magazine published work from 1995 and, say, 1975 on technical IQ (the difference being in digital publishing even if the originals were captured on film). I don't expect to see those kinds of IQ or creativity gains because of EVFs or eye based AF point selection.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Does the Sony A9 count? That's probably the highest IQ EVF I've had real stick time on.


When I had the Sony A9 and A7RIV, I noticed a tremendous difference in clarity and quality between them. The Sony A9 viewfinder is 3,686,400 Dot, whereas the Sony A7RIV is 5,760,000 Dot. 
The Canon R5 is 5,760,000 Dot, and again much noticeably improved over the Sony A9. 

If you're genuinely curious about whether EVFs have improved, try spending some time using a camera with one of the newer EVFs and see for yourself. The Sony A1's 9,437,184 Dot viewfinder sounds very impressive. I have not looked through it personally yet. 

To me, the EVF quality improvements between 3.7 million and 5.8 million dots are highly noticeable and make the R5 much easier to use. In fact, the 3,690,000 Dot viewfinder on the R6 is the only thing that kept me from getting one as a second body.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Yes and no. EVF lets you preview exposure and color balance, and it's close enough to make meaningful decisions about those things. But it is by far the worst preview available between EVF, rear screen, home monitor, and the real scene (OVF). Color, contrast, and dynamic range are all way off. I have yet to see an EVF that didn't feel like a VGA monitor from the 90s. I can also still perceive some pixelization, though that varies by user.
> 
> If an EVF looked like my 4k calibrated monitor or even a good rear screen I could perhaps jump without missing an OVF. That's not the case right now.


Except that the preview would still be of what the JPEG would look like if you were shooting JPEGs, not how the Raw file will come up in Lightroom or ACR before you start twiddling, wouldn't it?


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> When I had the Sony A9 and A7RIV, I noticed a tremendous difference in clarity and quality between them. The Sony A9 viewfinder is 3,686,400 Dot, whereas the Sony A7RIV is 5,760,000 Dot.
> The Canon R5 is 5,760,000 Dot, and again much noticeably improved over the Sony A9.
> 
> If you're genuinely curious about whether EVFs have improved, try spending some time using a camera with one of the newer EVFs and see for yourself. The Sony A1's 9,437,184 Dot viewfinder sounds very impressive. I have not looked through it personally yet.
> ...


While I can perceive some graininess or pixelization, EVF resolution isn't my main issue by a long shot. Side note: I hate that the industry uses "dots" to make EVFs sound extremely high resolution. Divide by 3 to get the true resolution.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Except that the preview would still be of what the JPEG would look like if you were shooting JPEGs, not how the Raw file will come up in Lightroom or ACR before you start twiddling, wouldn't it?


Yes.


----------



## bernie_king (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> While I can perceive some graininess or pixelization, EVF resolution isn't my main issue by a long shot. Side note: I hate that the industry uses "dots" to make EVFs sound extremely high resolution. Divide by 3 to get the true resolution.


I agree. It would be better to have real resolution. The R5 EVF is around 1600x1200 which is about 1080p, so true not 4K (hardly VGA though). I think the A1's EVF equates to roughly a QuadHD. Both are more than acceptable for viewing an image.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 15, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> While I can perceive some graininess or pixelization, EVF resolution isn't my main issue by a long shot. Side note: I hate that the industry uses "dots" to make EVFs sound extremely high resolution. Divide by 3 to get the true resolution.


