# The Canon EOS R3 pricing to undercut the competition [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 24, 2021)

> I have had many discussions with various sources about the upcoming Canon EOS R3.  One of the most asked questions is how much will the Canon EOS R3 cost at launch?
> Multiple folks have told me that Canon has been vague about pricing, but that the Canon EOS R3 would undercut both the Sony Alpha a1 ($6498) and Canon’s own EOS-1D X Mark III ($6499) at launch.
> One source did say that they think the EOS R3 would launch at $5999 based on hints from a couple of people at Canon.
> That price definitely doesn’t fall under “affordable”, but it would be a pretty big achievement when compared to the Sony flagship, which doesn’t have a full-size gripped body.
> There will be some more information to share about the Canon EOS R3 in the next few...



Continue reading...


----------



## AEWest (May 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Well, according to Canon, the R3 is not a flagship camera. So it should cost less than the 1dx3 as it slots in below it based on their own press release.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 24, 2021)




----------



## polaris8030 (May 24, 2021)

Will an ETA for the R3 also be available in the next few days ? I was close to purchasing the R5 when the R3 announcement came out. As a bird and wildlife hobbyist photographer I feel I will benefit from the bump from 20fps to 30fps, and certainly benefit from longer battery life and a tougher body.


----------



## ildyria (May 24, 2021)

I think we can expect some R3 going around at the Olympics.


----------



## sfericean (May 24, 2021)

Don't worry guys. The R1, when released, will make up the difference.


----------



## xiaohuaa (May 24, 2021)

I just googled and the grip for A1 costs $349, so if R3 will be priced at $5999, the difference in price will be $849. Will people spending $6000 on camera body care about this?


----------



## CanonGrunt (May 24, 2021)

sfericean said:


> Don't worry guys. The R1, when released, will make up the difference.





These RF L lenses seem to be doing that too….


----------



## sfericean (May 24, 2021)

CanonGrunt said:


> These RF L lenses seem to be doing that too….


I just completed my trinity kit this weekend...it was soooo incredibly painful. Worth it in the long run, but incredibly painful today.


----------



## Andy Westwood (May 24, 2021)

Personally, I think the Sony a1 is overpriced to start.

Sometimes Canon say a new model sits below a particular existing model, but then spec and features of the newer model outweigh the model it is supposed to be sitting under.

The EOS R3 sounds awesome and putting the EOS R system into Pro Bodies will be a big nail in the coffin of Canon DSLR’s


----------



## Chaitanya (May 24, 2021)

ildyria said:


> I think we can expect some R3 going around at the Olympics.


There is a growing opposition to Olympics and given how cases of malware are on rise in Japan chances are reducing of Olympics actually taking place.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

xiaohuaa said:


> I just googled and the grip for A1 costs $349, so if R3 will be priced at $5999, the difference in price will be $849. Will people spending $6000 on camera body care about this?


Well I personally consider the entire cost of any upgrade, that includes the cost of a grip/WFT/cards/card readers/batteries/chargers etc and if any of that is backwards/forwards compatible. 

It looks like the R3 could take the current 1 series battery, irrelevant for many but for me it means I have forward/backward compatibility and I only need to travel with one charger.


----------



## gavinz (May 24, 2021)

I was hoping to see mid $5k. Anyways I will wait to see full specs and pricing as I held off on my R5 purchase.


----------



## RunAndGun (May 24, 2021)

xiaohuaa said:


> I just googled and the grip for A1 costs $349, so if R3 will be priced at $5999, the difference in price will be $849. Will people spending $6000 on camera body care about this?


As someone that works in ”TV” and has multiple cameras sitting in my office that sold for many tens of thousands of dollars each when they were new(three that were at least $40K or more), I’ll say, “It depends...”. Professionals can be a funny bunch. We can drop thousands on some accessories and not think twice about it, especially if we think it will help us/make our lives easier, but something that may only cost $100 or even a few tens of dollars, may be deemed not worth it or “too expensive” for what it is.


----------



## John Wilde (May 24, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> There is a growing opposition to Olympics and given how cases of malware are on rise in Japan chances are reducing of Olympics actually taking place.


A recent NYTimes article had the title "A new poll in Japan finds 83 percent don’t want the Olympics this summer", but the people in charge seem determined to go ahead with it anyway.
​


----------



## bergstrom (May 24, 2021)

Damn! Thats about $4500 out of my normal budget.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 24, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> A recent NYTimes article had the title "A new poll in Japan finds 83 percent don’t want the Olympics this summer", but the people in charge seem determined to go ahead with it anyway.
> ​


Today I read about doctors writing to PM of Japan on cancelling the event with protests taking place with regards to opposition to Olympics. Apparently even IOC is hellbent on ensuring Olympics go ahead along with Japanese Govt.


----------



## gregster (May 24, 2021)

Undercutting is fine by me, as long as it's not compensating for being under-spec'd vs the competition on something like resolution.


----------



## Mmm Toast (May 24, 2021)

Canon does not undercut, this is a camera that they are positioning in between the flagship pro and flagship pro-sumer camera. The R1 will be $6999.


----------



## melgross (May 24, 2021)

I’ve been thinking that the price would be just about between the R5 and the 1DxmkIII. Maybe $5,000. It doesn’t make sense that this would be $6,000. Canon has had a flagship at $6,000 before, which is why it doesn’t make sense to me. If they then come out with an R1, how much would that cost? What would the market bear these days? I believe Canon would be pushing their luck if it cost too much.

how much would anyone here pay for an R1, no matter how good it would be? Seriously? $7,000, $7,500, $8,000, more?

if the R3 were $6,000, how much would Canon NEED to charge for a flagship in order to differentiate between the two? $500, $1,000, more?

to me, the idea of this costing $6,000 causes problems.


----------



## DBounce (May 24, 2021)

sfericean said:


> I just completed my trinity kit this weekend...it was soooo incredibly painful. Worth it in the long run, but incredibly painful today.


I’ve had my RF trinity kit and then some for years. I just haven’t had a body to put them on. I gave away my Eos R and returned my R5. My Red Komodo 6K does not have Canon levels of AF. So here I sit, awaiting the fabled “pro” body. I know I’ll buy the R1... but the R3 came out of left field. It remains an unknown.


----------



## DBounce (May 24, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Damn! Thats about $4500 out of my normal budget.


This is the “Canon” rumor site. You might need to check out the M43 or Fuji sites.


----------



## TravelerNick (May 24, 2021)

What is the competition? Serious question.

If Canon claims this is a new market niche below the flagship what really fits that description? The A1 and the Z9 are both aimed at the flagship market. 

The only real competition is the R5 with a grip


----------



## t.linn (May 24, 2021)

> ... it would be a pretty big achievement when compared to the Sony flagship, which doesn’t have a full-size gripped body.



Not everyone considers the full-size gripped body a good thing.


----------



## Danglin52 (May 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I personally consider the entire cost of any upgrade, that includes the cost of a grip/WFT/cards/card readers/batteries/chargers etc and if any of that is backwards/forwards compatible.
> 
> It looks like the R3 could take the current 1 series battery, irrelevant for many but for me it means I have forward/backward compatibility and I only need to travel with one charger.


As they look at the long term future of the gripped cameras, I think they will change batteries if they can reduce the size while improving the performance. Canon tends to take the long view and I believe they will change the battery if it reduces overall manufacturing costs while maintaining or improving performance. I am willing to take that hit even though I kept all of my extra batteries when I sold the 1dx II. I treat it as another cost of the decision to move to the R platform. I think the constraining factor is where or not they can cram equal or more power into a smaller form factor battery. I know Canon did not take this approach with the R5, but I think they were happy with the size and didn't feel a need to further reduce battery size. I made a complete switch to the R5 from EOS DSLR / EF lenses. If you use the R5/R6 as a backup, you will still need to carry two chargers unless they can create a super, duper R3 battery in the LP E6NH format.


----------



## Justhandguns (May 24, 2021)

$6K in the US means 6K GBP in the UK plus at least the trio of the 2.8L lenses. I am pretty sure I can buy a brand new Toyota hatchback with that money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2021)

Obviously the cheaper the better. Practically, a lower R3 cost means I may buy more RF lenses sooner.



privatebydesign said:


> It looks like the R3 could take the current 1 series battery, irrelevant for many but for me it means I have forward/backward compatibility and I only need to travel with one charger.


Hopefully that one travel charger can be the 96 W USB-C adapter for my 16” MacBook Pro laptops, and the R3 can charge its battery in-camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> As they look at the long term future of the gripped cameras, I think they will change batteries if they can reduce the size while improving the performance. Canon tends to take the long view and I believe they will change the battery if it reduces overall manufacturing costs while maintaining or improving performance. I am willing to take that hit even though I kept all of my extra batteries when I sold the 1dx II. I treat it as another cost of the decision to move to the R platform. I think the constraining factor is where or not they can cram equal or more power into a smaller form factor battery. I know Canon did not take this approach with the R5, but I think they were happy with the size and didn't feel a need to further reduce battery size. I made a complete switch to the R5 from EOS DSLR / EF lenses. If you use the R5/R6 as a backup, you will still need to carry two chargers unless they can create a super, duper R3 battery in the LP E6NH format.


I did a layover of the 1DX III and the R3 for another thread and the batteries, just by the front edge, are exactly the same size and shape. 

