# Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 24, 2021)

> I reported back in July that we would finally see the Canon EOS R3 officially announced in September 2021, after a false alarm of a June announcement.
> There are now a few things lining up that seem to point to an announcement on or around September 14, 2021. I haven’t yet confirmed this date, but it’s becoming apparent that we don’t have long to wait to finally see the EOS R3 in all of its glory.
> Canon EOS R3 Specifications:
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Andy Westwood (Aug 24, 2021)

An announcement is one thing but! When will buyers actually get their hands on one of these bodies for example the not so recent now but, lens such as the Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS USM are still pre-order in the UK


----------



## Gazwas (Aug 24, 2021)

What about any of the long rumours Cinema cameras considering NAB is in a months time?

The R3 can’t be the only September announcement unless it has some very lofty video credentials.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 24, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> An announcement is one thing but! When will buyers actually get their hands on one of these bodies for example the not so recent now but, lens such as the Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS USM are still pre-order in the UK


That backorder situation is the same everywhere, even in India most camera products are back ordered.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 24, 2021)

Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 24, 2021)

Gazwas said:


> What about any of the long rumours Cinema cameras considering NAB is in a months time?
> 
> The R3 can’t be the only September announcement unless it has some very lofty video credentials.


Both these things could be true.
I do expect the R3 to be pretty adept at video.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 24, 2021)

I think they drew the anticipation about this camera too long. I can appreciate that some of this was because they wanted testing at the Olympics. I am happy to continue with my R5 and wait for an R1.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 24, 2021)

Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

Didn't realize that it was an "ask the audience" question. If we knew which things were "lining up" and pointing to September 14th, we could probably be of more help. 
I would be really interesting in learning what will be announced alongside the R3.


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 24, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?
> 
> Didn't realize that it was an "ask the audience" question. If we knew which things were "lining up" and pointing to September 14th, we could probably be of more help.
> I would be really interesting in learning what will be announced alongside the R3.



Yeah. Are we getting any new lenses? That 18-45 sounds interesting.


----------



## BuffaloBird (Aug 24, 2021)

I've long since written off this camera. If they surprise us all and announce it with 45MP, then I'll reinvest and buy! But 24 MP or 30MP won't cut it for me.

I'm sure many others will be happy, but not pour moi!


----------



## Charlie_B (Aug 24, 2021)

I agree entirely


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 24, 2021)

Oh, come on, Canon. Bring it on.

Craig, sorry, I know rumors are your business but I would like R3 rumors to end - soon!


----------



## SHAMwow (Aug 24, 2021)

I'm not sure why, but I've never quite felt the hype and anticipation start to go in the opposite direction. Something about this camera I just want it to come out already and then go away. It's been an odd roll out of info and sneak peaks.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 24, 2021)

Yes more lens options or even more availability of lenses would be a nice announcement.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 24, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> I'm not sure why, but I've never quite felt the hype and anticipation start to go in the opposite direction. Something about this camera I just want it to come out already and then go away. It's been an odd roll out of info and sneak peaks.


I'm there with you.


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 24, 2021)

It does seem really drawn out. Also, what I find odd is that we haven't seen a solid leak on the outstanding issues yet. Nothing from Nokishita. I don't see EXIF data from the olympics as being enough to tell me that the camera is 24mp (although it very well may be) as this could represent a crop mode. It could actually have multiple crop modes for all we know. With that being said, I need a fast camera. The R5 just doesn't cut it for moving objects for me. Yeah, once I get something locked, it's great, but I've lost several shots because I couldn't get a lock and others because I couldn't get enough shutter without destroying the image with high ISO noise. In the DSLR world I was more than happy shooting my 1DX II @ 20mp instead of the 36 on the 5D IV for the same reason (as I'm sure many other wildlife photographers were) so if it's 24, I'll be fine. I still have my R5 for extreme cropping.


----------



## degos (Aug 24, 2021)

I've really gone cold on RF for now, the lack of roadmaps and constant drip-feed of 'teasers' have put me off. I'll stick with EF for a few more years, I've actually started adding lenses again, and keep an eye on Nikon.


----------



## emc (Aug 24, 2021)

Only one thing is missing: what dynamics of the sensor


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 24, 2021)

emc said:


> Only one thing is missing: what dynamics of the sensor


I suppose we will know as soon as the tech geeks get their hands on it. 
Canon normally doesn't specify much about DR of the sensor. 
But they state about the sensitivity of the AF. Like the EOS R5 AF Working Range EV -6 to 20.
And I suppose the R3 can handle darker situations.


----------



## Bigpapi (Aug 24, 2021)

neurorx said:


> I think they drew the anticipation about this camera too long. I can appreciate that some of this was because they wanted testing at the Olympics. I am happy to continue with my R5 and wait for an R1.


Yup. I knew some photographers who were tired of waiting and jumped on the a1. I can’t imagine this was a great idea by Canon. That being said, I don’t work in the marketing sector ‍


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Aug 24, 2021)

here come the IF I CAN GET MY HANDS THIS CAMERA OR THIS LENS THEY ANNOUNCED "cry babies"
I guess some of you dont know there's WORLDWIDE & REAL PANDEMIC THATS ONGOING 
as well other stuff that hindering all types of manufacturing and shipping especially all the major camera companies
if your old/present camera and lens all have a suddenly stop working lol or the images are looking bad and your trying too get the latest GEAR too look COOL or impress models and etc maybe you need too take a break
some of ya are on nearly post on every pro photog forum on the net chill out 
USE WHAT U HAVE DONT DEPEND ON STUFF U GOTTA WAIT MONTHS FOR just saying


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 24, 2021)

I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.


----------



## kennybroh (Aug 24, 2021)

Why is the eye-control AF always left off of this list of features?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 24, 2021)

Hopefully it will be Sept 14 and the speculation can end and reviews can start. 
I'll be interested too in Canon's logic / story about the camera.
Its feels like a R1, R2, R3 naming afterthought when Canon got concerned it wasn't good enough to be an R1.
It will be interesting to hear Canon's take. 
Is it that they thought the R1 could be even better but not ready yet and went for a compromise or whether it was designed and conceived as an R3 to take up a particular spot in the market. 
Not sure what that slot is that wouldn't also be the R1 slot. 
If the focusing is good on the R3 it will be difficult to distinguish it from the R1 other than MP.
I'll look forward to the R1 rumours and what will make it better than the R3.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
> I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
> I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.


Product concept, Design, Engineering, Marketing, Manufacturing, production, and fulfillment is a long-term cycle that cannot be easily modified at the end of the process without risk of injecting serious defects and chaos. Companies might hold the release of a new product if they feel is it at serious disadvantage, but they will not make major modification close to lunch. The company would have to evaluate and start the process pretty much from the beginning. These type companies have to make an early commitment to strategy which may be tweaked during the process, but is rarely modified based on another competitors release. If an A9III is in the pipeline, it was probably on the internal product roadmap in 2018/2019.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 24, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> It does seem really drawn out. Also, what I find odd is that we haven't seen a solid leak on the outstanding issues yet. Nothing from Nokishita. I don't see EXIF data from the olympics as being enough to tell me that the camera is 24mp (although it very well may be) as this could represent a crop mode. It could actually have multiple crop modes for all we know. With that being said, I need a fast camera. The R5 just doesn't cut it for moving objects for me. Yeah, once I get something locked, it's great, but I've lost several shots because I couldn't get a lock and others because I couldn't get enough shutter without destroying the image with high ISO noise. In the DSLR world I was more than happy shooting my 1DX II @ 20mp instead of the 36 on the 5D IV for the same reason (as I'm sure many other wildlife photographers were) so if it's 24, I'll be fine. I still have my R5 for extreme cropping.


I'm in the same boat as you, low light and fast. The 45mp of the R5 is something that I love so going lower is something I am hesitant to do now with the a1 and rumored Z9. I'm not saying I wouldnt get an R3, but given the slowness of the release and timeline to actually get one....I can wait and use some denoise.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 24, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Product concept, Design, Engineering, Marketing, Manufacturing, production, and fulfillment is a long-term cycle that cannot be easily modified at the end of the process without risk of injecting serious defects and chaos.


Amen


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2021)

Danglin52 said:


> Product concept, Design, Engineering, Marketing, Manufacturing, production, and fulfillment is a long-term cycle that cannot be easily modified at the end of the process without risk of injecting serious defects and chaos.


Wait, wait...I thought Canon hasn't announced the MP of the R3 because they were just waiting to read the responses on CanonRumors before making a final decision. I expect they're waiting until that thread hits 1000 posts, then they'll just count up the votes in there and decide what sensor to use. That's an easy change, so they can just pop the chosen sensor into the cameras as they're produced and I anticipate one will be in my hands by late September. Who knows, maybe they'll decide not to decide and they'll just offer a choice so when people order they just tick a box to choose 24, 30, 45 or 80 MP. Go Canon!


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 24, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Hopefully it will be Sept 14 and the speculation can end and reviews can start.
> I'll be interested too in Canon's logic / story about the camera.
> Its feels like a R1, R2, R3 naming afterthought when Canon got concerned it wasn't good enough to be an R1.
> It will be interesting to hear Canon's take.
> ...


R3 was R1 until Sony made the A1.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 24, 2021)

I have the vague feeling, that CR-Guy is not so happy with Rumors about the R3 - the story could have been much nicer.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 24, 2021)

Not that this is definitive or anything, but at at ~1:08 Peter Mackinnon said he would have two R3's for 3 weeks. That means he is returning his pair of R3's on Aug 31st. September 14th is 2 weeks after that. 

Maybe enough time to make a launch video or two?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> R3 was R1 until Sony made the A1.


There’s no such thing as competitive intelligence, the moon is made of green cheese, and chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

See, I can play make-believe, too!


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 24, 2021)

rant
At this point I don't care one way or the other about the R3, but can we please move on from blabbering about it being a pandemic and using that as a sole excuse for the lack of releases or availability?! This isn't a year ago when we were blindsided by this stuff and everything shut down, it's been long enough now that things can be planned around the deficiencies. Yes, we're still dealing with the fallout from the pandemic, I GET IT, but let's stop using that as the end-all-be-all for why something isn't released or why information is scarce.
/rant


----------



## Juangrande (Aug 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I noticed on the list of known specs there’s no mention of the eye control focus points/quadrants. Haven’t been hearing anything more about it either. It’s still a thing no?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2021)

I was hoping for earlier in September but on the other hand I'm not sure the announcement date will have much if any impact on the actual release date. I'm expecting (hoping) there will be only a brief time between announcement and release. In the U.S. at least it seems like Canon is finally getting its supply chain issues resolved. 

If the original announcement date was delayed (and we really don't know if it was, or if CR Guy just got bad information) it was probably because of supply chain concerns. Assuming it was delayed, it's possible that Canon always planned on the actual release date for late Sept. early October and may not have changed that.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> rant
> At this point I don't care one way or the other about the R3, but can we please move on from blabbering about it being a pandemic and using that as a sole excuse for the lack of releases or availability?! This isn't a year ago when we were blindsided by this stuff and everything shut down, it's been long enough now that things can be planned around the deficiencies. Yes, we're still dealing with the fallout from the pandemic, I GET IT, but let's stop using that as the end-all-be-all for why something isn't released or why information is scarce.
> /rant


I think much of the world was blindsided by both the new, more contagious Delta variant and by the high proportion of crackpots who would refuse to either wear masks or get a vaccine.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I noticed on the list of known specs there’s no mention of the eye control focus points/quadrants. Haven’t been hearing anything more about it either. It’s still a thing no?


There was a video recently by one of the advance reviewers who talked briefly about how you need to calibrate the eye control focus for the individual user, so yes, it is still definitely a thing. CRGuy left it off of an earlier list (oversight?) and as he cuts and pastes the list of features, it just keeps getting left off.


----------



## Roubles (Aug 24, 2021)

Hope so it's the Photography Show on the 18-21 September 2021 at the NEC, Birmingham in the UK so might be able to get my hands on one.


----------



## entoman (Aug 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
> I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
> I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.


You can bet your life that the Sony a9iii will beat the R3 on *specification*, as Sony is technology driven and always strives to have the most advanced cameras (on paper). It will likely be a different beast from the R3 and the Z9, because it's pretty certain that it won't have an integrated vertical grip. It's really just a personal choice - some people want the tougher build quality and better weatherproofing that an integrated grip provides, and they'll say it handles better. Others will prefer a more compact and lightweight camera that accepts an accessory vertical grip, and they'll also argue that Sony cameras are more electro-efficient, and don't need the extra battery power. Horses for courses.

On the other hand I could be completely wrong. The new Sony *might* have an integrated grip, but if it does, I can't see it having the "a9iii" designation. Such a camera would compete more directly with the R3, and sell well on the basis that Sony has a more complete native lens system than Canon RF. Time will tell.

One thing is for sure, the intense competition between Canon, Sony and Nikon is good for us all, as it advances technology and potentially opens up new fields of photography.


----------



## FabFR (Aug 24, 2021)

entoman said:


> One thing is for sure, the intense competition between Canon, Sony and Nikon is good for us all, as it advances technology and potentially opens up new fields of photography.


Yes of course, but this technological war costs a lot to the manufacturers and at the end to us too !