Really? Measuring the EVF or back LCD in "dots" is exactly what those sensors are. Maybe you'd rather they call them "pixels" and use the same number (not divide by 3)? That would be what they're doing with the (Bayer) sensor! The fact that they interpolate sensor dots via algorithms into "marketing called pixels" doesn't change the fact that the sensor is actually "dots" and not "pixels". So, the fact that the marketing department used the "honest" term for EVF & back LCD is what is upsetting you? And for the record, even dividing by 3 and calling it a "pixel" is not what the EVF, LCD, or sensor is. They don't have "pixel" sensors or emitters. All three are "dots", and that's the only "honest" term for all 3 of them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You might not see the difference, but the photo from a helicopter with the photographer behind it would be "real", because he was really there.
> 
> With an EVF you are also behind the camera, but while you are looking through your viewfinder, you do not see reality any more.
> 
> Of course what our eyes see isn't reality either. Colours to not really exist. They are just a way for our brain to visualize some wavelenghts of light. The fact that the world in reality is dark, is quite creepy. However light going directly into our eyes after getting reflected from objects is the closest we can get to "reality".


Some serious philosophising going on here. Either you can see the reality or you can't. Shooting from a helicopter with a EVF doesn't negate the reality of the photographer. Shooting from a remote screen on a drone doesn't negate the experience or their perception of reality at the time. In either case, and as you say, you can't see the difference in the final result and I don't believe that the final result is impacted by the "reality" of the photographer looking through a OVF.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Really? Measuring the EVF or back LCD in "dots" is exactly what those sensors are. Maybe you'd rather they call them "pixels" and use the same number


A screen pixel would be composed of three 'dots' (RGB). They switched to reporting dots for camera screens and EVFs for pure marketing reasons to make the screens sound higher resolution than they really are.



usern4cr said:


> That would be what they're doing with the (Bayer) sensor!


No it is not.



usern4cr said:


> the sensor is actually "dots" and not "pixels".


The final output from a sensor has one full RGB pixel per sensor pixel with the additional color information derived from neighboring pixels. This is distinctly different from camera screens where the reported number of dots leads a consumer to believe the screen is comparable to a monitor of a particular class when in fact it's comparable to a much lower resolution monitor. It has no relationship to Bayer what so ever. Your EVF/rear screen shows a fully demosaiced JPEG.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 16, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> From what I've seen the RF interface adds pins for a serial channel for exchanging more complex data like lens corrections. Otherwise it's EF. And the EF pins/protocol would ever prove to be the upper bound on AF performance. Computing distance and moving lens elements would always be slower than the frequency at which EF signals are exchanged.



To cut a long story short, you've convinced that EF and optical is better and will argue until death that you're right. You're a few years late with this perspective and your arguments are similarly dated. It's 2021, not 2015.

If you want the truth behind the questions in your response, I'm sure you know how to use Google.

The world is moving on, EVF and mirrorless is the future. That train has left the station and there's no going back. Innovation will see that EVF cameras are just as good, if not better, than OVF. Of course there will be some folks that are wedded to their DSLRs, just like there are some that are wedded to film.

There are multiple threads here with you about EVFs and mirrorless. I would encourage you to step back for a few days and come back. This thread does not look like how you imagine it does.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 16, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> A screen pixel would be composed of three 'dots' (RGB). They switched to reporting dots for camera screens and EVFs for pure marketing reasons to make the screens sound higher resolution than they really are.
> 
> 
> No it is not.
> ...


The EVF and LCD screen are physically composed of single color dots, not pixels. If you want to divide the number of dots by three and call it a pixel, feel free to.

The commonly used Bayer sensor is composed of single color receptors, which are single color sensing dots. For every 2 green and 1 red and blue dot the marketing department chooses to call them all "pixels", implying that all 4 dots each have red, green, and blue. They do not. The fact that subsequent software interpolates neighboring pixels together to create additional estimated color values and provide 3 colors per dot on output does not mean that the sensor actually sensed 3 colors per dot - it did not. The only camera sensor that actually has each dot sense all 3 colors is the Foveon sensor from Sigma, which has 3 vertical sensing layers per dot. The camera companies with Bayer sensors call a 20MDot sensor a 20MPixel sensor to increase sales. If they chose to further use software to upres a 20MDot(declared 20MPixel) sensor by 2x2 then they could present you with a 80MPixel file from the sensor and call it a 80MPixel camera - but it's still not. Most of the CR members here probably already know this topic and would say it's old news and not worth arguing over. I agree with that. You (and much of the public) can feel free to think a 20MDot sensor is really 20MPixels - enjoy.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Except that the preview would still be of what the JPEG would look like if you were shooting JPEGs, not how the Raw file will come up in Lightroom or ACR before you start twiddling, wouldn't it?