Canon stuck with the NP-E2/NP-E3 for years across non gripped and gripped 1 series bodies. The LP-E4/LP-E4N/LP-E19 have been an improving mainstay for years now, besides, what are they going to use today that is better than the Lithium-Ion they are using?


----------



## arbitrage (May 24, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> What is the competition? Serious question.
> 
> If Canon claims this is a new market niche below the flagship what really fits that description? The A1 and the Z9 are both aimed at the flagship market.
> 
> The only real competition is the R5 with a grip


My best guess is the competition is really the A9II. My gut has been telling me from the beginning that this won't be a high MP camera like Z9 or A1. I think the R1 will end up being high MP and will price even higher than the A1 and Z9. I think the Z9 will match the A1 at $6500. I think the R3 will be more like $5-5.5K. $6K seems like a lot unless the future R1 will be $7500 or something??

Of course there is the chance that the R3 is higher MP and then at $6K price would be justified and could be in competition with he A1/Z9.


----------



## peters (May 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Give me the video features of the R5 without overheat and I am on board


----------



## Hector1970 (May 24, 2021)

I think it all depends on whether the R3 is generally better than the IDXIII.
It would be hard to see it being priced lower than the IDXIII if it is.
It should have more MP and better focusing - two key things.
The IDXIII is probably only going to be better in terms of battery life. It looks physically bigger - so heavier.
I have a 1DXIII and its a good camera but I always thought that Canon poorly chose to put a 20MP sensor in it.
30MP would have been a much better choice and the camera would be all the better for it.
I'll really be interested in the R3 ability to track items and keep focus.
The 1DXIII was an improvement but still struggles with small moving objects like birds. It's very good with bigger objects.
I await to see what an R3 can do, mirrorless promises so much in terms of focusing but little birds are still tricky.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I think it all depends on whether the R3 is generally better than the IDXIII.
> It would be hard to see it being priced lower than the IDXIII if it is.
> It should have more MP and better focusing - two key things.
> The IDXIII is probably only going to be better in terms of battery life. It looks physically bigger - so heavier.
> ...


But that isn’t what history tells us. The 5D’s were generally as well specked as the 1 series that came out a year or so before them in all but AF.

The move to the R system is going to involve shifts in model positions, I don’t see why we don’t end up with an R type entry level camera in time, an R6, R5, R3 and R1 in the same way we used to have EOS 1V, 3, 5, and then a series of Rebels in the film days.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Well, according to Canon, the R3 is not a flagship camera. So it should cost less than the 1dx3 as it slots in below it based on their own press release.


But according the Canon the R5 is a replacement for the 5D IV, the R5 is $3,899, the 5D IV was $3,200 the majority of its life.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

xiaohuaa said:


> I just googled and the grip for A1 costs $349, so if R3 will be priced at $5999, the difference in price will be $849. Will people spending $6000 on camera body care about this?


Absolutely. People with that kind of money to spend on a body tend to be good money managers.


----------



## Billybob (May 24, 2021)

sfericean said:


> I just completed my trinity kit this weekend...it was soooo incredibly painful. Worth it in the long run, but incredibly painful today.


Does a 15-35, 70-200, and 100-500 count as a trinity? If so, then I'm there as well. 

I've always have had tremendous resistance to 24-70 lenses, and have found that these three--plus primes--do the job for me.


----------



## FramerMCB (May 24, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> My best guess is the competition is really the A9II. My gut has been telling me from the beginning that this won't be a high MP camera like Z9 or A1. I think the R1 will end up being high MP and will price even higher than the A1 and Z9. I think the Z9 will match the A1 at $6500. I think the R3 will be more like $5-5.5K. $6K seems like a lot unless the future R1 will be $7500 or something??
> 
> Of course there is the chance that the R3 is higher MP and then at $6K price would be justified and could be in competition with he A1/Z9.


My guess is it will come in between $4,999.99 and $5,499.99 USD. Canon seems to follow they're own drumbeat - to a certain extent - in pricing their cameras. I was spot on with my prediction of where the R5 would be priced. Many thought, or were concerned (probably more appropriate), that the R5 would be priced higher than it was. I never thought it would be. Canon is quite reliable in where (and how) they price their products.


----------



## MiJax (May 24, 2021)

Canon has up-ended the industry's model line ups. Sony will need to revamp their line up soon, or simply stay out of sync with Canon. The R5 - A9 match up is weird, the R5 - A7 match up is equally odd (*although being both company's general all rounder bodies*). The R5 - A7r is close, but not expected to hold up when Canon releases a high MP body. And I haven't even touched on the R5 - A1... *Sony's line is a mess for direct comparison*. Nikon isn't a lot different, but its set to compete a little more squarely, as far as the lines go... but their feature set and competence is not quite there. And then... there's the *$8000 true flagship (R1) *that is likely being prepped. What is Sony going to do? Tap out, and simply stay out of that realm? Or rename their entire line up? Who knows, maybe they want an offset line-up, in which case, they are being undercut by products that offer more value. IMO, Sony is in for lots of changes over the next couple of years. They make great products, so they'll be fine, but I can see a real marketing issue developing.


----------



## Billybob (May 24, 2021)

melgross said:


> I’ve been thinking that the price would be just about between the R5 and the 1DxmkIII. Maybe $5,000. It doesn’t make sense that this would be $6,000. Canon has had a flagship at $6,000 before, which is why it doesn’t make sense to me. If they then come out with an R1, how much would that cost? What would the market bear these days? I believe Canon would be pushing their luck if it cost too much.
> 
> how much would anyone here pay for an R1, no matter how good it would be? Seriously? $7,000, $7,500, $8,000, more?
> 
> ...


Doesn't it depend on the difference in feature set? If the R1 has global shutter and QPAF and these additions provide significantly better performance than obtainiable from the R3, then I suspect $7000 would be the target--an incremental increase from the previous flagship price--with $7500 possible on the high end.


----------



## fox40phil (May 24, 2021)

Please don’t undercut in features!


----------



## Cyborx (May 24, 2021)

Trust me, it is going to be overpriced, just the way we know Canon. They are running behind in the mirrorless pro segment but still dare to charge astronomic prices. I am a Canon user, yes, but not a happy one when it comes to pricing. Make this camera 5000 euro’s MAX!


----------



## lxc (May 24, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I think it all depends on whether the R3 is generally better than the IDXIII.
> It would be hard to see it being priced lower than the IDXIII if it is.
> It should have more MP and better focusing - two key things.
> The IDXIII is probably only going to be better in terms of battery life. It looks physically bigger - so heavier.
> ...



I actually like that fact that my 1DX3 has 20mp sensor. Images are gorgeous and I can shoot lots of them without worrying about storage size. When editing - TIFF from 20Mp raw file is around 100Mb, can't imagine how big they are when editing 50Mp files... like 250-300Mb... It is like 3-4 images per gig to store. No thanks. 

I have 1D mark I, which is 4.2mp camera and images are awesome in terms of both colors and details.

Most people did not tried 1DX3 at all, and just jerking off on specs. It worth the price. Love it with my 400mm 2.8 III. Oh and yeah, I may not be in a mainstream, but I enjoy quality OVF more than EVF. I could have larger keep rate with mirrorless, but I would not enjoy the process as much and you have to really enjoy it hen you carrying 10kg setup over few hour long hike to get that one shot.

I still will buy R3 to play with it and compare, don't have any expectations about it tho.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2021)

Canon's goal right now is to sell lenses while they have a monopoly. No one produces a fully compatible RF lens. They are a big profit item for Canon. Buyers of high end cameras tend to own multiple lenses, so selling bodies promotes lens sales. I think it may be priced at 5000-5500. Canon has a range of prices in mind, the camera was designed to meet a price point, In the end, its marketing that will decide what the market will bear.


----------



## WJF (May 24, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> As they look at the long term future of the gripped cameras, I think they will change batteries if they can reduce the size while improving the performance. Canon tends to take the long view and I believe they will change the battery if it reduces overall manufacturing costs while maintaining or improving performance. I am willing to take that hit even though I kept all of my extra batteries when I sold the 1dx II. I treat it as another cost of the decision to move to the R platform. I think the constraining factor is where or not they can cram equal or more power into a smaller form factor battery. I know Canon did not take this approach with the R5, but I think they were happy with the size and didn't feel a need to further reduce battery size. I made a complete switch to the R5 from EOS DSLR / EF lenses. If you use the R5/R6 as a backup, you will still need to carry two chargers unless they can create a super, duper R3 battery in the LP E6NH format.


Considering Canon's statement that the R3 is slated below the 1Dx mkIII, I wonder if they may utilize the LP E6 series batteries in the R3 instead of the 1Dx series?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

WJF said:


> Considering Canon's statement that the R3 is slated below the 1Dx mkIII, I wonder if they may utilize the LP E6 series batteries in the R3 instead of the 1Dx series?


Not unless they are using an LP-E19 shaped battery tray, and why would they do that?


----------



## bergstrom (May 24, 2021)

DBounce said:


> This is the “Canon” rumor site. You might need to check out the M43 or Fuji sites.



nope, gonna wait for the affordable Canon FF mirrorless thats rumoured.


----------



## WJF (May 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not unless they are using an LP-E19 shaped battery tray, and why would they do that?


Pure speculation on my part, but to ease prosumers up the chain? ...just wondering to the universe.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 24, 2021)

polaris8030 said:


> Will an ETA for the R3 also be available in the next few days ? I was close to purchasing the R5 when the R3 announcement came out. As a bird and wildlife hobbyist photographer I feel I will benefit from the bump from 20fps to 30fps, and certainly benefit from longer battery life and a tougher body.