----------



## Chig (Aug 24, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> It does seem really drawn out. Also, what I find odd is that we haven't seen a solid leak on the outstanding issues yet. Nothing from Nokishita. I don't see EXIF data from the olympics as being enough to tell me that the camera is 24mp (although it very well may be) as this could represent a crop mode. It could actually have multiple crop modes for all we know. With that being said, I need a fast camera. The R5 just doesn't cut it for moving objects for me. Yeah, once I get something locked, it's great, but I've lost several shots because I couldn't get a lock and others because I couldn't get enough shutter without destroying the image with high ISO noise. In the DSLR world I was more than happy shooting my 1DX II @ 20mp instead of the 36 on the 5D IV for the same reason (as I'm sure many other wildlife photographers were) so if it's 24, I'll be fine. I still have my R5 for extreme cropping.


I agree and I wonder if the R3 will work better with T.Cs than the R5 and at smaller apertures so that even with the likely low mp it would still out perform the R5?


----------



## Chig (Aug 24, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.


What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?


----------



## kaihp (Aug 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Who knows, maybe they'll decide not to decide and they'll just offer a choice so when people order they just tick a box to choose 24, 30, 45 or 80 MP. Go Canon!


Mass Customization is the thing! Custom To Order Everything! Choose your own eyeviewer, sensor, memory card type, built-in grip, battery type and max FPS. All at a single dollar.
/s


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 24, 2021)

I'm sure there are bunches of sports shooters out there excited to see this camera in their hands. If it were within a few hundred dollars of an R5 I'd probably buy it too. But I think it'll likely be $1500 more. And as an amateur/hobbyist I can't justify that much. But if it miraculously comes in at $4k.....I'll buy it and make sure it gets delivered on a day the wife isn't here to notice. I can avoid the couch for a few extra days that way. 

-Brian


----------



## HenryL (Aug 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
> I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
> I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.


It doesn't work like that at all. If they waited to see how the R3 does on the market before developing an A9III, it would end up being released around the same time as the R3 MkII. It takes years to bring product to market.

Nikon, Sony, Canon don't wait until a competitors product is announced to being developing a product in response. I don't know when the A9II was released, but rest assured that it's successor was already on the drawing board whatever that date was. Likewise, the R5 MkII & R6 MiII are already well into the pipeline - and the MkIII versions are at least on the drawing board, too.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?


I always thought those comments were funny too. I mean, it implies Canon has no idea what level of MP the target audience wants for the camera. The thing is, they KNOW - through meticulous market research - that 24mp is indeed, not just enough, but the PREFERENCE of their target audience. They haven't been leaders in the camera market for decades by accident. 

Good example is Campells soup in the early 2000s. Lots of press at the time about how sodium was 'killing' people. And yes, sodium in excess is bad for your blood pressure - all well known. Canned soup was an easy target b/c it was high in sodium. Why? Campbells and other soup companies taste test every single product with a wide demographic of people, to have as much certainty as they can that their product will be pleasing to the pallet and people will buy it. Those recipies people chose....all had 'high' amounts of sodium. Campbells caved to the media pressure (akin to if Canon caved in to what forums like these said) and lowered the sodium content of their foods. The result? Sales PLUMMET. A year later....back to the old recipe, and back to the old levels of sales. 

Megapixels don't cause heart attacks. Maybe a little depression in internet jockies though.  But the point is, these decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Canon is constantly doing research to improve its products. If it turns out to be 24mp, its because the agencies and professional users in the wide demographics Canon tests with have agreed that's perfectly suitable for their needs. The same will be true of the R1, whatever MP count it lands on. 

-Brian


----------



## neurorx (Aug 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?


I don't think anyone knows for sure, but if you look at Sony (A1) and Nikon's (Z9 with 8K) flagships, a 20-24 mp R1 would really be less competitive. Then if you do a minor step up from an R3, why purchase that if you can get an R3 1000-1500 cheaper?


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 24, 2021)

FabFR said:


> Yes of course, but this technological war costs a lot to the manufacturers and at the end to us too !



Really hope there's a battery war, Canon seems to ahve screwed up with the RP, R5 and R6 battery life. Its surprising when a EF batter is 3 times better and takes 3 times more shots than a new modern day battery and you're expected to pay a lot more for an R5 and R6 with a crap battery. 

I'd love an R3, but will probably hold out for the affordable RF camera they're working on, put into a 5D type body that hopefully surpasses the 5D3, which hopefully uses an LP-E6 battery.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?


Canon would likely not make 2 pro body sports camera models to compete against each other. So does that mean the R3 is just an interim camera until the R1 arrives?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 24, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I always thought those comments were funny too. I mean, it implies Canon has no idea what level of MP the target audience wants for the camera. The thing is, they KNOW - through meticulous market research - that 24mp is indeed, not just enough, but the PREFERENCE of their target audience. They haven't been leaders in the camera market for decades by accident.
> 
> Good example is Campells soup in the early 2000s. Lots of press at the time about how sodium was 'killing' people. And yes, sodium in excess is bad for your blood pressure - all well known. Canned soup was an easy target b/c it was high in sodium. Why? Campbells and other soup companies taste test every single product with a wide demographic of people, to have as much certainty as they can that their product will be pleasing to the pallet and people will buy it. Those recipies people chose....all had 'high' amounts of sodium. Campbells caved to the media pressure (akin to if Canon caved in to what forums like these said) and lowered the sodium content of their foods. The result? Sales PLUMMET. A year later....back to the old recipe, and back to the old levels of sales.
> 
> ...


I couldn't see at all that their target audience have a preference for a 24MP camera. When they brought out the 1DXIII did the audience for it have a preference for a 20MP camera but now after intensive Canon research they have discovered they want 4 MP more - but no more than that? It's very easy to take 24MP images with a 45MP camera but impossible the other way around. With high speed broadband the image size doesn't really matter and allows for more flexible cropping.
The only reason I see that Canon went for 24MP was that they could get a better high ISO performance / dynamic range / FPS / Buffering capability and that they want to save 8K for some other camera. 
Canon are very smart and obviously expect to sell every R3 they make. I'll be interested on how the pitch it to the general public and how they pitch it to the photography agencies. It may have amazing focusing abilities. That alone would sell it.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 24, 2021)

Only in America can we sit around a table consuming $30.00 steak dinners, all while discussing the merits of buying or not, a camera body costing upwards of $4-6,000.00, while there are many out there that have lost there jobs over the last year and cannot even afford an M50. I consider myself truly blessed but hope I never forget what's really important here, even as I go out among the populace, shooting my $5k rig consisting of EOS R6 body + RF 100-500mm or other similar gear combo, seemingly oblivious to those struggling to put food on the table for their families. For them, I'm afraid our gear acquisition arguments and the reason therefore, fall on deaf ears, while we moan and cry in paradise, wondering whether we should buy an R3 to add to our collections of R5's, 1Dx's, A1's and whatever's. Shortly, it appears, the R3 will be officially announced. The inevitable naysayers, the trash and bashers, if you will, are waiting in the wings, salivating at the mouth, waiting to pounce on any weakness, even if only a perceived weakness and even if the R3 were to surprise us and come in at $4k, have 60MP, shoot 40FPS, shoot 12k video with no overheating, etc., they'll inevitably still find fault with it, knowing full well they never intended to buy it, all while completely ignoring the many who will just go out and buy it, shoot it and thoroughly embrace it. Such is life.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 24, 2021)

With all the hype, the announcement will be a *yawn* moment.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2021)

Chig said:


> What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?



I think it is debatable as to whether or not the R1, should it ever materialize, will continue to be targeted to the same audience as the 1 series of DSLRs. No one knows except Canon, of course, but it is very possible that the R1 will instead be targeted to enthusiasts who want to own and will pay the price of owning the top of the line Canon camera. If that is the case, the R3 may very well be the pro camera for the shrinking market of people who earn their living shooting action, while the R1 will be focused on people who never earn a dime from photography but want to have the very best camera money can afford. If that is the case, all bets are off in regards to the traditional specs of the 1 series.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Aug 25, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I would be really interesting in learning what will be announced alongside the R3.


If it's really September 14, the answer to your question _might_ be the iPhone 13.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 25, 2021)

Will be nice to see a formal announcement with all specifications, but at this stage I am more interested in learning what lens will be coming next in the RF roadmap. I realize that due to chip shortages that delays are reality, but would just like to have some idea of what is coming down the pipeline wrt lenses.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I couldn't see at all that their target audience have a preference for a 24MP camera. When they brought out the 1DXIII did the audience for it have a preference for a 20MP camera but now after intensive Canon research they have discovered they want 4 MP more - but no more than that? It's very easy to take 24MP images with a 45MP camera but impossible the other way around. With high speed broadband the image size doesn't really matter and allows for more flexible cropping.
> The only reason I see that Canon went for 24MP was that they could get a better high ISO performance / dynamic range / FPS / Buffering capability and that they want to save 8K for some other camera.
> Canon are very smart and obviously expect to sell every R3 they make. I'll be interested on how the pitch it to the general public and how they pitch it to the photography agencies. It may have amazing focusing abilities. That alone would sell it.


I think the truth is that the target audience for the R3 and R1 would in reality prefer a high MP camera - wildlife and reportage photographers for a start often need to crop heavily, so it's beneficial to start with more MP.

A recent article in dpreview actually blows away (or attempts to) the myth that higher MP results in worse DR and more noise. If both sensors are of the same generation and the processor and algorithms are good enough, there is no IQ advantage to having a lower MP sensor.

And as you point out, for those who truly want a 24MP output, in order to increase buffer capacity and keep file sizes smaller, it's a simple matter to select 24MP (or thereabouts) resolution on a 45MP camera. But there again, we need to consider that most sports pros shoot JPEGs anyway, so for them, high MP presumably isn't a problem any way.

The reality I think, is that the R3 will be the (joke) affordable workhorse, while the R1 will be the high megapixel alternative for agency photographers and affluent amateurs.


----------



## Chig (Aug 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I think it is debatable as to whether or not the R1, should it ever materialize, will continue to be targeted to the same audience as the 1 series of DSLRs. No one knows except Canon, of course, but it is very possible that the R1 will instead be targeted to enthusiasts who want to own and will pay the price of owning the top of the line Canon camera. If that is the case, the R3 may very well be the pro camera for the shrinking market of people who earn their living shooting action, while the R1 will be focused on people who never earn a dime from photography but want to have the very best camera money can afford. If that is the case, all bets are off in regards to the traditional specs of the 1 series.


Canon have stated that the R3 is not their flagship camera .
Canon seems to regard their pro sports cameras as their flagship bodies e.g the 1DX line up


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 25, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I couldn't see at all that their target audience have a preference for a 24MP camera. When they brought out the 1DXIII did the audience for it have a preference for a 20MP camera but now after intensive Canon research they have discovered they want 4 MP more - but no more than that? It's very easy to take 24MP images with a 45MP camera but impossible the other way around. With high speed broadband the image size doesn't really matter and allows for more flexible cropping.
> The only reason I see that Canon went for 24MP was that they could get a better high ISO performance / dynamic range / FPS / Buffering capability and that they want to save 8K for some other camera.
> Canon are very smart and obviously expect to sell every R3 they make. I'll be interested on how the pitch it to the general public and how they pitch it to the photography agencies. It may have amazing focusing abilities. That alone would sell it.


Many of us can't see it....because our needs and work flow as amateurs is much different than the needs of the audience this was designed for. An 8mp 4k image is generally overkill for every web and most print agencies (sports oriented). That still gives a lot of cropping room even at 24mp. Going from one game to the next, with images that need to be posted within minutes, hours, or maybe a day....not a lot of editing is going on there. And they all have access to the glass to get the framing right a lot more often than those of us who are lucky to have a 100-400L II, or similar. Some layout guy at the office is going to crop to fit the layout and send it. 

The 4mp is probably more about the sensor design, technology than the actual utility of the 4mp. I'm sure they had an architecture that worked out to 24mp, vs say whatever the architecture is on the 1DXIII which worked out to 20mp. 

I'm sure the focusing and other stuff you mention will be better as well. 


-Brian


----------



## jam05 (Aug 25, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
> I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
> I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.


With parts and supply limited, Sony cant even get cameras already released shipped. Nobody care if Sony announces an A9IIII. Canon's R3 isn't the flagship. Sony got burned in 2020 supposedly waiting for Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I couldn't see at all that their target audience have a preference for a 24MP camera. When they brought out the 1DXIII did the audience for it have a preference for a 20MP camera but now after intensive Canon research they have discovered they want 4 MP more - but no more than that?


I can’t see gravity, but I don’t question it’s existence.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 25, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> rant
> At this point I don't care one way or the other about the R3, but can we please move on from blabbering about it being a pandemic and using that as a sole excuse for the lack of releases or availability?! This isn't a year ago when we were blindsided by this stuff and everything shut down, it's been long enough now that things can be planned around the deficiencies. Yes, we're still dealing with the fallout from the pandemic, I GET IT, but let's stop using that as the end-all-be-all for why something isn't released or why information is scarce.
> /rant


Worldwide shortages are much WORSE now than a year ago. Pandemic or not, companies are NOT able to plan around the deficiencies.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think the truth is that the target audience for the R3 and R1 would in reality prefer a high MP camera - wildlife and reportage photographers for a start often need to crop heavily, so it's beneficial to start with more MP.
> 
> A recent article in dpreview actually blows away (or attempts to) the myth that higher MP results in worse DR and more noise. If both sensors are of the same generation and the processor and algorithms are good enough, there is no IQ advantage to having a lower MP sensor.
> 
> ...


Definitely THIS!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think the truth is that the target audience for the R3 and R1 would in reality prefer a high MP camera - wildlife and reportage photographers for a start often need to crop heavily, so it's beneficial to start with more MP.


You should really tell Canon this, clearly they have no idea.