Yep. But then shooters who haven't developed an eye in their own brain to see how an image will look before ever raising the camera to their eye and shooting it are the same ones who tend to shoot JPEG, in my experience. They're the ones that think a WYSIWYG EVF is such a revolutionary tool.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> The EVF and LCD screen are physically composed of single color dots, not pixels. If you want to divide the number of dots by three and call it a pixel, feel free to.
> 
> The commonly used Bayer sensor is composed of single color receptors, which are single color sensing dots. For every 2 green and 1 red and blue dot the marketing department chooses to call them all "pixels", implying that all 4 dots each have red, green, and blue. They do not. The fact that subsequent software interpolates neighboring pixels together to create additional estimated color values and provide 3 colors per dot on output does not mean that the sensor actually sensed 3 colors per dot - it did not. The only camera sensor that actually has each dot sense all 3 colors is the Foveon sensor from Sigma, which has 3 vertical sensing layers per dot. The camera companies with Bayer sensors call a 20MDot sensor a 20MPixel sensor to increase sales. If they chose to further use software to upres a 20MDot(declared 20MPixel) sensor by 2x2 then they could present you with a 80MPixel file from the sensor and call it a 80MPixel camera - but it's still not. Most of the CR members here probably already know this topic and would say it's old news and not worth arguing over. I agree with that. You (and much of the public) can feel free to think a 20MDot sensor is really 20MPixels - enjoy.



They're not even single color sensing dots. They all three have some sensitivity to the entire visible spectrum. Putting a green color filter over a sensel on a digital sensor does not eliminate all red and blue light from entering it any more than putting a green filter over a lens eliminates all red and green light from reaching black and white film and making any blue or red object in the scene pure black in the photo. It just makes the blue and red things look darker than the green things that are the same brightness in the actual scene.

*ALL THREE* colors have to be interpolated when demosaicing is done. Not only because of the overlapping way each filtered pixel is sensitive to the rest of the visible spectrum, but also because different light sources emit different parts of the visible spectrum in differing amounts. *They all have to be interpolated as well because the three colors that most Bayer masks use are not the same three colors that RGB monitors emit, either.* The three colors of Bayer mask filters are closer to the three colors to which each type of our retinal cones are most sensitive: A slightly violet blue, a slightly yellow green and a slightly green yellow, though most Bayer masks use an orangish yellow color instead of the lime color to which our L cones are most sensitive.




We named the cones "red", "green", and "blue" decades before we managed to measure the exact response of each type of cone to various wavelengths of light.

The reason trichromatic color masks on cameras and trichromatic reproduction systems (RGB monitors or CMY three color printing) work is because our retinas and brains do the same thing. Our Medium wavelength and Long wavelength cones have a very large amount of overlapping sensitivity. Our short wavelength cones have less overlap with the M and L cones, but there is still some overlap there. If there were no overlapping sensitivity between the S, M, and L cones our brains could not create colors. Colors do not exist in the electromagnetic spectrum. There are only wavelengths and frequencies. It's our brains that create color as a response to certain wavelengths/frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.





The "red" filtered part of this Sony IMX249 sensor peaks at 600nm, which is what we call "orange", rather than 640nm, which is the color we call "Red."

All of the cute little drawings on the internet notwithstanding, the actual colors of a Bayer filer are not Red (640nm), Green (530nm), and Blue (465nm).