I'm a bird photographer....The resolution on the R5 is not to be trifled with....have they given R3 resolution yet? If it's not close to the R5 I'd probably just stick with the R5...


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 24, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> nope, gonna wait for the affordable Canon FF mirrorless thats rumoured.



They've been out....R and RP, and R6


----------



## gregster (May 24, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> I'm a bird photographer....The resolution on the R5 is not to be trifled with....have they given R3 resolution yet? If it's not close to the R5 I'd probably just stick with the R5...



This is a key point. The R5 has transformed what is possible for wildlife photography where one is very often cropping significantly. Some of my photos, after cropping are in the 6-15MP range and would have been too small to work with on a 1 series. Subjects such as swallows in flight are now possible thanks to 20fps, no blackout and eye AF across the frame, coupled with the ability to crop deeply. I was previously never successful with a 1DX2 without this combination of features. I would very much welcome an R3 though, as the slight lag when panning for an erratic subject in ES does hinder overall accuracy.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Canon has up-ended the industry's model line ups. Sony will need to revamp their line up soon, or simply stay out of sync with Canon. The R5 - A9 match up is weird, the R5 - A7 match up is equally odd (*although being both company's general all rounder bodies*). The R5 - A7r is close, but not expected to hold up when Canon releases a high MP body. And I haven't even touched on the R5 - A1... *Sony's line is a mess for direct comparison*. Nikon isn't a lot different, but its set to compete a little more squarely, as far as the lines go... but their feature set and competence is not quite there. And then... there's the *$8000 true flagship (R1) *that is likely being prepped. What is Sony going to do? Tap out, and simply stay out of that realm? Or rename their entire line up? Who knows, maybe they want an offset line-up, in which case, they are being undercut by products that offer more value. IMO, Sony is in for lots of changes over the next couple of years. They make great products, so they'll be fine, but I can see a real marketing issue developing.


As long as Sony is selling their line at an acceptable clip, they won't tap out. What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway?

1. Companies never match each other feature for feature. They don't have to because the desires of consumers are not monolithic. 

2. The company in the lead today isn't there perpetually, ever. There's always leapfrogging.

3. Personally, I am committed to Canon. I like the products. It is a fool's game for people to constantly worry that brand X or Y will surpass their chosen brand one way or another. Just shoot. Only complete fool's OR people with gobs of money switch systems everytime the "New Shiny" comes out.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> nope, gonna wait for the affordable Canon FF mirrorless thats rumoured.


You mean the RP?  It's been out near two years.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

WJF said:


> Pure speculation on my part, but to ease prosumers up the chain? ...just wondering to the universe.


Oh I understand it is all speculation at the moment, and quite fun really.

I keep banging on about the EOS 3 and 1V, they shared a grip and, obviously, battery, both the internal battery and the bigger one for in the grip. Which was basically the same as the 1D and 1DS batteries when they came out, I used to swap over endplates on them regularly.

I think that is very firmly where Canon is heading, the R3 will have more tech in it, like the eye focus, the R1 will have the $2,000 global shutter which has already been proven in the C line. They could easily be the same body shell to reduce manufacturing costs too. 

How's that for some speculation?


----------



## John Wilde (May 24, 2021)

One of Canon's stated goals is "Expand market share in full-frame segment" , so it makes sense that it would be competitively priced.


----------



## Tremotino (May 24, 2021)

I believe the R3 was the original successor of the 1D mark iii. so I think this campera will have around 20 MP. And because of the Z9 and A1 Canon will use the fullframe sensor of the not jet announced canon Cinema C500(??) for a high MP high performance pro camera.


----------



## Del Paso (May 24, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Damn! Thats about $4500 out of my normal budget.


What? You still have a budget?


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> I believe the R3 was the original successor of the 1D mark iii. so I think this campera will have around 20 MP. And because of the Z9 and A1 Canon will use the fullframe sensor of the not jet announced canon Cinema C500(??) for a high MP high performance pro camera.


I don't believe we'll see anymore new FF cameras less than 30 mpix.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (May 24, 2021)

Quite expensive for a Canon camera without a "1" in the name. I had hopes for 5000 Euros or lower. What was the price of the second best DLSR in Canon's lineup? I think something below 4000 Euros.


----------



## Del Paso (May 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Absolutely. People with that kind of money to spend on a body tend to be good money managers.


Been to a jewelry store a few weeks ago. The customer at the service counter started arguing (politely) about the cost of a battery replacement.
His watch was a Vacheron-Constantin "Traditionelle Quartz" for Euro 14300, approximately $ 16000.
A new battery was to cost Euro 10...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Been to a jewelry store a few weeks ago. The customer at the service counter started arguing (politely) about the cost of a battery replacement.
> His watch was a Vacheron-Constantin "Traditionelle Quartz" for Euro 14300, approximately $ 16000.
> A new battery was to cost Euro 10...


I have an old Tag Heur, for me it isn't the cost of the battery it is the cost of the fitting. New seals and pressure testing make that $5 battery a $100 job that takes three days and two trips to my local big city an hour away.


----------



## Cochese (May 24, 2021)

While I don't honestly think Canon needs to undercut anybody and they'll still sell out, I do love to see a good undercut. And $599 doesn't seem worth the difference if I was considering Sony at that price. However, at $5499, that's a tough difference to look past.


----------



## tataylino (May 24, 2021)

It is not a competitor for A1 so it should be priced below it.


----------



## bergstrom (May 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You mean the RP?  It's been out near two years.



wow, the sarcasm is rife tonight.


----------



## Diltiazem (May 25, 2021)

If Canon wants to lure some existing or potential Nikon and Sony flagship users by undercutting the price, 500 dollar price difference won't make sense. This would be especially true if R3 is less than 40 MP (I think more likely). My speculation is that R5c will be around 5000 dollars, R3 will be 5500 dollars, and R1 will be 7000 dollars. Irrespective of the price tag R3 will likely outsell both A1 and Z9, provided MP count is not too low.


----------



## Danglin52 (May 25, 2021)

WJF said:


> Considering Canon's statement that the R3 is slated below the 1Dx mkIII, I wonder if they may utilize the LP E6 series batteries in the R3 instead of the 1Dx series?


Based on the stated focus, I think they will want more power to drive AF/IS on big lenses.


----------



## AEWest (May 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But according the Canon the R5 is a replacement for the 5D IV, the R5 is $3,899, the 5D IV was $3,200 the majority of its life.


At first Canon said the R5 wasn't a 5D replacement.

According to a tech radar interview with Canon marketing rep David Parry last year, he said about the R5's name: "This isn't a replacement for the 5D Mark IV or anything like that. But this is a 5 series mirrorless, it's aimed at that segment of the market."

That was a head scratcher for me. So marketing folks may say one thing, but it always seemed that the R5 was destined to replace the 5D series. 

For the same reason, I believe the R3 is a replacement for the 1Dx3, regardless of what marketing folks say.


----------



## Inspired (May 25, 2021)

Hoping for a $4500. price range


----------



## canonmike (May 25, 2021)

gavinz said:


> I was hoping to see mid $5k. Anyways I will wait to see full specs and pricing as I held off on my R5 purchase.


I think that many of us were hoping, like you, for mid $5k pricing for the R3, noting that in Canon's own words, this body will fall in between the R5 and 1Dx iii. We can still hope, can we not? However, at $6 grand, this would kind of signal a 1Dx mirrorless replacement to me. If there is a summer Olympics, will be interesting to see just what kind of presence the R3 will actually have. No idea how many Canon ambassadors would be at any given Olympics. I still don't see the average pro sports photog jumping to mirrorless until the R3/R1 bodies have a proven performance track record.


----------



## canonmike (May 25, 2021)

t.linn said:


> Not everyone considers the full-size gripped body a good thing.


A very valid argument.


----------



## canonmike (May 25, 2021)

WJF said:


> Considering Canon's statement that the R3 is slated below the 1Dx mkIII, I wonder if they may utilize the LP E6 series batteries in the R3 instead of the 1Dx series?


I'm thinking that is a good guess on your part, especially given the smaller size of the R3 body, compared to the 1Dx.


----------



## GoldWing (May 25, 2021)

Another zzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## canonmike (May 25, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Based on the stated focus, I think they will want more power to drive AF/IS on big lenses.


Another very good argument.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Another zzzzzzzzzzz


Thanks for summarizing your recent posts.


----------



## DBounce (May 25, 2021)

tataylino said:


> It is not a competitor for A1 so it should be priced below it.


That makes zero sense. The A1 was the competitor to the R5.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 25, 2021)

I think Canon are positioning the R3 under the EOS-1D X Mark III to give an incentive to the 1D crowd to switch to RF for a little bit cheaper, maybe they can use the R3 as a backup body or even the 1D as the backup depending which they prefer.
The rumored R3 price of US $5999 makes sense to me.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 25, 2021)

Yikes, $5999 is higher than I would expect and means a future R1 will be over $7K, way dearer than the 1DXIII. I think $5499 should be the upper limit for R3 and a similar gap as from R5 to R1, so $6999.

Still if the R3 is at least 30MP, but hopefully 45-50MP I will be all over this anticipating the supposedly revolutionary RF 500 f/4 next year.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 25, 2021)

DBounce said:


> That makes zero sense. The A1 was the competitor to the R5.