Rather than repeat myself, I’ll just quote myself and save the keystrokes. One of them is even in response to you. Still waiting to see your extensive market research data. Not going to hold my breath, though.



neuroanatomist said:


> By all means, show us all the market research that _you’ve_ conducted to support that claim. Or try to convince us the company that has consistently sold more ILCs than any other manufacturer for nearly two decades doesn’t understand their market. Go on…prove how much smarter you are than Canon.





neuroanatomist said:


> You suggest the idea that 20-24 MP is sufficient for many people is daft, but honestly, how much real market research have you conducted? Sent out surveys to a few thousand CPS members around the world? Canon does that regularly. Tracked the camera and lens buying habits of individuals and organizations via product registrations over decades? Canon does that. Assessed what gear photographers at sporting events around the world use? Canon does that. Logged the equipment that professional photographers of all genres evaluate on loan, compared to the equipment they actually buy? Canon does that.
> 
> So please, tell me what market research you've sponsored or personally conducted to provide data on how many MP people would find sufficient. Read a few posts on the internet? You know a few people with cameras? LOL.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2021)

Chig said:


> Canon seems to regard their pro sports cameras as their flagship bodies e.g the 1DX line up



Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. The market is changing. The traditional 1 series market is dying. Canon is likely to follow the money and the money is in enthusiasts who are spending $10,000 or more on trips to Africa, Antarctica, Galapagos, etc. These consumers far outnumber the remaining top tier pro sports photographers.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> A recent article in dpreview actually blows away (or attempts to) the myth that higher MP results in worse DR and more noise. If both sensors are of the same generation and the processor and algorithms are good enough, there is no IQ advantage to having a lower MP sensor.


The other side of the coin is the myth that lower MP sensors do not sustain cropping well. For the past year I've used a 1DX III for sports and from personal experience I can say that the 20mp sensor with the newer anti-aliasing filter outresolves previous sensors and makes it possible to crop much more radically than in the past with little loss of quality. 

It's really getting to the point where all the old arguments and assumptions about sensors are less and less significant than they were even five years ago. 

It is bad for the internet experts, I know. With the dynamic range improvements in Canon sensors, the "shadow noise" warriors lost their rallying cry. Now, it seems the high megapixel = high noise and the low megapixel = loss of detail warriors are both becoming irrelevant.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wait, wait...I thought Canon hasn't announced the MP of the R3 because they were just waiting to read the responses on CanonRumors before making a final decision. I expect they're waiting until that thread hits 1000 posts, then they'll just count up the votes in there and decide what sensor to use. That's an easy change, so they can just pop the chosen sensor into the cameras as they're produced and I anticipate one will be in my hands by late September. Who knows, maybe they'll decide not to decide and they'll just offer a choice so when people order they just tick a box to choose 24, 30, 45 or 80 MP. Go Canon!


Actually, a 100mp sensor with a super secret switch in the firmware that allows them to set the size of the output. You never know…………..!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 25, 2021)

They are keeping the megapixels a secret because they fear disappointment. I am sure the marketing team is prepping a glorious staatement about how 24MP is actually great on their new sensor.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 25, 2021)

I was ready for this camera months ago and am actually in need of a 3rd camera body. I've been holding off on a second R5 for this and using my Fuji or M6 Mark II as my 3rd camera...which they have done surprisingly well. I hope these ship in late September or early October for selfish reasons, but I'm eager to have a 3rd camera with an entirely unreal set of capabilities.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 25, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.


Wich is gonna be named R2 if Sony is smart enough to launch an A1 mark II just before Canon hits the market with an 45mpix cam.  Finally some competition, but unfortunately Canon is running behind...


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 25, 2021)

Im am affraid that when I buy this 24mpix camera (for probably 6k in euro’s) I am already buying something that is outdated the moment I leave the shop. Who on earth wants 24mpix these days? Is this wat Canon calls development? It just does not make any sense to me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> Others will prefer a more compact and lightweight camera that accepts an accessory vertical grip, and they'll also argue that Sony cameras are more electro-efficient, and don't need the extra battery power. Horses for courses.


No argument about it. The A1 battery has about 7% more capacity than the R5 but significantly longer run time (however you want to measure it). No CFe B slot and slower bandwidth would account for some of the efficiency but the A1 does down downsample from 8.2k to 8k for instance on the fly. 
I put it down to Sony's extensive PSx sensor experience since most of the processing is all video (AF tracking/EVF/storage etc) based after the sensor itself.
The only other efficiency I can think of is maybe the BSI/stacked sensor is much more efficient than the conventional FSI sensor. The R3 should have significant runtime in any case.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 25, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Good example is Campells soup in the early 2000s. Lots of press at the time about how sodium was 'killing' people. And yes, sodium in excess is bad for your blood pressure - all well known. Canned soup was an easy target b/c it was high in sodium. Why? Campbells and other soup companies taste test every single product with a wide demographic of people, to have as much certainty as they can that their product will be pleasing to the pallet and people will buy it. Those recipies people chose....all had 'high' amounts of sodium. Campbells caved to the media pressure (akin to if Canon caved in to what forums like these said) and lowered the sodium content of their foods. The result? Sales PLUMMET. A year later....back to the old recipe, and back to the old levels of sales.


I think that you are referring to the Bliss Point for food
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)
It applies to salt/sugar and fat which is why ice cream and in particular salted caramel ice cream is a hit to your brain. Substituting cheaper high fructose corn syrup (high tariffs on imported sugar and US subsidies) for sugar made it even sweeter = 1.5x weight for weight.

That said, it is possible to get used to lower salt/fat/sugar. I don't enjoy anything particularly sweet anymore which can only be good for me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 25, 2021)

HenryL said:


> It doesn't work like that at all. If they waited to see how the R3 does on the market before developing an A9III, it would end up being released around the same time as the R3 MkII. It takes years to bring product to market.
> 
> Nikon, Sony, Canon don't wait until a competitors product is announced to being developing a product in response. I don't know when the A9II was released, but rest assured that it's successor was already on the drawing board whatever that date was. Likewise, the R5 MkII & R6 MiII are already well into the pipeline - and the MkIII versions are at least on the drawing board, too.


agreed. What Sony could do is cripple (see how I did that!!) the A9iii so that it was just slightly better than the R3. Alternatively, they could postpone ie. redirect R&D resources elsewhere for any planned firmware features.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Really hope there's a battery war, Canon seems to ahve screwed up with the RP, R5 and R6 battery life. Its surprising when a EF batter is 3 times better and takes 3 times more shots than a new modern day battery and you're expected to pay a lot more for an R5 and R6 with a crap battery.
> 
> I'd love an R3, but will probably hold out for the affordable RF camera they're working on, put into a 5D type body that hopefully surpasses the 5D3, which hopefully uses an LP-E6 battery.


"Battery war"? For roughly the same physical size, the Sony A1 battery has about 7% more capacity than the R5 but has significantly better CIPA and real life runtime. The issue is not battery technology but sensor/processor technology and how it is implemented.

I am not sure that you understand the fundamental differences between an OVF vs EVF (including IBIS) and the power draw for them. If you run your 5Diii in live view all the time, it will give you an idea of the battery life. Noting that the LP-E6 has already had 2 capacity upgrades to LP-E6N and now LP-E6N over time.

An affordable RF body is likely to be small - at least the size of the RP or maybe similar to the Sigma fp. The battery will be even smaller than the LP-E6xx

Rent a R5/6 for a day and see how your battery life goes for your type of shooting. I don't tend to get a day's shooting when doing sports (pre-lockdown) any longer but my R5 is lighter and it is easy to carry a spare. Perhaps buy a grip if battery life is critical for your shooting.

At least you can use a LP-E6NH in your 5Diii and get even longer runtime


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can’t see gravity, but I don’t question it’s existence.





neuroanatomist said:


> I can’t see gravity, but I don’t question it’s existence.


I taught my son about gravity by throwing pasta and sauce at the ceiling​He didn't get it at first, but it wasn't long before the penne dropped.


----------



## Copland (Aug 25, 2021)

Who cares when it only has 24 MP!?
In 2019 it would have been "a date", but in 2021 it is a lame duck.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> That said, it is possible to get used to lower salt/fat/sugar. I don't enjoy anything particularly sweet anymore which can only be good for me.


I have a very strong distaste for anything salty. For several years I have deliberately gone for the least salt content in e.g. bacon.


----------



## Baxter2020 (Aug 25, 2021)

24 MP will not cut it, allthough I expect it's a great camera . Don't be be fooled by the everlasting (Canon) marketing trick : Let Canon hang the 1st version around your eager neck and then let them come up with a 40mp version of mirrorless one year later , i.e. the R1 ( I know , With a direct price tag off course..)


----------



## dba101 (Aug 25, 2021)

24 more than cuts it imo


----------



## dboris (Aug 25, 2021)

People bought the A7SIII because it's only 12 mpx.
It's THE feature.
Yet smart people here think 24 mpx is a handicap.
Yeah sure. Will probably blow the R5 sensor on DR/sensitivity/readout times, which is require for sports AND video, and more relevant than having blurry 50mp images.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 25, 2021)

If low megapixels are not better at low light, why does Canon offer that camera with ISO 4,500,000 and 19 micrometre pixels?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> It just does not make any sense to me.


Obviously. But it makes sense to a multibillion dollar, multinational corporation with a substantial investment in market research and a decades-long track record of leading the ILC market. But apparently you think you know better. Right.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 25, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Will be nice to see a formal announcement with all specifications, but at this stage I am more interested in learning what lens will be coming next in the RF roadmap. I realize that due to chip shortages that delays are reality, but would just like to have some idea of what is coming down the pipeline wrt lenses.


Completely agree. In my case, I keep hoping for that RF 10-24 L to materialize, even though I know the EF 12-24 coupled to Canon's EF-RF drop-in-filter adapter is a formidable combo and not obtainable in the RF version. At least, not yet. I'm trying to go all in on RF.


----------



## 12Broncos (Aug 25, 2021)

neurorx said:


> I think they drew the anticipation about this camera too long. I can appreciate that some of this was because they wanted testing at the Olympics. I am happy to continue with my R5 and wait for an R1.


I can understand that and a big part of me agrees. Canon wants to make sure the R3 is 'flawless' in that I mean, minimized issues. The R5 had major heating issues in video mode. The R3 needs to have little issues, that the buyer can say, "I can live with that." Canon should have addressed the heating issue in the R5 before release, and now they're gun-shy of making an announcement too soon. I'll be sticking with Canon RF series, because they have the lenses I want/need right now. Sony and Nikon have very little.


----------



## Tremotino (Aug 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I think much of the world was blindsided by both the new, more contagious Delta variant and by the high proportion of crackpots who would refuse to either wear masks or get a vaccine.


Because of people like _you_ we have still a "world wide pandemic". 

Better inform yourself first, before you make a fool of yourself here and insult others.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I think that you are referring to the Bliss Point for food
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)
> It applies to salt/sugar and fat which is why ice cream and in particular salted caramel ice cream is a hit to your brain. Substituting cheaper high fructose corn syrup (high tariffs on imported sugar and US subsidies) for sugar made it even sweeter = 1.5x weight for weight.
> 
> That said, it is possible to get used to lower salt/fat/sugar. I don't enjoy anything particularly sweet anymore which can only be good for me.


Yes, that is a similar effect. But people better leave my icecream alone! lol. I lived through the soup thing as a highly interested observer as I was in the food industry at the time, and our company also made soup products.


----------



## JamesG25 (Aug 25, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Hopefully it will be Sept 14 and the speculation can end and reviews can start.
> I'll be interested too in Canon's logic / story about the camera.
> Its feels like a R1, R2, R3 naming afterthought when Canon got concerned it wasn't good enough to be an R1.
> It will be interesting to hear Canon's take.
> ...


I think they will differentiate the R1 with following:

1. 40+ MP
2. Quad Pixel Auto focus
3. 8K video 
4. Next generation DIGIX processor with slightly higher fps and less heat generation
5. Dual CF Express card slots
6. Best Battery life
7. Higher resolution EVF and touch screen
8. A few ergonomics tweaks based on any feedback they get on R3 body

Canon will need to do enough to warrant a a $2000k + price difference from R3 and for people wanting a 40+ MP sensor enough reasons to choose an R1 over an R5, and justify what will likely be a ~$3500 price difference.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Aug 25, 2021)

It would be interesting if they added that faux shutter click to silent mode on the R5 and R6... yes I know it would defeat the purpose of 'silent' but after hearing it on the R3 it would just be a fun feature to have on the R5 and R6. Firmware request?


----------



## sanj (Aug 25, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> rant
> At this point I don't care one way or the other about the R3, but can we please move on from blabbering about it being a pandemic and using that as a sole excuse for the lack of releases or availability?! This isn't a year ago when we were blindsided by this stuff and everything shut down, it's been long enough now that things can be planned around the deficiencies. Yes, we're still dealing with the fallout from the pandemic, I GET IT, but let's stop using that as the end-all-be-all for why something isn't released or why information is scarce.
> /rant


I understand your frustration. But the pandemic (or the hype of it) has certainly slowed down shipments, manufacturing, labour etc. Companies are suffering because they are unable to meet the demand.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 25, 2021)

Chig said:


> What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?


R3 series will be sports
R1 series will be commercial


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You should really tell Canon this, clearly they have no idea.
> 
> Rather than repeat myself, I’ll just quote myself and save the keystrokes. One of them is even in response to you. Still waiting to see your extensive market research data. Not going to hold my breath, though.



Your sarcastic "clearly Canon has no idea" is misplaced. They quite obviously do market research, they send out prototypes to field test, and they get direct feedback from you and me. But the only reason they get that feedback is because e.g. sometimes they "forget" to include a demanded feature, or some aspect of the design (e.g. the swipe bar on the R) is condemned by users.