Actual image of an actual Bayer mask and a sensor. Part of the mask has been peeled away.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> The EVF and LCD screen are physically composed of single color dots, not pixels. If you want to divide the number of dots by three and call it a pixel, feel free to.
> 
> The commonly used Bayer sensor is composed of single color receptors, which are single color sensing dots. For every 2 green and 1 red and blue dot the marketing department chooses to call them all "pixels", implying that all 4 dots each have red, green, and blue. They do not. The fact that subsequent software interpolates neighboring pixels together to create additional estimated color values and provide 3 colors per dot on output does not mean that the sensor actually sensed 3 colors per dot - it did not. The only camera sensor that actually has each dot sense all 3 colors is the Foveon sensor from Sigma, which has 3 vertical sensing layers per dot. The camera companies with Bayer sensors call a 20MDot sensor a 20MPixel sensor to increase sales. If they chose to further use software to upres a 20MDot(declared 20MPixel) sensor by 2x2 then they could present you with a 80MPixel file from the sensor and call it a 80MPixel camera - but it's still not. Most of the CR members here probably already know this topic and would say it's old news and not worth arguing over. I agree with that. You (and much of the public) can feel free to think a 20MDot sensor is really 20MPixels - enjoy.



Then you need to start counting all three dots that make up a screen like a computer monitor as well. 4K is really 12K. 8K is really 24K, and so on.

FHD is 5,760 x 1080 (because the dots on most monitors are three times as tall as they are wide).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2021)

dilbert said:


> The world is moving on, EVF and mirrorless is the future.


Moving on, at a snail's pace. In 2020, MILCs comprised 55% of ILC sales, DSLRs comprised 45%. In Jan-Apr of 2021, MILCs comprised 56% of ILC sales, DSLRs comprised 44%. At that rate of change, the fully mirrorless future will arrive in a few short decades.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Then you need to start counting all three dots that make up a screen like a computer monitor as well. 4K is really 12K. 8K is really 24K, and so on.


Not really (even following their "logic"), because "4K" is a reference to the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension of the display. (either 3840 or 4096 depending on exactly what kind of 4K it is). Tripling the number of pixels will not triple the horizontal pixel count; it would likely add ~73.2 percent to it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Not really (even following their "logic"), because "4K" is a reference to the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension of the display. (either 3840 or 4096 depending on exactly what kind of 4K it is). Tripling the number of pixels will not triple the horizontal pixel count; it would likely add ~73.2 percent to it.



Since most monitors actually have R,G, and B rectangles that are three times as tall as they are wide, then it wouldn't change the vertical resolution at all. But the horizontal resolution would be tripled. Each monitor "pixel" is a square comprised of three vertical 3:1 rectangles, one red, one green, and one blue.




FHD would be 5,760x1080 rather than 1920x 1080.

4K would be 12,288x2160 instead of 4096x2160.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Jun 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Moving on, at a snail's pace. In 2020, MILCs comprised 55% of ILC sales, DSLRs comprised 45%. In Jan-Apr of 2021, MILCs comprised 56% of ILC sales, DSLRs comprised 44%. At that rate of change, the fully mirrorless future will arrive in a few short decades.


Seems a little silly to make comparisons to a pandemic year when the world basically fell flat, don't cha think? ;-) BTW, what's your source for those numbers?


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> They're not even single color sensing dots. They all three have some sensitivity to the entire visible spectrum. Putting a green color filter over a sensel on a digital sensor does not eliminate all red and blue light from entering it any more than putting a green filter over a lens eliminates all red and green light from reaching black and white film and making any blue or red object in the scene pure black in the photo. It just makes the blue and red things look darker than the green things that are the same brightness in the actual scene.
> 
> *ALL THREE* colors have to be interpolated when demosaicing is done. Not only because of the overlapping way each filtered pixel is sensitive to the rest of the visible spectrum, but also because different light sources emit different parts of the visible spectrum in differing amounts. *They all have to be interpolated as well because the three colors that most Bayer masks use are not the same three colors that RGB monitors emit, either.* The three colors of Bayer mask filters are closer to the three colors to which each type of our retinal cones are most sensitive: A slightly violet blue, a slightly yellow green and a slightly green yellow, though most Bayer masks use and orangish yellow color instead of the lime color to which our L cones are most sensitive.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed post. I did know the QE curves of the eyes as you've shown. But I didn't know what the QE of the sensor color filters were in general. I'm surprised (and impressed) that they are similar to that of the eyes.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Then you need to start counting all three dots that make up a screen like a computer monitor as well. 4K is really 12K. 8K is really 24K, and so on.
> 
> FHD is 5,760 x 1080 (because the dots on most monitors are three times as tall as they are wide).