 Literally that is what makes no sense. Just becuase the R5 specs are in many similar they are not competitors. The A1 is directly attacking the DLR flagships from Canon and Nikon and is a much better camera than either despite the few issues.


----------



## jam05 (May 25, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> Personally, I think the Sony a1 is overpriced to start.
> 
> Sometimes Canon say a new model sits below a particular existing model, but then spec and features of the newer model outweigh the model it is supposed to be sitting under.
> 
> The EOS R3 sounds awesome and putting the EOS R system into Pro Bodies will be a big nail in the coffin of Canon DSLR’s


Firmware specs or hardware specs? Hardware specs is what you should pay attention to. Because firmware specs can be improved with an update. As we've already seen with the R5 a few months ago and again later this year with the Atomos Ninva V + update. Expect another firmare update to enable the HDMI output. Examples of firmware specs & features.


----------



## MiJax (May 25, 2021)

I think most of you are overthinking the flagship talk. Canon simply said the R3 isn't the flagship, THUS it can't be a 1DX III (a current flagship) replacement. As simple as that. You don't replace one flagship with a non-flagship. You just don't. That said, the R3 will 100%, without doubt, be heads and shoulders better than the 1DX III. You can bet the farm on that.


Mr Majestyk said:


> Yikes, $5999 is higher than I would expect and means a future R1 will be over $7K, way dearer than the 1DXIII. I think $5499 should be the upper limit for R3 and a similar gap as from R5 to R1, so $6999.
> 
> Still if the R3 is at least 30MP, but hopefully 45-50MP I will be all over this anticipating the supposedly revolutionary RF 500 f/4 next year.


Mr Majestyk, I would love for your prices to be accurate, but I don't think they will undercut by that much. I believe they purposely undercut Sony A9 series with the R5, and that's the type of price break I'm expecting on the A1/R3 relationship, bringing it in around $5699. I have a feeling we'll know by Wednesday evening.


----------



## chasingrealness (May 25, 2021)

Justhandguns said:


> $6K in the US means 6K GBP in the UK plus at least the trio of the 2.8L lenses. I am pretty sure I can buy a brand new Toyota hatchback with that money.


A Toyota hatchback is a great investment if you plan to go all in on the RF mount since you probably will have to give up living in a house/apartment. I find hatchbacks to be really great for car camping.


----------



## AEWest (May 25, 2021)

MiJax said:


> I think most of you are overthinking the flagship talk. Canon simply said the R3 isn't the flagship, THUS it can't be a 1DX III (a current flagship) replacement. As simple as that. You don't replace one flagship with a non-flagship. You just don't. That said, the R3 will 100%, without doubt, be heads and shoulders better than the 1DX III. You can bet the farm on that.
> 
> Mr Majestyk, I would love for your prices to be accurate, but I don't think they will undercut by that much. I believe they purposely undercut Sony A9 series with the R5, and that's the type of price break I'm expecting on the A1/R3 relationship, bringing it in around $5699. I have a feeling we'll know by Wednesday evening.


I also believe that the R3 will replace the 1Dx3. It is just Canon's marketing that is suspect. They have said that the R3 will sit beneath the 1Dx3, but it should out spec it in most areas. 

I can’t imagine anyone rushing out to buy the 1Dx3 right now with the R3 around the corner.


----------



## MiJax (May 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As long as Sony is selling their line at an acceptable clip, they won't tap out. What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway?
> 
> 1. Companies never match each other feature for feature. They don't have to because the desires of consumers are not monolithic.
> 
> ...


When I mention "tapping out" its in reference to choosing to bow out of that particular model competition. If the A1 is likely to be matched up with the R3, what will they do to compete against Canon's flagship?

"Companies never match each other feature for feature"... I'm just gonna disagree with this one outright, because I can pull review after review matching feature after feature. Just no need to entertain it. I will give you a little credit for the fact every manufacturer wants a differentiation and will general try to achieve that through a patented feature set, but those always seem to get copied still. That said, I didn't mention this and I'm not sure the point being made. 

I agree with the leapfrog comment, no one last on top forever, but that fact doesn't stop any company from trying. But again... I never said either was on top. If anything the A1 is the best camera on the market so that would be Sony anyway. 

I think you are missing my point. I simply mentioned Sony is gonna have to make a lot of changes to the line up. While I do think Canon will win the short term war, that wasn't the point. The point was simply to say how much Canon's recent line choices will affect its competitors for years to come.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 25, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I also believe that the R3 will replace the 1Dx3. It is just Canon's marketing that is suspect. They have said that the R3 will sit beneath the 1Dx3, but it should out spec it in most areas.
> 
> I can’t imagine anyone rushing out to buy the 1Dx3 right now with the R3 around the corner.


Well an R6 matches the 1DXIII for specs and often lesser cameras have better specs in many areas than the 1 series. I don't think R5 outspeccing 1DXIII means much, it was what was needed by Canon. You can bet your bottom dollar the Sony A7RV and Z7III/Z8 will be gunning for the R5.

I would not buy the 1DXIII period given how good the R6 is let alone the R5. R3 sounds like it will destroy the 1DXIII in most areas other than build as it will go a fair way beyond the R5 in AF, speed, sensor, EVF, eye controlled AF, buffer,, battery, build, possibly video if it goes for 8K resolution. Like I saiud before I can't possibly see what the R1 will offer to be much more desirable. not even global shutter given we already know how good stacked sensor is. Do we need 40fps?


----------



## Joules (May 25, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Like I saiud before I can't possibly see what the R1 will offer to be much more desirable. not even global shutter given we already know how good stacked sensor is. Do we need 40fps?


There's probably a lot more people wanting 40 FPS than actually needing it.

What about flash sync at any speed though? That actually would be a big benefit to many.

Being able to use electronic shutter without any compromise on DR or distortion should also not be under estimated.

And I bet Canon have many ideas to improve other aspects with it as well, now that they can design more complex sensors.


----------



## Chig (May 25, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> I'm a bird photographer....The resolution on the R5 is not to be trifled with....have they given R3 resolution yet? If it's not close to the R5 I'd probably just stick with the R5...


I shoot birds and am tempted by the R5 but I hope the R7 will be the ultimate birding camera with (I hope) :
- 30-35mp aps-c stacked cmos sensor
- R6 components and similar price
- R3 integrated grip


----------



## Chig (May 25, 2021)

DBounce said:


> That makes zero sense. The A1 was the competitor to the R5.


Way overpriced competitor to the R5


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 25, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Sony will need to revamp their line up soon


The Sony camera line is pretty arbitrary which makes a lot of business sense.
They can make whatever they think will sell and stop making whatever they think won't.
Their model names are arbitrary too so any model can be their flagship or entry level.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 25, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Another zzzzzzzzzzz


I think you want Nikon Rumors.
That is where you would find out about the z10.
This is the rrr.


----------



## Tremotino (May 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't believe we'll see anymore new FF cameras less than 30 mpix.


The reason why 20-21MP is because of the mentioned MP trick for high MP photos this camera will have. Canon rumors I think reported around 84MP? So i suggest 21 MP is the base MP count. But it's just my interpretation.


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2021)

MiJax said:


> "Companies never match each other feature for feature"... *I'm just gonna disagree with this one outright, because I can pull review after review matching feature after feature.* Just no need to entertain it. I will give you a little credit for the fact every manufacturer wants a differentiation and will general try to achieve that through a patented feature set, but those always seem to get copied still. That said, I didn't mention this and I'm not sure the point being made.


Um, a reviewer making comparisons between cameras IS NOT companies matching each other feature for feature. That is an independent (sometimes) person making (and sometimes forcing) their own comparison.

BTW: Can you name a patented "feature set"? Show me a patent for a set of features.


----------



## [email protected] (May 25, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Well, according to Canon, the R3 is not a flagship camera. So it should cost less than the 1dx3 as it slots in below it based on their own press release.



This is one feaurette that interests me "Subject Tracking with Deep Learning"


----------



## Del Paso (May 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I have an old Tag Heur, for me it isn't the cost of the battery it is the cost of the fitting. New seals and pressure testing make that $5 battery a $100 job that takes three days and two trips to my local big city an hour away.


In the case I mentioned, the 10 Euro cost did include battery, seals and pressure testing ,which is free for lifetime if the watch was bought from them. Battery replacement is usually done within a few hours, backcover-seal and pressure too. 
What I really like about Canon, is the CPS. CPS is free in Europe, whether you're gold or platinum only depends on what you've bought from them. Leica: repairs take a few weeks (or longer!). If you want the camera back in a week, you'll have to pay an extra fee, about $90 per item...even if you send in a $13500 lens...


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> In the case I mentioned, the 10 Euro cost did include battery, seals and pressure testing ,which is free for lifetime if the watch was bought from them. Battery replacement is usually done within a few hours, backcover-seal and pressure too.
> What I really like about Canon, is the CPS. CPS is free in Europe, whether you're gold or platinum only depends on what you've bought from them. Leica: repairs take a few weeks (or longer!). If you want the camera back in a week, you'll have to pay an extra fee, about $90 per item...even if you send in a $13500 lens...


Remember the days when all you had to do is lick a Timex watch and it kept going?


----------



## DBounce (May 25, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Literally that is what makes no sense. Just becuase the R5 specs are in many similar they are not competitors. The A1 is directly attacking the DLR flagships from Canon and Nikon and is a much better camera than either despite the few issues.