They have chosen 24MP for the R3, but NOT because it is the ideal resolution. Like everything, it is a compromise. In this case they probably wanted to keep the cost of the camera lower in the hope that it would become the standard "affordable" workhorse.

A higher resolution would be beneficial to almost all users, as it allows an option to crop quite heavily - and that is particularly valuable to the sports, wildlife and reportage users who are likely the target market. A higher resolution has no DR penalties, and for a given print size has no noise penalties either. It's widely accepted that most sports and reportage photographers shoot JPEGs to minimise file sizes, minimise processing and minimise transmission times, so for *most* of them, buffering isn't an issue either.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people would rather have higher MP, so long as there is an option to select a lower resolution when needed. And no, I can't support that with data, but you can't dismiss it, as you have no alternative data.

If there were two versions of the R3, one with 24MP, and the other 45MP (with an option to select a lower res when needed), and both bodies were the same price, only a fool would buy the 24MP version. Clearly the reason why Canon have limited it to 24MP is to keep the price down.

Now please show me *your* extensive market research that proves otherwise. I wait with bated breath.


----------



## landon (Aug 25, 2021)

Canon made a good looking, smaller pro-body that has enthusiasts salivating, but they want to use it for other purposes than sports. Hurry up and make R3ii with 45mp Canon ;-)


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> [..] But the only reason they get that feedback is because e.g. sometimes they "forget" to include a demanded feature,[..]


I remember the missing 24P in video mode issue, Canon did finally release a firmware update adding that. I wonder what the threshold is for getting such things added back, it might make organizing campains a bit easier


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously. But it makes sense to a multibillion dollar, multinational corporation with a substantial investment in market research and a decades-long track record of leading the ILC market. But apparently you think you know better. Right.


He actually might know better. A company is only as good as it's employees which are just regular people that don't know everything.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 25, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If low megapixels are not better at low light, why does Canon offer that camera with ISO 4,500,000 and 19 micrometre pixels?


Because there is a point of diminishing returns and impracticality for everything?


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

landon said:


> Canon made a good looking, smaller pro-body that has enthusiasts salivating, but they want to use it for other purposes than sports. Hurry up and make R3ii with 45mp Canon ;-)


I don't see any likelihood of that happening, as the R5 covers that resolution. Although it's by no means perfect, it covers almost all applications and is built well enough for anything other than extreme conditions.

It's possible that the R1 might have 45MP, but my guess is around 36MP.

... and Canon are known to have a high MP camera in the pipeline - initially rumoured  to be 90MP. But Sony will almost certainly beat that with the "a7Rv", and Canon will be keen to retake the high MP crown, so who knows what they'll come up with?


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can’t see gravity, but I don’t question it’s existence.


That surprises me, knowing your track record


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously. But it makes sense to a multibillion dollar, multinational corporation with a substantial investment in market research and a decades-long track record of leading the ILC market. But apparently you think you know better. Right.


It's fine to state facts, it's fine to state your *opinion*, it's fine to *disagree* with people.

But why are your posts always so self-righteous and condescending?

You really need to dump that superiority complex.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> R3 series will be sports
> R1 series will be commercial


R3 is for much more than sports.
IMO it's designed to be an all-rounder - a tough workhorse for sports, wildlife, reportage, event, wedding and just about anything else that doesn't require higher resolution.
I view it as a mirrorless 5DMkiv with an integrated vertical grip, and I'm guessing that it will be priced between $4500-5000.

R1 at the moment is a mystery, but will have to compete with Sony a1 and Nikon Z9, so ideally it would have 45MP or more, although an ultrafast 36MP is an alternative.

I don't think either camera are aimed at the "commercial" market, by which I mean architectural, studio, product, fine art, landscape and other high-resolution applications - these will be the realm of the rumoured 90MP (or more) model, i.e. the mirrorless replacement for the 5DSR.

Just my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people would rather have higher MP, so long as there is an option to select a lower resolution when needed. And no, I can't support that with data, but you can't dismiss it, as you have no alternative data.
> 
> Now please show me *your* extensive market research that proves otherwise. I wait with bated breath.


Lol. I’m not the one making unsupported claims like, “The vast majority of people would rather have higher MP.” I’ve never claimed to have data, but Canon does, and they have (presumably) chosen to launch the R3 with 24 MP. 



entoman said:


> Clearly the reason why Canon have limited it to 24MP is to keep the price down.


Ahhh, so that’s why the 60 MP Sony a7R IV costs so much more than the 12 MP a7S III…oh, wait, they both launched at the same $3500 price.

As I stated before, what this boils down to is Canon’s data says their target market will buy the R3 at 24 MP, but you want more and you’re flailing around for reasons why Canon isn’t giving you what you want instead of just accepting the facts as they are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> He actually might know better. A company is only as good as it's employees which are just regular people that don't know everything.


Personally, I’ll believe regular people with *actual* *data* to support their decisions over some rando spouting his/her opinion on the internet, every time. Sure, companies make mistakes, and a 24 MP R3 might be one. But again – we’re talking about the data-driven decision of the company that’s dominated the ILC market for nearly two decades compared to a personal opinion. You want to bet on the latter, go for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's fine to state facts, it's fine to state your *opinion*, it's fine to *disagree* with people.
> 
> But why are your posts always so self-righteous and condescending?
> 
> You really need to dump that superiority complex.


*ri·dic·u·lous */rəˈdikyələs/ _adjective_
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

Ridiculous statements (such as one individual claiming to know what sensor MP count is desired by ‘the vast majority of people’) engender ridicule.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. I’m not the one making unsupported claims like, “The vast majority of people would rather have higher MP.” I’ve never claimed to have data, but Canon does, and they have (presumably) chosen to launch the R3 with 24 MP.
> 
> 
> Ahhh, so that’s why the 60 MP Sony a7R IV costs so much more than the 12 MP a7S III…oh, wait, they both launched at the same $3500 price.
> ...


I am curious and do wonder if the R3 will attract significant 1DX2/3 users. I would think most would want to wait to see what the R1 would offer. They already likely have the glass and an awesome camera...


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. I’m not the one making unsupported claims like, “The vast majority of people would rather have higher MP.” I’ve never claimed to have data, but Canon does, and they have (presumably) chosen to launch the R3 with 24 MP.
> 
> 
> Ahhh, so that’s why the 60 MP Sony a7R IV costs so much more than the 12 MP a7S III…oh, wait, they both launched at the same $3500 price.
> ...


I never stated or implied that megapixel size was the *only* factor in pricing. Sony and Canon pricing, like every other company, takes many factors into account. Production runs, development costs, projected sales, how much they believe the customer is willing to pay, and much more. I'm not going to try and list factors specific to the Sony models you mention, as I don't closely follow the actions of a brand that I have no interest in purchasing. And of course, I don't have access to the data listed above.

But one thing is very clear, and it has been mentioned many times in interviews with various camera company executives on dpreview, Imaging Resource and elsewhere - namely that it costs a lot more to manufacture a high megapixel sensor than a lower resolution one, primarily because yield rates are considerably lower (particularly with larger sensors). Additionally, high megapixel sensors typically require more powerful processors to shift the data, which make a huge difference to cost. So there you have 2 major reasons what a low res camera is a lot cheaper to produce than a high res model, and that is reflected in the selling price.

It may very well be the case that Canon have conducted surveys and been told that their target users for the R3 have stated that they prefer 24MP. But that preference is based on the misconception that lower megapixel cameras produce less noise and have better DR. That was certainly true a decade ago, and the false myth has persisted and still affects people's purchasing decisions. But the myth has been blown:









DPReview TV: Why lower resolution sensors are not better in low light


A common belief in the camera world is that lower resolution cameras – and larger pixels – perform better in low light. In this video we illustrate why you should question that bit of conventional wisdom.




www.dpreview.com













The effect of pixel size on noise


A quick look at why, in most circumstances, a larger sensor will make much more difference to your images quality than the size of your pixels.




www.dpreview.com





People are slowly becoming aware (thanks to dpr) that the deciding factor is *not* the size of the pixels, but the underlying technology and year of design/manufacture. As this knowledge spreads, people will realise there are considerable benefits to opting for a higher MP sensor, and may be willing to spend more to obtain them.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ridiculous statements (such as one individual claiming to know what sensor MP count is desired by ‘the vast majority of people’) engender ridicule.


You persistently adopt a condescending and self-righteous tone when replying to forum posters. I find them embarrassing to read, and I've no doubt that other posters often find them not only unjustified and unnecessary, but offensive. Ridiculing others is a sign of immaturity.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2021)

It is impossible for anyone on this forum to know what specifications for any camera or lens can be attributed to market research and what specifications are attributable to engineering or financial decisions. 

While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions. 

Here are a couple of examples. If Canon conducted market research asking potential customers if they would prefer that a 70-200mm f2.8 lens can or cannot take a 1.4 extender, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most customers would have picked the ability to take an extender. Similarly, if Canon polled customers and asked them if they wanted a 100-500 mm lens to have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or f7.1 at the long end, or that such a lens would take an extender through its full range or only from 300mm onward, it's safe to assume most customers would choose the faster lens and the wider zoom range.

But, market research cannot overcome design limitations and the decisions that limited the features of these lenses certainly came down to design issues, balanced against an informed decision about what the downsides might be for marketing the lenses.

Which brings us to the R3. None of us knows which of the features of the R3 were determined by market research and which were determined by design and budget considerations. A 24mp sensor will certainly move data faster than a 45mp sensor. A 24mp sensor will certainly clear the buffer faster than a 45mp sensor. Could a 45mp sensor move data as fast and clear the buffer as quickly as the 1Dx III? I imagine that may very well be a financial decision -- To hit the price point of the R3, which will be below the 1Dx III, I doubt if Canon wanted to invest in design and manufacturing changes that added significant costs over the 1Dx III. 

There is also the great unknown -- the rumored R1. No one on this forum has any idea what the features of the R1 will be (or even if there will be an R1). But, we can all assume that the R1, if it materializes, will be "better" than the R3. We just don't know what "better" means, even though everyone has an opinion on that. 

All this is a long winded way of saying it might be prudent to dial down the insults a bit since we all are posting from a position of ignorance.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

unfocused - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say above, with one exception:

I don't think there's any doubt that there *will* be an R1, because Canon have stated several times that the R3 is not their top of range model. The 1DXiii will retain that position after the R3 is launched, although 1Dx series owners will gradually switch over to R3 or R1.

I think we can take it for granted that there will never be a "1Dxiv", as Canon have stated that RF is the future. So, a high megapixel R1, that can compete against the Z9 and future Sony models, is inevitable.

Earlier in this thread I suggested that the R1 will ideally have 45MP (or a little more) to compete with the Z9 and a1, but I added the caveat that an ultrafast 36MP might be a possibility. I think this is very possible, because a minimum of 33MP is needed for 8K, and I can't see the R1 being launched without 8K capability. Keeping the resolution down to 33-36MP would presumably enable greater buffer capacity, faster burst rates, and CR3 files not much greater in size than those from a Sony a9ii.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> People are slowly becoming aware (thanks to dpr) that the deciding factor is *not* the size of the pixels, but the underlying technology and year of design/manufacture. As this knowledge spreads, people will realise there are considerable benefits to opting for a higher MP sensor, and may be willing to spend more to obtain them.


Those with a decent level of technical knowledge have known this for a long while. But again, look at Sony where the native ISO range of the 60 MP a7R IV is 100-32,000 and the native ISO range of the 12 MP a7S III is 80-102,400. Real or mythical, it’s people’s _perceptions_ that matter.

Regardless, Canon is in the business making cameras that consumers in the target market want to buy. More MP may be ‘better for them’, but McDonalds customers don’t want low-salt, sugar-free fries even though they’re ‘better for them’.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 25, 2021)

https://www.photographyshow.com/ - Yeah Canon bring a load along to show off please.


----------



## sanj (Aug 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It is impossible for anyone on this forum to know what specifications for any camera or lens can be attributed to market research and what specifications are attributable to engineering or financial decisions.
> 
> While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions.
> 
> ...


"A 24mp sensor will certainly move data faster than a 45mp sensor. A 24mp sensor will certainly clear the buffer faster than a 45mp sensor. Could a 45mp sensor move data as fast and clear the buffer as quickly as the 1Dx III? I imagine that may very well be a financial decision -- To hit the price point of the R3, which will be below the 1Dx III, I doubt if Canon wanted to invest in design and manufacturing changes that added significant costs over the 1Dx III." I tend to believe this is the true reason why R3 is 24 mpx.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions.
> 
> Here are a couple of examples. If Canon conducted market research asking potential customers if they would prefer that a 70-200mm f2.8 lens can or cannot take a 1.4 extender, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most customers would have picked the ability to take an extender.


I’m not a rocket scientist. But if the choice was between extender compatibility and a more compact lens (as seems to have been the case), which would most customers have picked? Canon did not ask me, but I’d have chosen the latter. So I suggest that even ignoring the necessary considerations of technical constraints and cost concerns, it’s not really as simple as you’re suggesting.

Also, market research is about more than just asking people what they want. For example, if Canon’s product registration data show that of users with an EF 70-200mm as their only extender-compatible lens, only a very small fraction had purchased an extender, that could certainly make extender compatibility for the RF versions a very low priority in the design considerations.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

Stuart said:


> https://www.photographyshow.com/ - Yeah Canon bring a load along to show off please.


The Photography Show isn't one of the bigger events in the calendar, so would seem an unusual place to launch the R3.

However, it seems likely that if the official announcement is a week earlier (as predicted by CR), that an untouchable R3 stuck inside a locked glass cabinet would be on display for all to ogle.