It would be nice if everyone had to use a clear and "honest" standard to make their marketing claims:
A "pixel" would be all 3 colors on top of each other (in the same space), without interpolation (e.g. a Foveon sensor, but not applicable to Bayer style sensors or emitters).
A "dot" would be 1 color element (without the other 2 color elements at that location, which is applicable to Bayer style sensors or emitters).
A "interpolated pixel" would be a dot with 2 interpolated colors added in software (so a 10M Dot Bayer array could output a 10M InterpolatedPixel image file)
But I know this won't happen, and we just have to live with whatever companies want to claim.

It would also be nice if a "1 inch sensor" had a diagonal measurement of 1". It doesn't - it's not even close. How that is possible to advertise is beyond me!


----------



## SteveC (Jun 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Since most monitors actually have R,G, and B rectangles that are three times as tall as they are wide, then it wouldn't change the vertical resolution at all. But the horizontal resolution would be tripled. Each monitor "pixel" is a square comprised of three vertical 3:1 rectangles, one red, one green, and one blue.
> 
> View attachment 198376
> 
> ...


I was thinking of the camera sensor. Good catch.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 16, 2021)

dilbert said:


> To cut a long story short, you've convinced that EF and optical is better and will argue until death that you're right.


To cut a long story short, you're very unhappy that I pointed out some of your assumptions about how things work are dead wrong. So you're going to misrepresent my position and the things I've said, and resort to personal attacks and fallacies.

Nothing more needs to be said to you until you grow up.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> The EVF and LCD screen are physically composed of single color dots, not pixels.


So are monitors. But they are reported accurately in pixels since it takes an R, G, and B display element or 'dot' to form a single image element. This is how EVFs and rear LCDs should be reported so the comparison is consistent to monitors, phones, etc.



usern4cr said:


> The commonly used Bayer sensor is composed of single color receptors, which are single color sensing dots.


This is false. A sensor element senses luminance and is filtered to be biased towards R, G, or B. There is considerable overlap in wavelength sensitivity to reduce noise and facilitate better color detection. The more important point to this conversation is that these screens are not reported in 'dots' because of Bayer. One 'dot' does not correspond to one sensor element, nor could it. Screen dots are not arranged the same way as a Bayer sensor color filter array. Screen dots are R, G, or B only while sensor pixels have wavelength overlap. And sensor data is fully demosaiced before being displayed.



usern4cr said:


> The camera companies with Bayer sensors call a 20MDot sensor a 20MPixel sensor to increase sales.


Also false. Each sensor element produces an image element...even if it borrows some color data from neighbors to do so...and the observable resolution of a 20mp sensor is consistent with a 20mp sampling rate across most of its color gamut. Put another way, if you photograph a resolution chart and work backwards using Nyquist, you can predict the MP of the sensor to within a couple percentage points. If what you claimed were true your final result would be 1/3rd the published MP. (The only time this is not true is with a monochromatic test designed to hit a peak filtration point in the CFA. In such a test you end up with 1/4 or 1/2 the expected sampling rate because you've designed a test to exploit the CFA and effectively 'mask' some of the elements.)

By analogy if sensor manufacturers wanted to play the same game as EVF manufacturers, they would say that since each pixel uses data from neighboring pixels a 20mp sensor is really an 80mp one. (Actually 180mp since modern demosaicing algorithms look at 8 neighbors and not a simple quad.)



usern4cr said:


> You (and much of the public) can feel free to think a 20MDot sensor is really 20MPixels - enjoy.