Did you switch from a 1DX series to the A1? I didn’t think so. Guess what, neither did I. And neither did anyone I know. So how exactly is this “directly attacking the DSLR flagships”?


----------



## 12Broncos (May 25, 2021)

ildyria said:


> I think we can expect some R3 going around at the Olympics.


I hope you are right!


----------



## 12Broncos (May 25, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> View attachment 197809


LOL!!


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Did you switch from a 1DX series to the A1? I didn’t think so. Guess what, neither did I. And neither did anyone I know. So how exactly is this “directly attacking the DSLR flagships”?


Playing Devil's advocate: Just because you didn't switch, he didn't, or anyone you know... doesn't mean nobody has or that they are not competitors.  Our personal worlds and orbiting friends tend to be much smaller than we think. I don't know anyone, nor have I met anyone, who owns a 1DX series camera.


----------



## Canfan (May 25, 2021)

melgross said:


> I’ve been thinking that the price would be just about between the R5 and the 1DxmkIII. Maybe $5,000. It doesn’t make sense that this would be $6,000. Canon has had a flagship at $6,000 before, which is why it doesn’t make sense to me. If they then come out with an R1, how much would that cost? What would the market bear these days? I believe Canon would be pushing their luck if it cost too much.
> 
> how much would anyone here pay for an R1, no matter how good it would be? Seriously? $7,000, $7,500, $8,000, more?
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you here 4999 seems more poise to take the market by storm. 
by the time you add taxes and accessories and some pro glass they will more than compensate, believe it will really hurt the other brands. 
just a thought


----------



## 12Broncos (May 25, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> Personally, I think the Sony a1 is overpriced to start.
> 
> Sometimes Canon say a new model sits below a particular existing model, but then spec and features of the newer model outweigh the model it is supposed to be sitting under.
> 
> The EOS R3 sounds awesome and putting the EOS R system into Pro Bodies will be a big nail in the coffin of Canon DSLR’s


I would agree with this. I noticed on the Canon Store website, a 1dx (refurbished) was still there after three weeks. Nobody wants to spend 5800.00 on old tech. Especially when they know the R3 is looming around the corner. I have to admit I was tempted in snagging it, but I factored in the lens and nah, I'll save up for the R3. I have a Sony A7s iii now, it's not ideal for wildlife, where I'm at I can get pretty close to whitetails and still achieve nice pictures.


----------



## mpmark (May 25, 2021)

polaris8030 said:


> Will an ETA for the R3 also be available in the next few days ? I was close to purchasing the R5 when the R3 announcement came out. As a bird and wildlife hobbyist photographer I feel I will benefit from the bump from 20fps to 30fps, and certainly benefit from longer battery life and a tougher body.



i hate to say it but if 20fps doesn’t get you what you want than 30fps won’t either.


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2021)

mpmark said:


> i hate to say it but if 20fps doesn’t get you what you want than 30fps won’t either.


The same could be said for 10 fps vs 20 fps. Not a valid argument. For you, maybe. Not everybody.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Did you switch from a 1DX series to the A1? I didn’t think so. Guess what, neither did I. And neither did anyone I know. So how exactly is this “directly attacking the DSLR flagships”?


I know two high end working pro sports photographers that switched from 1DX II’s to A9’s, they couldn’t be happier. 

I was shooting at a national level event this weekend and the stills media teams were all Canon 1DX III’s and II’s, but then the boss is a Canon Explorer...


----------



## polaris8030 (May 25, 2021)

mpmark said:


> i hate to say it but if 20fps doesn’t get you what you want than 30fps won’t either.


what i want is to get more frames of an action event - the darting movement of a heron going for its catch, hummingbirds chasing each other in territorial displays, ospreys or kingfishers striking water, takeoffs, landings, feeding, fighting, courting displays, behaviors at the nest or in-flight - a short burst of captures will result in different wing, beak, body positions, and a few will strike out as more aesthetic and/or interesting. With my 7DII I have often experienced that I would liked to to have more frames to fill the gaps between fast events. I have rented out the IDxIII and the R5 multiple times now and the difference of 10fps vs. 20fps gets me closer to filling those gaps - I am simply linearizing that experience for 20fps vs. 30fps. 
Just my 0.02


----------



## rbielefeld (May 25, 2021)

mpmark said:


> i hate to say it but if 20fps doesn’t get you what you want than 30fps won’t either.


But, it will get you what you want more often. Example, getting an image of the exact instant a baseball is on a batters bat. It is all about probability and the faster the fps the more probable it is a frame will be captured at that exact moment. If you make your living by getting "the" shot, then more fps can be very valuable.


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> But, it will get you what you want more often. Example, getting an image of the exact instant a baseball is on a batters bat. It is all about probability and the faster the fps the more probable it is a frame will be captured at that exact moment. If you make your living by getting "the" shot, then more fps can be very valuable.


I like to see the ball actually deforming a little as it is hit.


----------



## DBounce (May 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I know two high end working pro sports photographers that switched from 1DX II’s to A9’s, they couldn’t be happier.
> 
> I was shooting at a national level event this weekend and the stills media teams were all Canon 1DX III’s and II’s, but then the boss is a Canon Explorer...


So then the answer to the question is “No”. Like I said, the A1 is a direct competitor to the R5. Granted, a very overpriced one, but a competitor nonetheless.


----------



## degos (May 25, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Yikes, $5999 is higher than I would expect and means a future R1 will be over $7K, way dearer than the 1DXIII.



The 1DS Mark III launched at $7,999 in 2007 as the pinnacle of Canon's technology at the time. With inflation that's about $10,300 today...

Brace yourselves for the R1 price.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I know two high end working pro sports photographers that switched from 1DX II’s to A9’s, they couldn’t be happier.
> 
> I was shooting at a national level event this weekend and the stills media teams were all Canon 1DX III’s and II’s, but then the boss is a Canon Explorer...


$4899


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 25, 2021)

degos said:


> The 1DS Mark III launched at $7,999 in 2007 as the pinnacle of Canon's technology at the time. With inflation that's about $10,300 today...
> 
> Brace yourselves for the R1 price.


you realize people still have to want to buy it. if the price is too high , good enough wins for the vast majority.


----------



## FramerMCB (May 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Um, a reviewer making comparisons between cameras IS NOT companies matching each other feature for feature. That is an independent (sometimes) person making (and sometimes forcing) their own comparison.
> 
> BTW: Can you name a patented "feature set"? Show me a patent for a set of features.


I'm not sure if the OP actually meant Patented or patented. An actual Patent or rather just brand X's "patented" set of features. As an example, Canon's 'patented' ergonomics. I could very well be wrong on the OP'ers intent but it could be read either way IMHO.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2021)

DBounce said:


> So then the answer to the question is “No”. Like I said, the A1 is a direct competitor to the R5. Granted, a very overpriced one, but a competitor nonetheless.


I wasn’t arguing, I was adding data.

P.S. I would add, they got their A9's before the A1's came out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2021)

I wonder how the processor shortage affects Canon. That may be limiting their ability to introduce new models, particularly when a new processor is needed. I suspect that there is no R1 simply because they don't have all the pieces in place to meet what they define as a1 series camera. That might include lack of a super fast processor that is power efficient. The power budget for a camera is probably the toughest thing to meet. Every piece of hardware you upgrade uses a little more power and it adds up fast. Adding power adds heat, its a vicious circle.


----------



## john1970 (May 25, 2021)

Will Canon also undercut the Nikon Z9? I was really hoping that they would sell the camera for $5500. We shall see. I am hoping for some more technical leaks over the next few weeks before the Olympics.


----------



## degos (May 25, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> you realize people still have to want to buy it. if the price is too high , good enough wins for the vast majority.



Good enough is enough for most people, but some will want the best. The 1Ds III sold well.

Amortised over four or five years, a $10k camera is fairly insignificant cost to many organisations given the revenue it can earn. 

I'm just saying that I don't think the R1 price will be constrained by what prosumers think is reasonable.


----------



## Kiton (May 25, 2021)

At these price points, a few hundred dollars one way or the other on a body is not a make or break point. And Canon and Sony know this very well. It is all about the overall kit cost, how it feels in your hands and performs for your needs. Not many of the core users will dump and switch systems or not jump and switch to save a few hundred. 

I started the switch to an A9, stopped and went back to Canon for the R5 mostly.
Regrets? Rarely but sometimes. 
Happy? The vast majority of time! The skin tones are way better on the R5 than on the A9. I shot 2300 frames on NHL hockey last night and used on 62% of one battery for the entire game and pregame warmup. I never hit buffer, never! Can't say that for the SD cards in the A9.

So if someone is deep in to a Canon system, a few hundred bucks more or less for the R3 or future R1, if such a camera comes, is not the deal breaker.
But, there is a ceiling where Canon (and Sony etc etc) can price themselves right out of the game and people will just make due with the 2nd tier camera, or even the 3rd tier.

I would have no trouble using my R5 to shoot formula one (had the race not been called off due to covid again).
An R3 or an R1 will not make the difference between being able to shoot a major event or not!


----------



## sanj (May 25, 2021)

polaris8030 said:


> what i want is to get more frames of an action event - the darting movement of a heron going for its catch, hummingbirds chasing each other in territorial displays, ospreys or kingfishers striking water, takeoffs, landings, feeding, fighting, courting displays, behaviors at the nest or in-flight - a short burst of captures will result in different wing, beak, body positions, and a few will strike out as more aesthetic and/or interesting. With my 7DII I have often experienced that I would liked to to have more frames to fill the gaps between fast events. I have rented out the IDxIII and the R5 multiple times now and the difference of 10fps vs. 20fps gets me closer to filling those gaps - I am simply linearizing that experience for 20fps vs. 30fps.
> Just my 0.02


Of course 30 fps will work better than 20 fps. Obviously. 10 frames more per second. wow. That will make a difference.