A mock-up of an R1 unfortunately is less likely!


----------



## Chig (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> unfocused - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say above, with one exception:
> 
> I don't think there's any doubt that there *will* be an R1, because Canon have stated several times that the R3 is not their top of range model. The 1DXiii will retain that position after the R3 is launched, although 1Dx series owners will gradually switch over to R3 or R1.
> 
> ...


I disagree as I think the new Canon R1 flagship will be focused on pro sports and will likely feature :

24-30mp at most
40-50fps or more
Twin CF express slots
New focus acquisition AF superior to the best DSLRs
New twin Digic processors - maybe next generation ARM chips?
Eye controlled AF - provided this is a popular feature in the R3 amongst professionals
May have the handle style (pass through) integrated grip as featured in recent patent
High speed focus stacking in camera
Other radical new computational features similar to the latest smartphones ?
Sim card and apps similar to a smartphone
High speed automatic file transfer
Just my thoughts and hopefully Canon will also release a high mp wildlife camera based on the R3 maybe an R2 ?


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not a rocket scientist. But if the choice was between extender compatibility and a more compact lens (as seems to have been the case), which would most customers have picked? Canon did not ask me, but I’d have chosen the latter. So I suggest that even ignoring the necessary considerations of technical constraints and cost concerns, it’s not really as simple as you’re suggesting.
> 
> Also, market research is about more than just asking people what they want. For example, if Canon’s product registration data show that of users with an EF 70-200mm as their only extender-compatible lens, only a very small fraction had purchased an extender, that could certainly make extender compatibility for the RF versions a very low priority in the design considerations.


Most would probably agree that the ideal lens would be compact *and* able to take extenders.

But if I had to make the choice, I'd forego the extender and choose the compact option. If we assume that build quality and optical performance are excellent, my next priorities would be compactness (providing it's not at the expense of ergonomics e.g. focus and zoom rings being too narrow or too close together), and a "macro" ratio of at least 1:4 at the tele end.

Others may of course ave entirely different priorities - some will demand that the lenses are compatible with extenders, some will consider bokeh hugely important, and some will fear that a lens that extends while zooming or focusing will suck in dust and moisture. Nikon Z users will be happy...

All lenses (and cameras) are a compromise, so we never get everything we want unless we're very easily satisfied. Most people will buy the lens or camera that comes closest to their ideal, and then, like me, they'll whinge on forums about the perceived shortcomings, in the hope that those with direct access to Canon (etc) will pick up the complaints and pass them on. We'll also make constructive complaints and suggest possible "remedies" directly to Canon. Most of them fall on deaf ears, as "Canon knows best", but if *enough* people make the same comment, improvements will come, via firmware updates and design amendments to future cameras.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> unfocused - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say above, with one exception:
> 
> I don't think there's any doubt that there *will* be an R1, because Canon have stated several times that the R3 is not their top of range model. The 1DXiii will retain that position after the R3 is launched, although 1Dx series owners will gradually switch over to R3 or R1.
> 
> ...


I certainly believe there will be an R1. But, my point was that we cannot "know" that. 

I am less certain about the demise of the DSLR. I believe it will ultimately be determined by the conversion rate from DSLR to R and that Canon is very likely watching sales very closely to determine what percentage of DSLR users will switch to mirrorless. I don't believe they want to leave a sizable portion of their existing customer base on the table. I suspect they have a "magic number" in mind. Are they willing to write off 10% of their customer base? 20%, 30%?

There is probably a tipping point which will determine the future of DSLRs, which will take into consideration the cost of continuing DSLR development and production (which might be quite low), the profits that can be earned from future DSLR sales and the competitive environment, which might be non-existent if Nikon reverses their earlier statements and abandons DSLRs.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> You persistently adopt a condescending and self-righteous tone when replying to forum posters. I find them embarrassing to read, and I've no doubt that other posters often find them not only unjustified and unnecessary, but offensive. Ridiculing others is a sign of immaturity.



And yet, you've never actually responded to his point.

Complaining about his tone is certainly one way to dodge doing so.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 25, 2021)

Chig said:


> I disagree as I think the new Canon R1 flagship will be focused on pro sports and will likely feature :
> 
> 24-30mp at most
> 40-50fps or more
> ...


How would a low mp R1 differentiate itself enough from the R3 to warrant an extra $2K? Seems to me that Canon would be competing with itself for the same market. 

On the other hand, a 70mp, 16 bit sensor with only 15 fps in the R1 would provide substantial product differentiation from the R3 and R5.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

Chig said:


> I disagree as I think the new Canon R1 flagship will be focused on pro sports and will likely feature :
> 
> 24-30mp at most
> 40-50fps or more
> ...


Thanks for the well thought out list, I think you're at least 50% correct.
My guess (my preferences in blue) would be:

More than 33MP (for 8K), less than 50MP. Most likely 45MP like the R5.
30-40fps electronic, 20fps mechanical.
One CF-Express B slot, one SD slot (2 CF-Express B would be preferred though).
Focus acquisition, subject recognition and tracking equal or superior to Sony a1, a9ii and Canon R5.
New twin Digic processors.
Eye controlled AF, backed up by 1Dxiii-style focus point selector.
Body shell identical in styling to R3, but beefed up and slightly larger.
Pro-capture buffering (as per Olympus).
High speed file automatic transfer.
Flash sync at 1/500 with electronic shutter, if they can get a fast enough readout.
I wouldn't expect to get high speed focus stacking, as the number of individual frames stacked often runs to 60+ with macro work.
High speed automated HDR using 3-5 frames shot at maximum burst to minimise camera/subject movement is a probability.
A Nikon-style button to toggle exposure bracketing on/off would be nice!
Possibly there could be some advanced AI-driven digital zoom/crop function.

If my above guesses prove mostly accurate, it would make a superb wildlife camera...


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And yet, you've never actually responded to his point.
> 
> Complaining about his tone is certainly one way to dodge doing so.


I've responded in detail to almost all of the points he made. Which did I miss?


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I certainly believe there will be an R1. But, my point was that we cannot "know" that.
> 
> I am less certain about the demise of the DSLR. I believe it will ultimately be determined by the conversion rate from DSLR to R and that Canon is very likely watching sales very closely to determine what percentage of DSLR users will switch to mirrorless. I don't believe they want to leave a sizable portion of their existing customer base on the table. I suspect they have a "magic number" in mind. Are they willing to write off 10% of their customer base? 20%, 30%?
> 
> There is probably a tipping point which will determine the future of DSLRs, which will take into consideration the cost of continuing DSLR development and production (which might be quite low), the profits that can be earned from future DSLR sales and the competitive environment, which might be non-existent if Nikon reverses their earlier statements and abandons DSLRs.


I very much prefer the DSLR optical viewfinder experience, and I was a real DSLR die hard, pitting my willpower against the MILC onslaught for several years, so I empathise entirely.

However the clatter and vibration, and the weight, together with Canon's decision to discontinue the 5D series, was enough to convince me to switch to an R5, and since the day I bought it, back in February, my 5DMkiv has remained in a cupboard, and I sold my 5DS. I suspect that most existing FF DSLR users will follow a similar pattern.

Apart from the 1Dxiii and the Nikon D6, pro DSLRs have been discontinued by Canon and Nikon, leaving only Pentax in the frame. Canon and Nikon have made their FF MILCs fully compatible with their DSLR lenses, as part of the drive to convert people to RF (leading in the longer term to massive sales of RF lenses, from which they probably make more money than bodies). I think the performance of the Z9 and ultimately the R1 will vastly exceed the capabilities of the pro DSLRs. I may be wrong of course, but I think the D6 and 1Dxiii will be the last of the breed, although I expect a few more novice/budget APS bodies are still to come. The good news is that those 1Dxiii and D6 bodies will continue to function and perform superbly for several years, so existing users have little to worry about.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 26, 2021)

JamesG25 said:


> I think they will differentiate the R1 with following:
> 
> 1. 40+ MP
> 3. 8K video


UHD 8K is 7680 × 4320. Its 16;9 and the resolution of most 8K TVs.
DCI 8K is 8192 x 4320 and is more of a standard for the movie industry.
Canon offers both in the R5 and hence 45mp (8192 x 5464) in 3:2 aspect ratio
I would expect that any future 8K capable camera from Canon will have 45mp. I find it unusual that Sony went for 50mp which is potentially 8.6k native but only allows downsampling to 8k and 5.7k cropped vs the R5's( mathematically easy) 4k line skipped and downsampled 8k->4k->UHD resolutions.
For a high resolution body R5s then the next mathematically logical video step is 12k (12288 x 6480) which gives 80mp frame grabs and 122288 x 8192 for 100mp still shooting at 3:2. Rolling shutter would probably be average but imagine 10fps eshutter at this res!!
Bring it on Canon


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2021)

Nothing better to discuss while we are waiting for the R3, I think an R1 will have:

Two CFExpress slots (no brainer);
An "unlimited" buffer like the 1DX III (This could limit sensor resolution, but with processing improvements, they may be able to accomplish this with 45 or more mp.);
Eye control focus will depend on how successful it is in the R3. If it succeeds, it will be included. If it is the 2021 version of the touch bar, then not likely;
DSLR style autofocus acquisition rather than the annoying focus hunting of the R5 (I actually hope they fix this in the R3);
8K video (Not a video person, but everyone seems to want this and it will sell more cameras);
Higher flash sync;
Marginal ISO and Dynamic Range improvements. 

Beyond that I don't know or care. (Actually, I don't really care about any of this, as I am hoping that the R3 will be my last sports body.)

I would still argue that many of the features will depend on what Canon believes enthusiasts want, because, as I've said many times before, I think this will be a high-end enthusiast body, not a sports or photojournalism body, because one market is growing and one market is dying.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 26, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Worldwide shortages are much WORSE now than a year ago. Pandemic or not, companies are NOT able to plan around the deficiencies.


My point is, companies now KNOW there are deficiencies, so don't announce a camera that then can't be released due to deficiencies that are well known. Dragging out a development announcement for months is silly to me, emphasis on TO ME. People can say all they want Canon knows what they're doing and that they have a marketing department that has tons of data to support their decisions, but one would be naive to think that Canon knocks every pitch out the park. No company is perfect, mistakes are made and I personally think they could have waited a bit on all the R3 hype until they could have at least did the official announcement. But I also think it's silly to propose to someone and then wait 2, 3, 4 years before actually getting married. Just wait until you're ready to get married haha. I digress.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Here are a couple of examples. If Canon conducted market research asking potential customers if they would prefer that a 70-200mm f2.8 lens can or cannot take a 1.4 extender, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most customers would have picked the ability to take an extender.


Virtually all RF lenses have pushed new features over their EF counterparts. Only Canon would know how much the new RF mount contributed to easier optics for a compact lens but the RF70-200mm/2.8 out performs the EF version in all areas except for the ability to handle extenders.
It is a reasonable commercial decision for Canon to gently direct RF users to get a RF100-500mm and worth a few customer grumbles. 
I had the ef70-200mm/2.8 and both EF extenders and didn't buy the EF100-400mm as the set was cheaper and smaller but was slower and image quality @ 400mm wasn't paramount. The lack of extenders with the RF70-200mm pushed me to the RF100-500mm and I haven't looked back 
Canon still allows you to user adapted EF lenses so there is no downside - right?



unfocused said:


> Similarly, if Canon polled customers and asked them if they wanted a 100-500 mm lens to have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or f7.1 at the long end, or that such a lens would take an extender through its full range or only from 300mm onward, it's safe to assume most customers would choose the faster lens and the wider zoom range.
> But, market research cannot overcome design limitations and the decisions that limited the features of these lenses certainly came down to design issues, balanced against an informed decision about what the downsides might be for marketing the lenses.


Customers would always welcome new features and Canon could provide all of them at a cost. The old engineering conundrum... size, cost, features => pick 2
If Canon asked... we already have the EF100-400mm that can take extenders and can be adapted to to R mount. What different features and constraints would you want to see and accept in an RF version?
Lower weight and size = tick
Effectively an integrated 1.4x extender by increasing the focal range to 100-500mm = tick
Same focus speed and minimum focus distance = accept
Same front element/filter ring size but slower than f5.6 @ 500mm which is practically the same as EF version + 1.4x to keep cost/weight from being too high = accept
Compromise that to get past 500mm that you are constrained by the 1.4/2x extenders to start from 300mm = accept
New cost is higher than EF version = accept or use current EF version.

I recall a Simpsons episode where Homer gets to design a car with everything he wants in it but bankrupts the company in the process.



unfocused said:


> There is also the great unknown -- the rumored R1. No one on this forum has any idea what the features of the R1 will be (or even if there will be an R1). But, we can all assume that the R1, if it materializes, will be "better" than the R3. We just don't know what "better" means, even though everyone has an opinion on that.
> All this is a long winded way of saying it might be prudent to dial down the insults a bit since we all are posting from a position of ignorance.


Our position of ignorance is correct but we all have opinions that hopefully we can logically justify our own stance. That said, wish lists are fun. 
Insults aren't cool but making making generalisations assuming that they have a coveted position of knowledge. 
We would love to have a contributor with that knowledge commentating!!
Hopefully, participants in Canon Rumors can learn from each other as I certainly have by others challenging my posts


----------



## canonmike (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It is impossible for anyone on this forum to know what specifications for any camera or lens can be attributed to market research and what specifications are attributable to engineering or financial decisions.
> 
> While I generally fall into the camp that argues that Canon makes decisions based on solid market research, it would be wrong to assume that market research alone drives design decisions.
> 
> ...