Nyquist is observable, repeatable science. You can choose to ignore it if you like, but don't expect other people to ignore it with you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Seems a little silly to make comparisons to a pandemic year when the world basically fell flat, don't cha think? ;-) BTW, what's your source for those numbers?


Perhaps. But going back to 2019 paints a very different picture, with MILCs comprising 46% and DSLRs comprising 54% of ILCs. In 2018 it was 38% MILC and 62% DSLR. Of course, that supports keeping DSLRs around even more strongly, right? The pandemic does complicate interpretation, certainly. Perhaps everyone was hit hard, (total ILCs were 10M in 2018, 8M in 2019, 5M in 2020), but the DSLR-buying market was hit harder? Average unit price of DSLRs is lower, so that actually sort of makes sense (i.e. people with less disposable income prior to the pandemic were hit harder by the economic changes).

Data are from CIPA (cipa.jp).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> It would be nice if everyone had to use a clear and "honest" standard to make their marketing claims:
> A "pixel" would be all 3 colors on top of each other (in the same space), without interpolation (e.g. a Foveon sensor, but not applicable to Bayer style sensors or emitters).
> A "dot" would be 1 color element (without the other 2 color elements at that location, which is applicable to Bayer style sensors or emitters).
> A "interpolated pixel" would be a dot with 2 interpolated colors added in software (so a 10M Dot Bayer array could output a 10M InterpolatedPixel image file)
> ...



All three RGB values have to be interpolated, not just two of them. Mainly because the colors of the filters are not the same colors as those emitted by RGB screens, but also to compensate for light sources with different spectral distributions.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> It would also be nice if a "1 inch sensor" had a diagonal measurement of 1". It doesn't - it's not even close. How that is possible to advertise is beyond me!



The 1" sensor is a legacy thing. Back in the early days of television sensors were at the end of vacuum tubes. A 1" sensor is the size, including all of the needed things around the edges of the actual sensing surface, that would fit inside a 1" glass vacuum tube.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 1" sensor is a legacy thing. Back in the early days of television sensors were at the end of vacuum tubes. A 1" sensor is the size, including all of the needed things around the edges of the actual sensing surface, that would fit inside a 1" glass vacuum tube.


True, like 2/3" and 1/3" sensors are smaller than those dimensions. Interestingly, the crop factor of the 1" sensor relative to Canon APS-C (1.68x) is close to that of APS-C to FF (1.6x).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> True, like 2/3" and 1/3" sensors are smaller than those dimensions. Interestingly, the crop factor of the 1" sensor relative to Canon APS-C (1.68x) is close to that of APS-C to FF (1.6x).


The blue rectangle is the dimension (relative) of a FF sensor. I was kind of excited when the G series cameras were getting 1” sensors then realized they could never compete with the M cameras I already had.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The blue rectangle is the dimension (relative) of a FF sensor. I was kind of excited when the G series cameras were getting 1” sensors then realized they could never compete with the M cameras I already had.
> 
> 
> View attachment 198393


They don't compete with the M on S/N but they are a good example how you can squeeze out "reach". I have a Sony RX10 IV which I use occasionally. It's incredibly good, and its zoom at f/4 and 220 mm has an FF fov of 600mm and resolves as well as my 5DIV with the 100-400mm II at 400mm. Interestingly, Sony, which used to bring out new models yearly, hasn't updated the RX10 range since 2017. It has the A9 AF system and Sony had a firmware upgrade to eyeAF. Canon never competed with it. Before the RX10 IV, I had a G3X but the lens wasn't as good and the AF in a league or two below.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The blue rectangle is the dimension (relative) of a FF sensor. I was kind of excited when the G series cameras were getting 1” sensors then realized they could never compete with the M cameras I already had.