----------



## canonmike (May 25, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> you realize people still have to want to buy it. if the price is too high , good enough wins for the vast majority.


Very true. The early adopters will buy the R3/R1 bodies, no matter the price. Those without unlimited deep pockets and better sense, at some price point, will just say no, I'll wait.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 26, 2021)

DBounce said:


> So then the answer to the question is “No”.


But you have to admit that was a masterful attempt to answer a question that you did not ask.


----------



## melgross (May 26, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Doesn't it depend on the difference in feature set? If the R1 has global shutter and QPAF and these additions provide significantly better performance than obtainiable from the R3, then I suspect $7000 would be the target--an incremental increase from the previous flagship price--with $7500 possible on the high end.


But what donthose features cost to build? No matter how you look at it, you have to have market differentiation. You can’t price cameras at this level at $550 apart, even $1,000 may be too close, unless it’s a speciality model.

Canon isn’t go8ng to put anything into this that would Impinge the flagship. From the beginning, they will be thinking about the feature and price spacing. That’s even before they begin to design it. I had to think about that with my own company. It’s no different for Canon.

it’s always possible that Canon would go as high as $7,500, but that‘s a whopping price increase. That would have to be one hell of a camera to justify that price.

and remember that Canon said that this camera would undercut the others. Sony Alpha at $6,500. Does $6,000 really undercut that? Meh. How much will the Nikon D9 cost? $6,000-6,500?


----------



## NKD (May 26, 2021)

Exciting times for the first mirrorless pro body w/ a compact, manageable grip!
Please utilize the LP-E6 type batteries somehow!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> There's probably a lot more people wanting 40 FPS than actually needing it.
> 
> What about flash sync at any speed though? That actually would be a big benefit to many.
> 
> ...


Yeah flash sync at any speed would be a big deal for some, but if the R3 can do 1/250 or maybe 1/500 that would probably be enough for most people. But will those same people want only 20MP or so if they are not sports journalists?


----------



## digigal (May 26, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I think that many of us were hoping, like you, for mid $5k pricing for the R3, noting that in Canon's own words, this body will fall in between the R5 and 1Dx iii. We can still hope, can we not? However, at $6 grand, this would kind of signal a 1Dx mirrorless replacement to me. If there is a summer Olympics, will be interesting to see just what kind of presence the R3 will actually have. No idea how many Canon ambassadors would be at any given Olympics. I still don't see the average pro sports photog jumping to mirrorless until the R3/R1 bodies have a proven performance track record.


This is a link to Jeff Cable's YouTube Zoom call about his upcoming trip to shoot the Olympics as the team photographer for the USA Olympics Team who shoots water polo. He works closely with Canon and this was released before he was under an NDA so he was able to talk about the R3 and when he hopes to get it, etc. Worth a look from someone who knows!




Catherine


----------



## dolina (May 26, 2021)

If they'll undercut the competition will it be priced around $1,300 a7R II, $4,500 a9 II, $3000 a7 III?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2021)

dolina said:


> If they'll undercut the competition will it be priced around $1,300 a7R II, $4,500 a9 II, $3000 a7 III?



I know it's a joke but only the a9 II is competitor from that list.


----------



## tron (May 26, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Does a 15-35, 70-200, and 100-500 count as a trinity? If so, then I'm there as well.
> 
> I've always have had tremendous resistance to 24-70 lenses, and have found that these three--plus primes--do the job for me.


You may find changing lenses more often (between 15-35 and 70-200). This had happened to me when I carried a 16-35 and 70-200 with one body.


----------



## dolina (May 26, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know it's a joke but only the a9 II is competitor from that list.


I'm happy for anyone getting it for less than $4,500


----------



## canonmike (May 26, 2021)

digigal said:


> This is a link to Jeff Cable's YouTube Zoom call about his upcoming trip to shoot the Olympics as the team photographer for the USA Olympics Team who shoots water polo. He works closely with Canon and this was released before he was under an NDA so he was able to talk about the R3 and when he hopes to get it, etc. Worth a look from someone who knows!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great video giving us a potential peak into Jeff using an R3 at the upcoming summer Olympics. Thx for sharing the link. Found it very interesting the confidence Jeff has in using adapted EF glass, especially the EF70-200L ii and the EF200-400L lenses in his sports photography. His price estimate for the R3 was about $5500.00 and I do hope he's right.


----------



## john1970 (May 26, 2021)

I watched a bit of Jeff's video and was a bit surprised to hear that he predicted CFExpress and SD slot for memory cards. I would have expected dual CF Express, but I guess that Canon is reserving that for the future R1. I still expect that the R1 will be released at the Beijing Olympics in 2022 and not the Paris Olympics in 2024.


----------



## polaris8030 (May 26, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> This is one feaurette that interests me "Subject Tracking with Deep Learning"


the implications of this feature can be astounding and is also the reason I am holding out for the R3. animal eye-AF tracking on the R5 is really impressive, but put a doll in your frame and R5 will detect and track the doll's eye - to me this suggests that the R5 can classify and make a bounding box around an eye but does not know if it's a doll or a perched bird or a photo of a perched bird. I assume that with deep learning classification, a camera will start to bound the areas of the image beyond just the eye and the face and distinguish what is what between background and foreground objects. As a bird photographer I have long been frustrated with Canon's AF cases (1,2,3,4) - I can't tell you how many hours I have spent running controlled experiments of object speed, acceleration, direction and tweaking the sensitivity parameters but I haven't found consistency or repeatability, something I can use for sure in the field. So all in all, a camera that gets focus quickly (case 3), tracks it through obstacles (case 2) even as it changes direction and/or speed (case 4) on a vast array of subjects would be pretty swell indeed.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (May 26, 2021)

Don't worry about the price. That's why God gave you two kidneys. Just sell one!

My problem is that I used up one for my R5 and now I'm thinking maybe I really don't need the other one either.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 26, 2021)

Chig said:


> I shoot birds and am tempted by the R5 but I hope the R7 will be the ultimate birding camera with (I hope) :
> - 30-35mp aps-c stacked cmos sensor
> - R6 components and similar price
> - R3 integrated grip



I have a 7Dii, and I got the R5 for non-birding purposes, but just took it out on a few trips on a whim....haven't used the 7Dii since. I cannot wait for the R7...I'm so stoked on the technology in the R5 I can't even imagine how awesome the R7 is going to be for nature photographers.


----------



## SteveC (May 26, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Don't worry about the price. That's why God gave you two kidneys. Just sell one!
> 
> My problem is that I used up one for my R5 and now I'm thinking maybe I really don't need the other one either.



Dialysis costs fifty percent as much as the camera, so you reach the point of diminishing returns selling your last kidney.

The best tactic here is to sweet talk someone else into selling _their_ spare kidney.


----------



## Billybob (May 26, 2021)

tron said:


> You may find changing lenses more often (between 15-35 and 70-200). This had happened to me when I carried a 16-35 and 70-200 with one body


It hasn't been an issue for me because I usually do have a second body in tow. Unfortunately, that second body is currently a Sony. Hopefully, the introduction of the R3 will remedy that problem.


----------



## GoldWing (May 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Time is money.... From our clients and from Canon when they sell us a camera.

My first 1DX cost $7,500 when I bought it at B&H in NYC.

Much time has passed as have the tweaks of the 1DX, DXII and DXIII.

An OVF and multiple big whites at $10K+ per lens has been the industry standard for Pro, Olympic, Extreme and College Sports.

As someone who has shot all of the above and manages 24 of some of the best sports photographers in the world, I know that Canon knows that our agency was not happy with the 1DXMKIII.

The R3 seems like a gimmick at this point to a professional sports photographer.

The market has been Canon's to lose and indeed Canon is losing it.

Canon has one saving grace... the R1.

If what we're hearing is true the R1 will be a true Sony, Nikon and even Fuji killer.

So we sit and wait... while Canon buys time.... My time, your time and the industry's time.

If the R1 is everything it should be the proposed 8K to 10K per copy will be well worth it.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> ...My first 1DX cost $7,500 when I bought it at B&H in NYC.



Kind of surprised you paid $700 over retail when you bought the 1Dx. 



> "It was released in March 2012 with a suggested retail price of US$6,799.00 (body only)"





GoldWing said:


> I know that Canon knows that our agency was not happy with the 1DXMKIII.



Yet, it hasn't affected their sales, profits or product development



GoldWing said:


> The R3 seems like a gimmick at this point to a professional sports photographer.



Canon has said that the R3 will not be its flagship. But, I'm curious why you think it is a gimmick. I have doubts about how effective the eye autofocus might be for sports, although I can see that, depending on how it is implemented, it could be useful for some sports. For those where it isn't, I would just turn it off. Not going to hurt anything. 

You always seem to overlook the fact that you represent a tiny, tiny portion of professional sports photographers. You may shoot professional sports, but there are a lot more of us professionals who shoot non-professional and non top level NCAA teams. Those who shoot high school and small college sports far outnumber you and I'd wager a bet that a great many will find the R3 to be the perfect camera, especially, if as you suggest, an R1 comes in at $8,000. Face it, Canon cares about total sales. Your team may warrant a little extra personal attention from Canon to make you feel valued, but for decisions that actually impact development, Canon is far more interested in the enthusiast and small market professionals, because they represent a much larger share of revenues.