Some good input and food for thought, unfocused. Shortly, we should be able to solve half of the riddle, that being the much anticipated official announcement of the much hyped R3 body. With that announcement, we can end our speculation on same and finally see just what the camera can and cannot do. Then, we can work on our very own R1 rumor wish and dream list. This year has been and next year, apparently will be very hazardous for our CC's.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 26, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That backorder situation is the same everywhere, even in India most camera products are back ordered.


I have been in some danger of making an impulse purchase of a 24mm TS-E lens or of the new Fujifilm medium format camera (or both). Fortunately, they are on back order, and therefore not qualifying as an impulse purchase.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The other side of the coin is the myth that lower MP sensors do not sustain cropping well. For the past year I've used a 1DX III for sports and from personal experience I can say that the 20mp sensor with the newer anti-aliasing filter outresolves previous sensors and makes it possible to crop much more radically than in the past with little loss of quality.
> 
> It's really getting to the point where all the old arguments and assumptions about sensors are less and less significant than they were even five years ago.
> 
> It is bad for the internet experts, I know. With the dynamic range improvements in Canon sensors, the "shadow noise" warriors lost their rallying cry. Now, it seems the high megapixel = high noise and the low megapixel = loss of detail warriors are both becoming irrelevant.


Some of us have been saying that for a decade.





__





Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]


At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one. As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Virtually all RF lenses have pushed new features over their EF counterparts. Only Canon would know how much the new RF mount contributed to easier optics for a compact lens but the RF70-200mm/2.8 out performs the EF version in all areas except for the ability to handle extenders...Canon still allows you to user adapted EF lenses so there is no downside - right?
> 
> 
> Customers would always welcome new features and Canon could provide all of them at a cost. The old engineering conundrum... size, cost, features => pick 2
> If Canon asked... we already have the EF100-400mm that can take extenders and can be adapted to to R mount. What different features and constraints would you want to see and accept in an RF version?...



I think you misunderstood my point, which I may not have properly articulated.

I was reacting to a series of insults from one forum participant toward another participant. The argument could be boiled down to one individual's view that the rumored 24 mp sensor in the R3 was a cost cutting decision rather than a decision based on what the market preferred. The other participant seemed to me to be arguing that the sensor resolution was a product of research into what the market wanted.

No one on this forum can possibly know what Canon's market research shows. I was pointing out that attacking another forum participant for suggesting it might be a cost saving design decision was inappropriate. 

Some decisions are driven by design limitations. It would be ridiculous to say that Canon chose not to offer the ability to use a tele extender with the 70-200 because that's what customers wanted. Likewise, no customer would request a 7.1 lens over a 5.6 lens or request a lens that limits the tele extender to less than half the range of the lens, just for the sake of having a slower lens or a less versatile lens. Those features exist because of design limitations not because there was a groundswell of demand from consumers for more limited features. That's not to say that Canon didn't do market research, it just means they looked at their options and determined that cutting out these features in order to meet other design constraints would do the least damage to their sales.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've responded in detail to almost all of the points he made. Which did I miss?


Consider that when challenged on your repeated claim that, “Most people would prefer a higher MP camera,” your answer was, “I don’t have any market research data to support that but you need to show me your market research data to refute my claim.”

That ‘response in detail’ reminds me of my young son’s detailed response to my not letting him stay up until midnight eating ice cream: “Daddy, you hafta bcuz I wanna stay up and I love ice cream plus it’s dairy so it’s healthy!” Ummm…no.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Aug 26, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Virtually all RF lenses have pushed new features over their EF counterparts. Only Canon would know how much the new RF mount contributed to easier optics for a compact lens but the RF70-200mm/2.8 out performs the EF version in all areas except for the ability to handle extenders.


Well I haven't really noticed a big improvement in sharpness. Meanwhile I have noticed the new 70-200mm has a lot more vignetting, which downgrades IQ in the periphery . So making the lens smaller did have some other negative consequences other than the lack of ability to handle extenders.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2021)

Ph0t0 said:


> Well I haven't really noticed a big improvement in sharpness...



Yeah, I thought that most everyone agreed that it would be virtually impossible to improve on the sharpness of the EF versions II or III. In fact, I think that Canon essentially conceded that when they released a III version (which I own) that had no significant design changes from the II.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yeah, I thought that most everyone agreed that it would be virtually impossible to improve on the sharpness of the EF versions II or III. In fact, I think that Canon essentially conceded that when they released a III version (which I own) that had no significant design changes from the II.


My point was that there are other downsides other than lack of extender compatibility. 

As for your comment about sharpness: I don't know what is possible and what not. But people have been saying that for a lot of lenses, that have been later replaced by better ones. I for one won't complain if the next version is sharper when wide open. If you compare it with good primes, you can see that there is still room for improvement concerning sharpness and vignetting. And since a lot of todays zooms have reached and surpassed the quality of older primes I hope maybe some future zooms will reach the quality of todays primes.


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not a rocket scientist. But if the choice was between extender compatibility and a more compact lens (as seems to have been the case), which would most customers have picked? Canon did not ask me, but I’d have chosen the latter. So I suggest that even ignoring the necessary considerations of technical constraints and cost concerns, it’s not really as simple as you’re suggesting.
> 
> Also, market research is about more than just asking people what they want. For example, if Canon’s product registration data show that of users with an EF 70-200mm as their only extender-compatible lens, only a very small fraction had purchased an extender, that could certainly make extender compatibility for the RF versions a very low priority in the design considerations.


I would have picked compact too.


----------



## degos (Aug 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> I would have picked compact too.


So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.

Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yeah, I thought that most everyone agreed that it would be virtually impossible to improve on the sharpness of the EF versions II or III. In fact, I think that Canon essentially conceded that when they released a III version (which I own) that had no significant design changes from the II.


Come on, a different colour of paint on the outside is a significant design change!


----------



## maulanawale (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> Thanks for the well thought out list, I think you're at least 50% correct.
> My guess (my preferences in blue) would be:
> 
> More than 33MP (for 8K), less than 50MP. Most likely 45MP like the R5.
> ...


I like your thinking and would happily sell my car to buy that.
However (and this is pure speculation just for fun) such a camera would be too good to be practical in terms of future upgrade paths.
As much as market research, R&D, and all the other points raised earlier that make up the design process, leaving room for improvements has to be one too. Just like lightbulbs and printers and planned obsolescence, making the perfect product is sadly not a viable business model.
Not sure if I'm making sense, but it just feels like if your list was accurate, it would be 50-50 a huge success for Canon as well as a self inflicted shot on their foot.
They'd probably bring in the guy with the cripple hammer to the last meeting pre launch to make sure the R1 is not the last camera everyone will ever buy.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's fine to state facts, it's fine to state your *opinion*, it's fine to *disagree* with people.
> 
> But why are your posts always so self-righteous and condescending?
> 
> You really need to dump that superiority complex.



Just add the poster to whom you were quoting to your ignore list and you'll find your reading of comments on CR forums a much healthier experience.


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Nothing better to discuss while we are waiting for the R3, I think an R1 will have:
> 
> Two CFExpress slots (no brainer);
> An "unlimited" buffer like the 1DX III (This could limit sensor resolution, but with processing improvements, they may be able to accomplish this with 45 or more mp.);
> ...


I like your wish list.


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> You persistently adopt a condescending and self-righteous tone when replying to forum posters. I find them embarrassing to read, and I've no doubt that other posters often find them not only unjustified and unnecessary, but offensive. Ridiculing others is a sign of immaturity.


His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge.  So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.


----------



## Alam (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> Your sarcastic "clearly Canon has no idea" is misplaced. They quite obviously do market research, they send out prototypes to field test, and they get direct feedback from you and me. But the only reason they get that feedback is because e.g. sometimes they "forget" to include a demanded feature, or some aspect of the design (e.g. the swipe bar on the R) is condemned by users.
> 
> They have chosen 24MP for the R3, but NOT because it is the ideal resolution. Like everything, it is a compromise. In this case they probably wanted to keep the cost of the camera lower in the hope that it would become the standard "affordable" workhorse.
> 
> ...


I think 24mpix is ideal, for now
At 30fps you generate about 1Gb files per second and only one will be used, the rest is trash

The whole idea of high shutter is to keep shooting during crucial moment and the filed where it's required demand the files to fly asap 

What's the point if you need to slow down the fps to reserve storage or transfering the huge files


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

degos said:


> So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.
> 
> Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?


Probably technology made this now possible.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge.  So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.



Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 26, 2021)

degos said:


> So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.
> 
> Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?


70-200 is almost a 3x zoom (well, 70-210 would be), as is 24-70 (24-72).

Somehow putting a 24-70 together with a 70-200 gets you an almost 9* zoom.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2021)

Alam said:


> I think 24mpix is ideal, for now
> At 30fps you generate about 1Gb files per second and only one will be used, the rest is trash
> 
> The whole idea of high shutter is to keep shooting during crucial moment and the filed where it's required demand the files to fly asap
> ...


24mpx at 30 fps generates only 0.45Gb CRAW files or 0.2Gb jpegs per second. A factor of two is the same as going from 24mpx to 48mpx, which is what Canon has achieved with its CRAW technology that appears to have close to zero effect on IQ.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> I would have picked compact too.


I use the 100-500mm daily, and very often with the RF 2x. So, a 200-1000mm f/9-f/14 with TC would have been my choice at the minimal expense of 2cm or so in length. Anyway, I have another theory of the why the RF TCs extend so far into the lens - it was designed by the prime team who had converted the EF 400 and 60omm IIIs to the RF versions by bolting on an extension ring. Those lenses weren't so good with the EF extenders and so they had to design RF extenders that went inside the new extension ring, and this was done a couple of years ago and they forgot to tell the zoom design team, or simply ignored them. Anyway, whatever the reason why really is, the restricted zoom range imposed by the RF TCs is an annoyance for me.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge.  So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.


Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 26, 2021)

JamesG25 said:


> Canon will need to do enough to warrant a a $2000k + price difference


For $2M you should be getting a lot more


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.


Oh no no no. These are real, true, great advantages. You seem to be the type, if I am not mistaken, who resisted digital when it started replacing film. Am I right?


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.


Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.



I see you called my troll, maybe lets leave it there - no need to fill this forum with useless talk about politics.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 26, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.





sanj said:


> Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.



Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth 

No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth
> 
> No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about


On the other hand, rumours are slow these days...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.


You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.


----------



## Joules (Aug 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.


No doubt that it is a change. But you can't call it a step backwards without either mentioning the metrics that you use to determine that, or acknowledge that it is just your personal preference.

In terms of power consumption or delay it is a downgrade. In all other aspects, it is either a question of personal taste or an objective improvement.

Seeing the digital image is arguably closer to what the camera actually perceives and therefore more relevant to the final digital output. Of course one can still prefer the OVF image, although that is also just a (analogue) copy of reality and not an authentic representation, changing for example the brightness and depth of field.

For Canon and the broader market, the objective benefits seem to outweigh the previous points:

Constant exposure of the sensor based focus system to light, allowing far greater AF coverage, greater subject recognition, enhanced focus at narrow apertures and dim conditions, higher framerate due to elimination of the need to rotate the mirror up and down frequently.

No mismatch between viewfinder image and sensor plane/position, allowing powerful IBIS implementation without risking user frustration due to differences in the viewfinder composition and actual image.

No need for AFMA due to alignment issues.

True DoF preview. 

No clipping of bokeh balls due to the mirror box.

Enhanced lens design flexibility due to no restriction on back focus distance.

And so on...


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that when challenged on your repeated claim that, “Most people would prefer a higher MP camera,” your answer was, “I don’t have any market research data to support that but you need to show me your market research data to refute my claim.”
> 
> That ‘response in detail’ reminds me of my young son’s detailed response to my not letting him stay up until midnight eating ice cream: “Daddy, you hafta bcuz I wanna stay up and I love ice cream plus it’s dairy so it’s healthy!” Ummm…no.


I didn't think there was any point in answering a rhetorical question. You and I both know that I don't have access to the extensive market research data which would be necessary to prove anything. You and I also know that you don't have access to data that would repudiate my "claim". I think everyone here knows and accepts that what *both* of us have expressed are our *opinions*.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> I like your thinking and would happily sell my car to buy that.
> However (and this is pure speculation just for fun) such a camera would be too good to be practical in terms of future upgrade paths.
> As much as market research, R&D, and all the other points raised earlier that make up the design process, leaving room for improvements has to be one too. Just like lightbulbs and printers and planned obsolescence, making the perfect product is sadly not a viable business model.
> Not sure if I'm making sense, but it just feels like if your list was accurate, it would be 50-50 a huge success for Canon as well as a self inflicted shot on their foot.
> They'd probably bring in the guy with the cripple hammer to the last meeting pre launch to make sure the R1 is not the last camera everyone will ever buy.


I see your point but I'm not sure. If a camera is going to be competitive, it has to offer at least as much, if not more than the current "opposition", so it would make sense for the manufacturer to stuff every conceivable feature into each model (given cost restraints). This is what Nikon always does - look e.g. at the spec of the D850 compared to the 5DMkiv.

Canon has traditionally been very conservative, and very astute in terms of product segmentation and marketing, so their bodies have tended to be "under-specified". They've traditionaly been sold primarily on the basis of build quality, styling, ergonomics, service and lens compatibility.

But even Canon are now cramming everything they can into their bodies, spurred on by intense competition from Sony. Hence the R5 which pretty much out-specified (and out-performed) everything else on the market at the time it was released. Even now, a year later, it is the model that most people probably aspire to, with the exception of the Sony a1 which is twice the price.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.