OTOH, my G7X II was replacing my S120 and not my Rebel, so a 1" sensor was a nice step up. And I took some rather nice photographs with the S120, some of which hang on my walls. As a practical matter for me anyway, sensor size is a matter of noise. The G5X II does pretty well up to ISO 1600 in most cases, comparable to 6400 on my 6D2, more or less. My pictures of Venice by night from the balcony of my stateroom were shot at ISO 2500 and 3200. The sky was a little noisy, but that was easily correctible, since there was no detail to lose. I have made some rather nice 13" x 19" prints of one of the shots.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> All three RGB values have to be interpolated, not just two of them. Mainly because the colors of the filters are not the same colors as those emitted by RGB screens, but also to compensate for light sources with different spectral distributions.


Yes, all 3 have to be interpolated. But the fact that there are no sensors at that location for the other 2 colors is what I'm talking about. You have to infer what the value would be by considering the neighbors. You only have one piece of data at the particular spot, and that piece has an appreciable peak of color for one of the colors over the others.

If you had a foveon sensor, with all 3 colors in one spot, you could "interpolate" 3 additional intermediate spots of color by using the neighbors and thus a 10MP foveon sensor could output a 40MP file - Does that mean it's a 40MP sensor? If all the manufacturers had Foveon type sensors and did this and it was widely accepted, would you be also be saying it's a 40MP sensor?


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> True, like 2/3" and 1/3" sensors are smaller than those dimensions. Interestingly, the crop factor of the 1" sensor relative to Canon APS-C (1.68x) is close to that of APS-C to FF (1.6x).


I was surprised to learn that 4/3 sensor is defined in exactly the same way - it is pure coincidence that the sensor dimensions are a ratio of 4:3.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 17, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I really wish they'd add "motion trigger" ability to video (or high FPS continuous stills) so that you could leave a camera on a tripod and have it only record with sufficient motion happening (like a hummingbird landing on a feeder). Then you'd only have small bits of video or stills to worry about in post instead of gazillions of "nothing" to store and wade through in post.



I like the Olympus Pro-Capture mode (Panasonic has their equivalent) where you half-press the shutter and it continually writes to the buffer. When you see the action you want to capture, you fully press the shutter and it records to the card the previous 1 second and a user-definable number of shots afterwards. The user can define the frame rate, the period before shutter press that is recorded and the number of shots afterwards - all this means that if you are a bit late hitting full shutter, you probably still have what you wanted.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 17, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> To cut a long story short, you're very unhappy that I pointed out some of your assumptions about how things work are dead wrong. So you're going to misrepresent my position and the things I've said, and resort to personal attacks and fallacies.




The RF mount is superior to EF mount and as new lenses come out, they'll perform better than the older EF equivalents when mounted on suitable cameras.


----------



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

Another R3 in the wild:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405915490153861122


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2021)

Looks like they are all sharing the same lens - hope they get close to the action


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 19, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Looks like they are all sharing the same lens - hope they get close to the action


Maybe it’s glued on there so nobody can see the sensor!


----------



## john1970 (Jun 19, 2021)

According to the Twitter feed Richard's lips are sealed. I found the following exchange quite interesting. When someone mentioned that "think your going to need a longer lens for West Ham next season". Richard's reply was "You've not heard the news". I wonder if the sensor is a quad bayer array with a high res setting? There is a rumored resolution trick in the R3 and so far it has not been disclosed.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2021)

john1970 said:


> According to the Twitter feed Richard's lips are sealed. I found the following exchange quite interesting. When someone mentioned that "think your going to need a longer lens for West Ham next season". Richard's reply was "You've not heard the news". I wonder if the sensor is a quad bayer array with a high res setting? There is a rumored resolution trick in the R3 and so far it has not been disclosed.


More likely he's simply referring to the new big whites that are also on the horizon.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> More likely he's simply referring to the new big whites that are also on the horizon.


Very well could be that scenario as well, but with two RF big whites already announced I thought maybe he was referring to some unannounced camera feature. I suspect that in 4-6 weeks we should have a formal announcement will all the details.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 20, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Very well could be that scenario as well, but with two RF big whites already announced I thought maybe he was referring to some unannounced camera feature. I suspect that in 4-6 weeks we should have a formal announcement will all the details.