GoldWing said:


> The market has been Canon's to lose and indeed Canon is losing it.



You are right, Canon's share of the market is..oh wait...it's bigger than anyone else's. 



GoldWing said:


> Canon has one saving grace... the R1.
> 
> If what we're hearing is true the R1 will be a true Sony, Nikon and even Fuji killer.
> 
> ...



Why do I get the feeling that if and when an R1 is finally announced, you will declare that it is worthless?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Kind of surprised you paid $700 over retail when you bought the 1Dx.


$6,799 + 8.875% sales tax = $7,402, throw in a CFast card, taxi, and slice of pizza, maybe? But as GoldMember is a pro he shouldn't have paid the sales tax just given his tax exempt number. Who knows?


----------



## Ozarker (May 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> $6,799 + 8.875% sales tax = $7,402, throw in a CFast card, taxi, and slice of pizza, maybe? But as GoldMember is a pro he shouldn't have paid the sales tax just given his tax exempt number. Who knows?


"Goldmember"     Oh behave, baby! Yeah!!!


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2021)

tron said:


> You may find changing lenses more often (between 15-35 and 70-200). This had happened to me when I carried a 16-35 and 70-200 with one body.


If I am carrying 1 lens => 24-105mm. 2 lenses = 16-35mm + 70-200mm or 16-35mm + 100-500mm
The R5's resolution means that I can get away with cropping from 70mm or 100mm down to 35-50mm focal range without too many dramas. If I was using the R6 then it would be more of an issue. 
Landscape/seascape is perfect with a 16-35mm + 100-500mm in case of unexpected wildlife.
All the others are specialty for me: 8-15mm (astro and underwater), 14mm (astro), 100mm (macro and portraits), 70-200mm (portrait and indoor event/sports)


----------



## Grimus07 (May 27, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Does a 15-35, 70-200, and 100-500 count as a trinity? If so, then I'm there as well.
> 
> I've always have had tremendous resistance to 24-70 lenses, and have found that these three--plus primes--do the job for me.


Agree. The 24-70 f2.8 (Tamron EF in my case) is one of the least used lenses I own. The 70-200f2.8 is used all the time for action, wildlife and pets. My collection regulary used is the universal focal length trinity: EF11-24f4L RF24-105f4L EF100-400f5.6-6.3L. (plus 70-200f2.8 and primes RF50f1.2 and EF85f1.2 and f1.4).


----------



## AEWest (May 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Time is money.... From our clients and from Canon when they sell us a camera.
> 
> My first 1DX cost $7,500 when I bought it at B&H in NYC.
> 
> ...


You don't specify why you believe the R3 is a gimmick. Perhaps the eye control AF? I am inclined to wait for the official announcement with all the specs, and an independent review of the camera before writing it off.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Time is money.... From our clients and from Canon when they sell us a camera.
> 
> My first 1DX cost $7,500 when I bought it at B&H in NYC.
> 
> ...




WHOAH! A Canon is doooomed post! I haven't seen one of those in like 8 months! Really brings back some 2020 nostalgia for me


----------



## Kiton (May 27, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Yeah flash sync at any speed would be a big deal for some, but if the R3 can do 1/250 or maybe 1/500 that would probably be enough for most people. But will those same people want only 20MP or so if they are not sports journalists?


At the last NHL game i shot, I was speaking with a Sony shooter for the wire service and we both agree, you can NOT shoot an entire game at 20 frames per second and actually manage to edit each period and caption and file 6 to 9 images during each intermission. It cant be done. High speed mechanical shutter on the R5 is more than enough. The only time I went 'full speed" was during a shoot out during regular season and I did not even look at all the players who did not score. I jumped straight to the game winning goal and dumped the rest. It is just too much for the vast majority of needs.

I could see using it for certain moments at Tennis, but again, never the entire match.

40 frames per second is niche territory for sure!


----------



## GoldWing (May 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Kind of surprised you paid $700 over retail when you bought the 1Dx.


NYC sales tax... its 8.75%


unfocused said:


> Yet, it hasn't affected their sales, profits or product development
> 
> 
> 
> Canon has said that the R3 will not be its flagship. But, I'm curious why you think it is a gimmick. I have doubts about how effective the eye autofocus might be for sports, although I can see that, depending on how it is implemented, it could be useful for some sports. For those where it isn't, I would just turn it off. Not going to hurt anything


Golf?  


unfocused said:


> You always seem to overlook the fact that you represent a tiny, tiny portion of professional sports photographers. You may shoot professional sports, but there are a lot more of us professionals who shoot non-professional and non top level NCAA teams. Those who shoot high school and small college sports far outnumber you and I'd wager a bet that a great many will find the R3 to be the perfect camera, especially, if as you suggest, an R1 comes in at $8,000. Face it, Canon cares about total sales. Your team may warrant a little extra personal attention from Canon to make you feel valued, but for decisions that actually impact development, Canon is far more interested in the enthusiast and small market professionals, because they represent a much larger share of revenues.


I.dont think our groups are small at all. Sports teams, leagues, tv networks, advertising agencies, production houses, magazines, newspapers, digital content producers, publishing houses, independents. we are a big group and we tend to spend an average well over 100K per employee over the life of a platform. This is before we add broadcast and film production with an average of $250K to $650K per employee.

Canon enjoys our business and the margins and 'the fact' that as we shoot on the sidelines, consumers see this and want the same equipment. We are well pronounced marketing component that reaches millions of consumers.


unfocused said:


> You are right, Canon's share of the market is..oh wait...it's bigger than anyone else's.


SONY, Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung from where we sit are getting larger spends on platform, glass and electronics in processional setting in studio and remote.


unfocused said:


> Why do I get the feeling that if and when an R1 is finally announced, you will declare that it is worthless?


If the EVF as planned is next gen and able to work in direct sun and stadium lights without bloom and lag, many will buy-in but it will have have at least double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII


----------



## Ozarker (May 27, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> WHOAH! A Canon is doooomed post! I haven't seen one of those in like 8 months! Really brings back some 2020 nostalgia for me


And Goldwing is gonna take them down single handedly... him and his 24 minions.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (May 27, 2021)

At this point your credit card has already melted into a pile of goo, so what's another few bucks!


----------



## SteveC (May 27, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> At this point your credit card has already melted into a pile of goo, so what's another few bucks!



Mine was glowing in ultraviolet from the heat after I bought the R5 and just a couple of days later the RF 15-35 f/2.8.


----------



## canonmike (May 29, 2021)

I have a solution for those that are already feeling the pain of spending upwards of $6,000.00 on an R3 body. Just split your purchase using two or more credit cards. Two expenditures of $3k ea or four of only $1500.00 ea sounds so much cheaper and better than one outlay of $6k. You're spending just as much money, of course but it looks so much better on paper. Gee, I feel better already. Now, let me see how many accessories I can add on, since it's not going to hurt as bad using this new acquisition strategy.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But that isn’t what history tells us. The 5D’s were generally as well specked as the 1 series that came out a year or so before them in all but AF.
> 
> The move to the R system is going to involve shifts in model positions, I don’t see why we don’t end up with an R type entry level camera in time, an R6, R5, R3 and R1 in the same way we used to have EOS 1V, 3, 5, and then a series of Rebels in the film days.



The biggest difference, as I see it, is that due to the way the competition is doing it Canon can no longer use AF as the differentiator between the lower priced 5-series and the higher priced 1-series. The R6 and the R5 have pretty much the same AF performance, do they not? Contrast that with the 6D (amateur level AF) vs. 5D Mark III (near 1-Series level AF for 2012) in 2012 and the 6D Mark II (prosumer level AF) vs. the 5D Mark IV (near 1-Series AF for 2016).

Canon now has to find other things to be the differentiators, because Sony and Nikon are giving all of their α7 and Z lines, respectively, the best AF they can put in them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> I believe the R3 was the original successor of the 1D mark iii. so I think this campera will have around 20 MP. And because of the Z9 and A1 Canon will use the fullframe sensor of the not jet announced canon Cinema C500(??) for a high MP high performance pro camera.



The 1D Mark IV (2009) was the successor to the 1D Mark III (2007). Do you mean the 1D X Mark III (2020)?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I have an old Tag Heur, for me it isn't the cost of the battery it is the cost of the fitting. New seals and pressure testing make that $5 battery a $100 job that takes three days and two trips to my local big city an hour away.



I have a watch which cost in the low three figures for which I can change the battery myself (It does require the specialty three prong type spanner tool, which I have a low end version of). But changing it is a pain. So I took it to a local Jeweler whose wife I was high school friends with and paid them $10 a couple of times to put a battery in for me. Both times, the battery they installed only lasted about half as long as the batteries I buy for about 4 for $10 on amazon and put in myself. So the real cost difference is more like $20 vs. $2.50 for me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> If Canon wants to lure some existing or potential Nikon and Sony flagship users by undercutting the price, 500 dollar price difference won't make sense. This would be especially true if R3 is less than 40 MP (I think more likely). My speculation is that R5c will be around 5000 dollars, R3 will be 5500 dollars, and R1 will be 7000 dollars. Irrespective of the price tag R3 will likely outsell both A1 and Z9, provided MP count is not too low.