Even if you count the eye as digital, it would still mean only copy more. Analogue light converted into digital data, then again into in analogue light (in the EVF) and then again into digital data in your brain. So an OVF needs two conversions less. Just a copy instead of a copy of a copy of a copy.

Of course colours are an illusion anyway. There is nothing like red or blue light in the real world. Just different wavelength and our brain turns them into colours.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Just add the poster to whom you were quoting to your ignore list and you'll find your reading of comments on CR forums a much healthier experience.


Hi dilbert, I don't have an ignore list, I prefer to give people a second chance. I've had intense disagreements with certain individuals trolling on dpreview, and I've even fallen once or twice into the trap of returning insults, but it just leads to further unpleasantness. In the end I got so fed up with reading some of the comments, that I resigned from the dpreview comments pages, and since then I've tended to spend more time here, where *most* people are very reasonable.

If someone who is initially unpleasant, later proves that they can overcome the "internet warrior" mentality and later responds in an intelligent and polite manner, all parties feel better and get their points across. I'll jump on trolls or on people without manners, and if they continue to be objectionable I ignore them. People use forums to vent frustration and that is part of their purpose. Hopefully by responding politely myself, I can nudge those who overstep the mark to become more reasonable.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> It may very well be the case that Canon have conducted surveys and been told that their target users for the R3 have stated that they prefer 24MP. But that preference is based on the misconception that lower megapixel cameras produce less noise and have better DR. That was certainly true a decade ago, and the false myth has persisted and still affects people's purchasing decisions. But the myth has been blown:


If I may observe, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that some types of professional photography (chiefly sport) rely on speed of delivery and the end result is rarely cropped much, nor often reproduced at high magnification. Plenty people have laboured under the misapprehension that low res = lower noise etc, despite plenty of us showing it to be largely untrue (with caveats) - DPR is rather late to the game in that regard. But I don't think Canon's choice is based on that. You keep asserting pretty much everyone benefits from higher res, but that's not true and especially so for a primary target audience for this sort of camera.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

Alam said:


> I think 24mpix is ideal, for now
> At 30fps you generate about 1Gb files per second and only one will be used, the rest is trash
> 
> The whole idea of high shutter is to keep shooting during crucial moment and the filed where it's required demand the files to fly asap
> ...


If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.

The choice is between buying a 24MP camera, and being stuck with a maximum of 24MP, with consequent disadvantages when it comes to cropping.
... or buying a 50MP camera that offers a choice of shooting 50MP, 25MP or 12MP (these figures are not precise - they'll vary from model to model) simply by twiddling a dial or selecting the appropriate option in the menu.

I can absolutely understand why someone would be happy with a 24MP camera, or even a 12MP camera, if all they wanted was to post images on the internet, shoot video, or to make smallish prints. But there will nearly always be situations when you can't get close enough or have the wrong lens on the camera when an amazing photo opportunity arises, and then the cropping advantages of a high MP camera really pay off in a big way. For wildlife photography in particular, the ability to crop tightly and still get a really high quality image is a huge advantage. I could shoot on a 400mm F2.8, crop the image to 600mm equivalent, and still have an image as good or better than I'd get with a 600mm F4, at a fraction of the cost and weight.

As far as I can see, there are no negative aspects to buying a high megapixel body, other than the greater initial cost. Bigger sensors have lower yield rates in manufacturing, and they require more powerful processors, which pushes up the price of the cameras. Personally I'm willing to pay the extra cost to get all the benefits, but I totally accept that some others have different priorities.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

scyrene said:


> If I may observe, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that some types of professional photography (chiefly sport) rely on speed of delivery and the end result is rarely cropped much, nor often reproduced at high magnification. Plenty people have laboured under the misapprehension that low res = lower noise etc, despite plenty of us showing it to be largely untrue (with caveats) - DPR is rather late to the game in that regard. But I don't think Canon's choice is based on that. You keep asserting pretty much everyone benefits from higher res, but that's not true and especially so for a primary target audience for this sort of camera.


Please see my reply to Alam, posted above.

Incidentally, don't think dpr was late to the game - the original article was posted in 2015, at a time when virtually everyone was convinced that larger pixels resulted in less noise.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> ...I could shoot on a 400mm F2.8, crop the image to 600mm equivalent, and still have an image as good or better than I'd get with a 600mm F4, at a fraction of the cost and weight...



I get your point but you've used a terrible example. You are comparing a $12,000 lens to a $13,000 lens and a 6.25 lb. lens to a 6.71 lb. lens. Significant may be relative, but I don't think anyone is choosing these lenses on the basis of weight or cost.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> I didn't think there was any point in answering a rhetorical question. You and I both know that I don't have access to the extensive market research data which would be necessary to prove anything. You and I also know that you don't have access to data that would repudiate my "claim". I think everyone here knows and accepts that what *both* of us have expressed are our *opinions*.


No. Stating that _you_ want a higher MP camera would be expressing your opinion. Stating that _most people_ want a higher MP camera is claiming knowledge of others’ opinions, knowledge which you clearly lack. You overstepped.

Conversely, I stated that Canon has data on the opinions and buying habits of their customers. That’s a fact, not an opinion. I further stated that Canon uses those data in making design decisions, including putting a 24 MP sensor in the R3 (assuming that is what they announce). That’s a logical deduction in the case of the R3, one that’s based on the fact that Canon collects such data and for other products has made statements such as, “In response to customer demand, we…” 

It’s sad that the inability to distinguish opinion from fact is so common today. That’s why we have Flat Earthers, vaccines that contain nanotrackers, space lasers that cause forest fires, and other ridiculous claims floating around.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I get your point but you've used a terrible example. You are comparing a $12,000 lens to a $13,000 lens and a 6.25 lb. lens to a 6.71 lb. lens. Significant may be relative, but I don't think anyone is choosing these lenses on the basis of weight or cost.


Agreed it wasn't a good example. I should have checked costs and weight first. Perhaps a better comparison might have been 100-500mm against 600mm, in which case there would be a considerable cost and weight saving. The 600mm would provide sharper images and has a wider maximum aperture. In terms of practicability, cropping the 100-500mm would be my choice. But for those with funds, who demand the ultimate in IQ, and don't mind lugging around a 600mm plus tripod, head and gimbal, the 600mm is the way to go.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> No. Stating that _you_ want a higher MP camera would be expressing your opinion. Stating that _most people_ want a higher MP camera is claiming knowledge of others’ opinions, knowledge which you clearly lack. You overstepped.
> 
> Conversely, I stated that Canon has data on the opinions and buying habits of their customers. That’s a fact, not an opinion. I further stated that Canon uses those data in making design decisions, including putting a 24 MP sensor in the R3 (assuming that is what they announce). That’s a logical deduction in the case of the R3, one that’s based on the fact that Canon collects such data and for other products has made statements such as, “In response to customer demand, we…”
> 
> It’s sad that the inability to distinguish opinion from fact is so common today. That’s why we have Flat Earthers, vaccines that contain nanotrackers, space lasers that cause forest fires, and other ridiculous claims floating around.


OK, I concede on that point - I normally add the caveat "probably" when making this sort of comment, but omitted to do so on this occasion.


----------



## Joules (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.


Canon never offered uncompressed, uncropped RAW with varying resolutions. MRAW and SRAW have always simply been poorly labeled, as they are not RAW formats.

And, since the introduction of the CR3 file format, even those options are gone. 


entoman said:


> As far as I can see, there are no negative aspects to buying a high megapixel body, other than the greater initial cost.


How many shots can be in an interrupted burst (what people call buffer size) is also affected by resolution and with 24 MP, 30 FPS Canon might have pushed the resolution as high as they can without having a finite buffer.

Also,we don't know how much higher price would be if Canon would have went for a higher resolution for their first stacked and BSI sensor. As you point out, production processes matter and we have no information about the one that gives rise to the R3 sensor other than it is new and associated with high costs in the context of other sensor manufacturers like Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> I can absolutely understand why someone would be happy with a 24MP camera, or even a 12MP camera, if all they wanted was to post images on the internet, shoot video, or to make smallish prints.


I wonder what people did before there were cameras that had more than 24 MP? Did anyone make large prints or crop images? All those people shooting with 1-series bodies only post images on the internet? All those weddings and events shot on a 5D, 5DII or 5DIII were only used for smallish prints?

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, but people should realize that sometimes expressing their opinions makes them look foolish.


----------



## Joules (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> OK, I concede on that point - I normally add the caveat "probably" when making this sort of comment, but omitted to do so on this occasion.


Better to preface it with 'I guess' or something along those lines, in my opinion. As it also can be argued that Canon having better data than us and acting in a certain way is an indication that their actions have a higher probability of pleasing the market than what we would like them to do. Note that of course that using 'the market' is such a simple way of making such an argument, as it can exclude the folks not pleased by a given product. 


neuroanatomist said:


> It’s sad that the inability to distinguish opinion from fact is so common today. That’s why we have Flat Earthers, vaccines that contain nanotrackers, space lasers that cause forest fires, and other ridiculous claims floating around.


It is also sad that something as natural and human as being wrong about something or not articulating it in the best manner is often met with such harsh judgment and condescending reactions.

A person can be wrong and come to that realization by interactions that question their position in a way that challenges their understanding and supplements the necessary information to understand the correct information.

I believe getting to such an outcome is significantly hindered if either party is acting like their position justifies dismissing and humiliating the other side.

I enjoy a lot of your posts, but it often seems your great factual knowledge goes to waste in discourse due to your choice of word distracting from that factual level. It may not be your goal to make people listen to what you are expressing, but I usually suspect that it is and believe a gentler tone would make it more likely that you succeed with that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> Canon never offered uncompressed, uncropped RAW with varying resolutions. MRAW and SRAW have always simply been poorly labeled, as they are not RAW formats.


Doug Kerr posted an excellent treatise on those non-RAW formats.



Joules said:


> And, since the introduction of the CR3 file format, even those options are gone.


I never even noticed that mRAW and sRAW were gone from the EOS R (when I get a new camera, I just set it to RAW and that’s where it stays).

But once again, we see an opinion like ‘reducing the output size of a high MP sensor is as easy as selecting a lower resolution RAW output format’ being refuted by fact.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 26, 2021)

Here ist a guy who says that 18 megapixels are enough for a 36x24 inch print. I wish he had compared it with a high resolution camera. Then we would really know if there is a visible difference. However I printed many photos from my 1D Mark II in 60x40 centimeters. The camera only has 8.2 megapixels, but the photos look okay. Photos of that size are usually viewed from a distance of one metre or more and from that distance 8.2 megapixels look great.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> It is also sad that something as natural and human as being wrong about something or not articulating it in the best manner is often met with such harsh judgment and condescending reactions.


Being wrong is fine. Quadrupling down on being wrong is ridiculous. 

Having said that, I have been guilty of conflating similar responses from different members, and replying harshly to one when it's really not deserved based on the posting history.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> Agreed it wasn't a good example. I should have checked costs and weight first. Perhaps a better comparison might have been 100-500mm against 600mm, in which case there would be a considerable cost and weight saving. The 600mm would provide sharper images and has a wider maximum aperture. In terms of practicability, cropping the 100-500mm would be my choice. But for those with funds, who demand the ultimate in IQ, and don't mind lugging around a 600mm plus tripod, head and gimbal, the 600mm is the way to go.


Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.

Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 26, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Only in America can we sit around a table consuming $30.00 steak dinners, all while discussing the merits of buying or not, a camera body costing upwards of $4-6,000.00


Canon Rumors is an international forum.
It is mostly made up of English speakers but you can add Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand to that list.
That doesn't mean there are no people having the same discussion in different languages.
It is a first-world problem for sure.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.[..]


No. For RAW you only get one resolution without cropping. Everything else is processed and hence not RAW anymore. The 'mRAW' and 'sRAW' Canon offered in the past were downscaled, debayered TIFFs, not actual RAW files.
The current models allow only full resolution RAWs, you only get to pick between lossless or lossy compression. Or enter crop mode.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 26, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I am already buying something that is outdated the moment I leave the shop.


If you are a collector then you would be better off buying a Leica as they hold value a lot better.
If you actually plan on using the camera I can't fathom how that matters at all.
A better camera would not render it useless and nothing is forcing you to buy either camera.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon Rumors is an international forum.
> It is mostly made up of English speakers but you can add Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand to that list.
> That doesn't mean there are no people having the same discussion in different languages.
> It is a first-world problem for sure.


International for sure, EOS 4 Life......Since I'm American, I don't mind picking on myself but didn't want our intn'l audience to possibly feel like I was singling them out. There is no doubt that many of our fellow members, from all over the world, have been blessed with good fortune. I, for one am very grateful and don't take it for granted.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Here ist a guy who says that 18 megapixels are enough for a 36x24 inch print. I wish he had compared it with a high resolution camera. Then we would really know if there is a visible difference. However I printed many photos from my 1D Mark II in 60x40 centimeters. The camera only has 8.2 megapixels, but the photos look okay. Photos of that size are usually viewed from a distance of one metre or more and from that distance 8.2 megapixels look great.


It depends upon subject matter as well as viewing distance. Some printer drivers may deal with things better that others, I’d expect. On my wall is a 13”x 19” print I made from a 4 megapixel shot I took of the Grand Pacific Glacier. It looks fine viewed from 6” away. I don’t know why, but it does.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 26, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> That said, it is possible to get used to lower salt/fat/sugar. I don't enjoy anything particularly sweet anymore which can only be good for me.


If you cook for yourself then it is easier to ween yourself off than go cold turkey.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> No doubt that it is a change. But you can't call it a step backwards without either mentioning the metrics that you use to determine that, or acknowledge that it is just your personal preference.
> 
> In terms of power consumption or delay it is a downgrade. In all other aspects, it is either a question of personal taste or an objective improvement.
> 
> ...