Hopefully it's not that long. I suspect with the Olympics only 4-6 weeks out there will be an announcement before then, with a release around the Olympic's timeframe. *fingerscrossed


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jun 20, 2021)

There are also some lucky 'togs at the Italy - Wales match this evening with their R3's in action!

Can't be lomg now, surely, for a good leak??


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> I was surprised to learn that 4/3 sensor is defined in exactly the same way - it is pure coincidence that the sensor dimensions are a ratio of 4:3.



Not pure coincidence. Television in the vacuum tube days was 4:3.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Yes, all 3 have to be interpolated. But the fact that there are no sensors at that location for the other 2 colors is what I'm talking about.



Each photosite is sensitive to all of the "colors", which aren't really colors at all until they're perceived by our brains, it's just that photosites filtered with one of the three filters are more sensitive to some wavelengths than others. But they all share overlapping sensitivities. The photosites under all three colors of the filters in a Bayer mask are sensitive to all three "colors". There's no sensor at any one location for any single color.

It works just like our retinal cones. Our brains construct the perception of color, which really does not exist in light itself, from the differences between the S, M, & L cones. The peak sensitivity of our M & L cones are very close to the same wavelength, and most of each type's sensitivity overlaps the others. Our brain uses that minor difference to create color.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 21, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Each photosite is sensitive to all of the "colors", which aren't really colors at all until they're perceived by our brains, it's just that photosites filtered with one of the three filters are more sensitive to some wavelengths than others. But they all share overlapping sensitivities. The photosites under all three colors of the filters in a Bayer mask are sensitive to all three "colors". There's no sensor at any one location for any single color.
> 
> It works just like our retinal cones. Our brains construct the perception of color, which really does not exist in light itself, from the differences between the S, M, & L cones. The peak sensitivity of our M & L cones are very close to the same wavelength, and most of each type's sensitivity overlaps the others. Our brain uses that minor difference to create color.


Yes, I agree with what you've said. But I consider 1 "photosite" to be the sensor receptor + filter - as they're embedded together they function as 1 single unit. The post-interpolation results will never be as accurate as if every photosite had 3 sub-photosites (1 of each type for a "true" pixel). Since there is a considerable sensitivity overlap between the 3 photosite sensitivities, then I'd hazard a guess that a 20MDot sensor would have IQ maybe halfway between a 20/3=6.7M "true"P sensor and a 20M "true"P sensor. So you've convinced me to go half-way (or so) to saying a 20MDot sensor has the quality of a 20 "true"MP sensor. Beyond that we're both guessing, so I'm happy to leave it at this.

This makes me wonder what the emitter response curves are for the 3 types of "dot" emitters in an EVF and a back LCD screen. Assuming (hopefully) a similar overlap as you've mentioned, this would also make them half-way (or so) to having the IQ of a "true"Pixel emitter. That's a lot better than I had thought before. So thanks for your feedback.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 21, 2021)

john1970 said:


> According to the Twitter feed Richard's lips are sealed. I found the following exchange quite interesting. When someone mentioned that "think your going to need a longer lens for West Ham next season". Richard's reply was "You've not heard the news". I wonder if the sensor is a quad bayer array with a high res setting? There is a rumored resolution trick in the R3 and so far it has not been disclosed.



I read that exchange as some kind of inside joke about the football teams.


----------



## mpmark (Jul 30, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Guess he's not tempted to try use adapters to get his lenses to work on the R3 then. Wonder what this type of commentary will do to the mindset of those looking to buy old DSLR gear. Damn. And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop. Obviously also not convinced that Nikon mirrorless was worth the jump. Canon RF, and in particular R3, is where it's at. EF, thank you for the good times, but you're history baby. p.s. EF-S and EF-M, sorry, you're EF too.



I have an R5 and R. Using all EF lenses and it works even better and is more accurate now than those lenses were on any of my dslr bodies. What exactly is your point again?


----------