If by R5c you mean the R5s, it will be closer to $4,500 in the U.S.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I think that many of us were hoping, like you, for mid $5k pricing for the R3, noting that in Canon's own words, this body will fall in between the R5 and 1Dx iii. We can still hope, can we not? However, at $6 grand, this would kind of signal a 1Dx mirrorless replacement to me. If there is a summer Olympics, will be interesting to see just what kind of presence the R3 will actually have. No idea how many Canon ambassadors would be at any given Olympics. I still don't see the average pro sports photog jumping to mirrorless until the R3/R1 bodies have a proven performance track record.



It's looking more and more like if the Olympics happen, no foreign non-competitors will be allowed in. So all photogs will be Japanese residents.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> If I am carrying 1 lens => 24-105mm. 2 lenses = 16-35mm + 70-200mm or 16-35mm + 100-500mm
> The R5's resolution means that I can get away with cropping from 70mm or 100mm down to 35-50mm focal range without too many dramas. If I was using the R6 then it would be more of an issue.
> Landscape/seascape is perfect with a 16-35mm + 100-500mm in case of unexpected wildlife.
> All the others are specialty for me: 8-15mm (astro and underwater), 14mm (astro), 100mm (macro and portraits), 70-200mm (portrait and indoor event/sports)



Please explain to me how you can shoot with a 70mm or 100mm and crop to get a 35-50mm angle of view. I need to learn that trick!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 11, 2021)

polaris8030 said:


> Will an ETA for the R3 also be available in the next few days ? I was close to purchasing the R5 when the R3 announcement came out. As a bird and wildlife hobbyist photographer I feel I will benefit from the bump from 20fps to 30fps, and certainly benefit from longer battery life and a tougher body.


20fps vs 30 fps is only a benefit if you are a prayer and sprayer. I get great birds in flight and wild life shots with my lowly 6 fps and I've not missed a shot. A lot of my success is about knowing the camera's speed and timing, which is true for 30fps or 6fps. All I can say about 30fps is don't expect a massive resolution with a camera of that frame rate and expect a lot less keeper ratio per shot. Your hard drive is going to fill up real quick with a lot of very similar images. A 3 second burst a 6fps only yields 18 shots. A 3 second burst at 30 fps is a LOT more images. 

I've been reading about the speculation of the sensor resolution of this new camera. Sports and press shooters care little about the resolution as they do the frame rate. They generally want low MP so they can select their single shot and upload it quickly to their agency via wifi. 30+mp cameras generally cause press photographers to go into panic & trauma.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 20fps vs 30 fps is only a benefit if you are a prayer and sprayer. I get great birds in flight and wild life shots with my lowly 6 fps and I've not missed a shot. A lot of my success is about knowing the camera's speed and timing, which is true for 30fps or 6fps. All I can say about 30fps is don't expect a massive resolution with a camera of that frame rate and expect a lot less keeper ratio per shot. Your hard drive is going to fill up real quick with a lot of very similar images. A 3 second burst a 6fps only yields 18 shots. A 3 second burst at 30 fps is a LOT more images.
> 
> I've been reading about the speculation of the sensor resolution of this new camera. Sports and press shooters care little about the resolution as they do the frame rate. They generally want low MP so they can select their single shot and upload it quickly to their agency via wifi. 30+mp cameras generally cause press photographers to go into panic & trauma.



Sadly, the skill of timing sports/action shots is becoming a lost art.

But there does come a point where the camera can beat even the best at it. If I can time the shutter release to within 1/20 second (taking into account how far ahead of release I have to press the shutter button) of when I anticipate the peak action I wish to capture (say bat hitting ball that only lasts for 1/2,000 of one second), then I'm more likely to get the shot (1:100) than someone praying and spraying with a 10-12 fps camera (1:200). But if the camera can shoot at 30fps, the odds go to the prayer and sprayer if they have any ability at all to start the first frame in the burst near the time the ball is arriving at the plate. At 3,000 fps high speed video the odds are even (1:2 or 50/50) that the camera will capture _two_ frames with the bat in contact with the ball and certain to capture at least one frame, assuming the batter manages to make contact with the ball.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've been reading about the speculation of the sensor resolution of this new camera. Sports and press shooters care little about the resolution as they do the frame rate. They generally want low MP so they can select their single shot and upload it quickly to their agency via wifi. 30+mp cameras generally cause press photographers to go into panic & trauma.



On the other hand, connection speeds continue to increase at a remarkable rate. What took ten minutes to transmit only ten years ago takes less than 10 seconds today.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> On the other hand, connection speeds continue to increase at a remarkable rate. What took ten minutes to transmit only ten years ago takes less than 10 seconds today.


And for this specific use case: the recent wifi standards (802.11AC and now 'wifi 6') have a lot more options to deal with crowded spots to make it both reliable and fast. But it took Canon more than 10 years to introduce a body with non-A 5GHz support, I hope they jump on the 'wifi 6' bandwagon a lot quicker.


----------



## RichardSM (Jun 14, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As long as Sony is selling their line at an acceptable clip, they won't tap out. What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway?
> 
> 1. Companies never match each other feature for feature. They don't have to because the desires of consumers are not monolithic.
> 
> ...


I agree, I've been a user of Canon for more the 50 years I don't jump around I'm very satisfied with Canon cameras, Yes guess lots of folks with more money like the latest brand new shiny thing on the market or bragging rights!....


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> And for this specific use case: the recent wifi standards (802.11AC and now 'wifi 6') have a lot more options to deal with crowded spots to make it both reliable and fast. But it took Canon more than 10 years to introduce a body with non-A 5GHz support, I hope they jump on the 'wifi 6' bandwagon a lot quicker.




Well, most guys I know on the sidelines at large college sporting events transfer from the camera to a tablet, do minimal editing (maybe just cropping and adding captions) and then push the images to the publisher or wire services from the tablet. So as long as the tablet has wifi 6, they should be good to go.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Please explain to me how you can shoot with a 70mm or 100mm and crop to get a 35-50mm angle of view. I need to learn that trick!


Yes the perspective will change with focal length. Let me know when a 8-100mm macro lens is available that I can take underwater and we can chat.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Yes the perspective will change with focal length. Let me know when a 8-100mm macro lens is available that I can take underwater and we can chat.




That still doesn't explain how I can use a longer focal length lens and crop the image to get the angle of view of a shorter focal length lens. 

Perhaps you meant to say the reverse? Shoot with a shorter lens and then crop to the longer focal length AoV?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Yes the perspective will change with focal length. Let me know when a 8-100mm macro lens is available that I can take underwater and we can chat.



Perspective changes with shooting position. Period.

No matter what focal length or sensor size one is using, an image taken from the same position has the same perspective (though not the same angle of view).

No matter if one uses the same focal length and camera, if one moves the camera in relation to the scene, the perspective changes.





__





Myth Busting: Focal Length & Perspective :: Photography Tips Blog « AustralianLight - Fine Art Landscape Photography - Framed Prints & Wall Art


Myth Busting: Focal Length & Perspective :: Photography Tips Blog « AustralianLight - Fine Art Landscape Photography - Framed Prints & Wall Art



www.australianlight.com.au


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Perspective changes with shooting position. Period.
> 
> No matter what focal length or sensor size one is using, an image taken from the same position has the same perspective (though not the same angle of view).
> 
> ...


You are missing my original point that croppability is very useful in the R5 as I often have to do it as I can't change lenses when under water. Yes the perspective will be different but I wasn't trying to argue that it wasn't.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> You are missing my original point that croppability is very useful in the R5 as I often have to do it as I can't change lenses when under water. Yes the perspective will be different but I wasn't trying to argue that it wasn't.



And you're _still_ missing my point that you can't get a 30mm or 50mm field of view by cropping an image captured with a 70mm or 100mm lens. You can only crop from a wider lens to get the angle of view of a narrower lens, not the opposite.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The same could be said for 10 fps vs 20 fps. Not a valid argument. For you, maybe. Not everybody.


you missed the point, but that's ok.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The R5's resolution means that I can get away with cropping from 70mm or 100mm down to 35-50mm focal range without too many dramas.


I think most of us know you meant cropping from 35-50mm down to 70-100mm FoV, but that’s not what you wrote.

You misspoke, @Michael Clark made a joke about it, and many dramas have followed.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2021)

mpmark said:


> you missed the point, but that's ok.


I think you missed that I got there was no point, but that's ok.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think you missed that I got there was no point, but that's ok.


what has no point is your response.


----------



## GoldWing (Sep 12, 2021)

Who is going to buy a 20MP camera? This is such a waste. I'd rather see you poor souls by a Z9 if you can't wait for the R1. Get a used R5 and cook on it, but don't spend good money on a 20MP camera in 2021.


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 12, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Who is going to buy a 20MP camera? This is such a waste. I'd rather see you poor souls by a Z9 if you can't wait for the R1. Get a used R5 and cook on it, but don't spend good money on a 20MP camera in 2021.



Many of the users of those cameras are going to have a camera bag full of lenses worth more than a small car. They've also been fine with 1DX resolution up to now. 

Unless they need 8K I can't imagine the resolution putting many off.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 12, 2021)

Since "the competition" is more A9ii than A1, it really doesn't seem like Canon undercut anyone at all with the current rumored R3 price point of $6000.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 12, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Since "the competition" is more A9ii than A1, it really doesn't seem like Canon undercut anyone at all with the current rumored R3 price point of $6000.


Indeed, this was a CR3 too…


----------