I use the viewfinder plus telephoto lens as a spotting scope, which made me favour the OVF as I can use it it for ages without running down the battery, other than by the IS. But, there are a couple of real pluses using an EVF. Quite frequently, birds are backlit and I can't make out what one is with an OVF as it is just a black object, but with the EVF I just up the iso or lower the shutter speed and I can see it clearly. It also means I can get the exposure right manually. The same applies to other situations where the subject is only dimly visible or conversely telling me when I am overexposing highlights.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.
> 
> Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).
> 
> View attachment 199792


I’ve used my 600F4 on safari handheld. Too much of it can cause serious injury. I was wrecked after it. Interesting hand position on the tripod foot . It’s a great lens but most times a zoom is more practical . I’ve a large vanguard bag for it, heavy tripod and wimberly gimbal. It’s like a workout carrying it all.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 26, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> He actually might know better. A company is only as good as it's employees which are just regular people that don't know everything.


While that is very true there is a sentiment on these forums that people know what cameras other people want.
That is also a possibility.
However, the sentiment seems to be if a camera is not for me then it is not for anyone.


----------



## Joules (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Being wrong is fine. Quadrupling down on being wrong is ridiculous.


Just to be sure, I am not disagreeing with you there. I would be acting holier than I am if I were to pretend that I never find it entertaining to see some flat earthers, anti vaxxers, young earth creationists and so on ridiculed.

I just wanted to acknowledge and remind you that doing so is not helping a conversation at all, and thus lamenting the fact that many people stick to positions that are unsopported by facts is somewhat ironic. 

Seeing that you also frequently remind people of how their statements impact the impression they leave on you and others, I'm sure you can take some constructive criticism well yourself.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> R1 at the moment is a mystery, but will have to compete with Sony a1 and Nikon Z9, so ideally it would have 45MP or more, although an ultrafast 36MP is an alternative.


IMHO 36MP is too close to the 39MP needed for 8K UHD which is all that the Sony a1 is capable of.
The 1DX series is also known for great video so I would expect no less than 8K DCI which is why people are throwing around 45MP.
I can't see R5, R5c, and R1 all being 45MP so I expect the R1 to be higher than the 50MP of the a1.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I am less certain about the demise of the DSLR.


The 5D is a top seller on B & H and the Rebel cameras are top sellers on Amazon.
There is still a market for DSLR cameras.
I do not claim to know whether or not Canon will stay in that market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I’ve used my 600F4 on safari handheld. Too much of it can cause serious injury. I was wrecked after it. Interesting hand position on the tripod foot . It’s a great lens but most times a zoom is more practical . I’ve a large vanguard bag for it, heavy tripod and wimberly gimbal. It’s like a workout carrying it all.


No injuries yet. I carry it on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap. I'm no bodybuilder, but I did spend many years carrying my kids around and the lens is significantly lighter than them.

RE the hand position, when walking with the lens on the strap at my left side, I still have my hand wrapped around the lens foot. Bringing the lens up directly results in my hand being rotated compared to the 'normal' position of how a left hand would be wrapped around a lens barrel, but I find that with my wrist straight instead of twisted into that 'normal' position, the weight is more directly transferred to my forearm, which is supported by my elbow against my body. The 'normal' way (wrist supinated) means using your biceps muscle to support most of the weight. Having the wrist pronated when holding the heavy lens ends up being a very stable support that I can hold for quite some time with relative ease – rather than holding the weight with the biceps, it's mainly the pectoral muscles stabilizing the weight supported by my elbow pressed to my trunk. It's also faster, just lift and shoot rather than needing to spin my hand around under the tripod foot. May sound and look unusual, but it works very well for me.


----------



## degos (Aug 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> Probably technology made this now possible.



The 24-70, 24-105, 70-300 and 100-400 have always been telescoping zooms. I don't know why the 70-200 was unique in being fixed-length ( until the 200-400 came along ).


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.


Actually, it sort of does.

Your rods and cones actually point towards the back of your eyeball (one of those crazy kludges evolution produces that no intelligent designer would actually create), and there is a reflective layer there. That's where red-eye comes from, and that's why animal eyes appear to glow in the dark (if they're looking at, say, your campfire)--it's the reflective layer.

However, it's not the flappy kind of mirror.


----------



## Monte (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.
> 
> Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).
> 
> View attachment 199792



When I handhold my EF400 f2.8 IS mki(11.8 lbs) I hold it the same way as shown here. Other wise when I’m in a planned spot it’s on a mono pod or tripod/gimbal. It works for me and buys me some time before it gets too heavy.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Actually, it sort of does.
> 
> Your rods and cones actually point towards the back of your eyeball (one of those crazy kludges evolution produces that no intelligent designer would actually create), and there is a reflective layer there. That's where red-eye comes from, and that's why animal eyes appear to glow in the dark (if they're looking at, say, your campfire)--it's the reflective layer.
> 
> However, it's not the flappy kind of mirror.


Light is reflected from the choroid whose function among others is to absorb reflected light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Actually, it sort of does.
> 
> Your rods and cones actually point towards the back of your eyeball (one of those crazy kludges evolution produces that no intelligent designer would actually create), and there is a reflective layer there. That's where red-eye comes from, and that's why animal eyes appear to glow in the dark (if they're looking at, say, your campfire)--it's the reflective layer.
> 
> However, it's not the flappy kind of mirror.


Many factual errors there.

In humans, the layers behind the photosensitive layer of the retina absorb light. Most proximal is the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), behind that is the choroid. The pigments there absorb light to reduce scatter, which increases acuity. Several vertebrate species have a tapetum lucidum, a reflective layer that is derived from either the RPE or the choroid (depending on species). The tapetum lucidum reflects light back to the photoreceptors, which increases low-light sensitivity at the cost of some loss of acuity due to scatter. The tapetum lucidum is responsible for the eyeshine you see in animals at night.

Humans do not have a tapetum lucidum. Red-eye results from reflection of on-axis light from the fundus of the eye, and is red because of the blood.

In animals, you can see both eyeshine and red-eye – they are separate effects with different causes.

So sorry, but no – the human eye does not 'sort of' contain a mirror, and when you look through an EVF you're not 'looking through a mirror'. Unless you're this cute little guy.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> IMHO 36MP is too close to the 39MP needed for 8K UHD which is all that the Sony a1 is capable of.
> The 1DX series is also known for great video so I would expect no less than 8K DCI which is why people are throwing around 45MP.
> I can't see R5, R5c, and R1 all being 45MP so I expect the R1 to be higher than the 50MP of the a1.


The actual minimum figure I've seen quoted to make 8K possible is 33.17mp.









What is 8K? And what does it mean to photographers and videomakers?


With the Canon EOS R5 and Sony A1 now a reality, here's all you need to know if you're wondering "What is 8K?"




www.digitalcameraworld.com





I think this would be a figure that pleased most camps. The sports guts who prefer 24mp would probably be content to settle for 33mp, as the file sizes would still be quite small. Those who are still convinced that "less is better" regarding DR and noise would also probably be OK with 33mp, as would the 8K guys. And although I personally would prefer 45mp or thereabouts, most of the hi-res seekers would also probably find 33mp an acceptable compromise.

Note the multiple use of "I think" and "probably", to keep a certain poster happy that I'm just expressing an opinion


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> No. For RAW you only get one resolution without cropping. Everything else is processed and hence not RAW anymore. The 'mRAW' and 'sRAW' Canon offered in the past were downscaled, debayered TIFFs, not actual RAW files.
> The current models allow only full resolution RAWs, you only get to pick between lossless or lossy compression. Or enter crop mode.


If that's the case, Canon were misleading their customers. I'd always assumed that mRAW and sRAW were still RAW files, despite being downsized, and I'd guess that most people were similarly misled.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.
> 
> Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).
> 
> View attachment 199792


Well I'm still using a 100-400mm with 1.4 extender. If I could afford a 600mm F4, and had the strength to carry it and use it handheld for hours on end, I'd get one. A lot of my wildlife and bird photography is done from a hide or a vehicle, so in those circumstances a heavy lens isn't a huge problem. But the distance from which I photograph animals can vary from 15 feet to 1/4 mile away, and subjects can range from BIF to elephants. So for me, the most suitable optic in the RF range would probably be the 100-500mm.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Similarly, if Canon polled customers and asked them if they wanted a 100-500 mm lens to have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or f7.1 at the long end, or that such a lens would take an extender through its full range or only from 300mm onward, it's safe to assume most customers would choose the faster lens and the wider zoom range.


They probably instead asked if customers would like their 100-400 to be able to extend to 500mm even if it were only 7.1 at that end.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many factual errors there.
> 
> In humans, the layers behind the photosensitive layer of the retina absorb light. Most proximal is the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), behind that is the choroid. The pigments there absorb light to reduce scatter, which increases acuity. Several vertebrate species have a tapetum lucidum, a reflective layer that is derived from either the RPE or the choroid (depending on species). The tapetum lucidum reflects light back to the photoreceptors, which increases low-light sensitivity at the cost of some loss of acuity due to scatter. The tapetum lucidum is responsible for the eyeshine you see in animals at night.
> 
> ...



Yes, I was thinking of the tapetum lucidum, but I did get it totally wrong with respect to Homo sapiens.

Someone else said "looking through a mirror" I believe, not me.

Thanks for the corrections.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> The actual minimum figure I've seen quoted to make 8K possible is 33.17mp.


That would be the figure if the sensor had a 16:9 ratio. For a 3:2 ratio you need additional pixels, even if those are not used while shooting a video.


----------



## rbielefeld (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> Well I'm still using a 100-400mm with 1.4 extender. If I could afford a 600mm F4, and had the strength to carry it and use it handheld for hours on end, I'd get one. A lot of my wildlife and bird photography is done from a hide or a vehicle, so in those circumstances a heavy lens isn't a huge problem. But the distance from which I photograph animals can vary from 15 feet to 1/4 mile away, and subjects can range from BIF to elephants. So for me, the most suitable optic in the RF range would probably be the 100-500mm.


Here is how I carry my 600 f/4 and never get tired arms or hands. Just FYI. Link to my video:


----------



## rbielefeld (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> No injuries yet. I carry it on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap. I'm no bodybuilder, but I did spend many years carrying my kids around and the lens is significantly lighter than them.
> 
> RE the hand position, when walking with the lens on the strap at my left side, I still have my hand wrapped around the lens foot. Bringing the lens up directly results in my hand being rotated compared to the 'normal' position of how a left hand would be wrapped around a lens barrel, but I find that with my wrist straight instead of twisted into that 'normal' position, the weight is more directly transferred to my forearm, which is supported by my elbow against my body. The 'normal' way (wrist supinated) means using your biceps muscle to support most of the weight. Having the wrist pronated when holding the heavy lens ends up being a very stable support that I can hold for quite some time with relative ease – rather than holding the weight with the biceps, it's mainly the pectoral muscles stabilizing the weight supported by my elbow pressed to my trunk. It's also faster, just lift and shoot rather than needing to spin my hand around under the tripod foot. May sound and look unusual, but it works very well for me.


Here is another way to "hold" a 600 f/4, or any rig, for hours and not get tired hands or arms. I find it very versatile and allows quick changes from standing to sitting to even prone shooting. Just FYI. Link to my video:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Here is another way to "hold" a 600 f/4, or any rig, for hours and not get tired hands or arms. I find it very versatile and allows quick changes from standing to sitting to even prone shooting. Just FYI.


Thanks! Actually, I tried a version of that years ago (my RRS full pano-gimbal configured as a side-mount, attached to my RRS monopod, with the foot in a flag pole holder), and went right back to handholding it. It wasn’t about the in-use aspect as much as the walking around with aspect.


----------



## Chig (Aug 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I use the 100-500mm daily, and very often with the RF 2x. So, a 200-1000mm f/9-f/14 with TC would have been my choice at the minimal expense of 2cm or so in length. Anyway, I have another theory of the why the RF TCs extend so far into the lens - it was designed by the prime team who had converted the EF 400 and 60omm IIIs to the RF versions by bolting on an extension ring. Those lenses weren't so good with the EF extenders and so they had to design RF extenders that went inside the new extension ring, and this was done a couple of years ago and they forgot to tell the zoom design team, or simply ignored them. Anyway, whatever the reason why really is, the restricted zoom range imposed by the RF TCs is an annoyance for me.


I agree Alan , I have an EF100-400 ii on my 7Dii and I hope to get an R5 but would probably keep using this lens along with my 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders even though the RF100-500 is a bit better lens and slightly lighter. Also here in New Zealand the RF lens is $5,559NZD vs $3,140NZD for my EF lens. The RF extenders are very pricy too and can't be stacked unlike my EF mark ii ones.
I'd rather have 100-400 , 140-560 , 200-800 & 280-1180 (stacked 1.4x & 2x) options than 100-500 , 420-700 & 600-1000 as this is so much more versatile and is better for Birds in Flight as it's easier to find the bird with a shorter focal length before zooming in.
With the wide angle lenses making them more compact is great but for longer telephotos and extenders the loss of versatility is a big disadvantage to make the lenses slightly shorter and slightly lighter.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> I can absolutely understand why someone would be happy with a 24MP camera, or even a 12MP camera, if all they wanted was to post images on the internet, shoot video, or to make smallish prints.


You can make huge high quality prints from a 12mp FF camera.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> You can make huge high quality prints from a 12mp FF camera.


What you might regard as "high quality" depends on quite a lot of factors, including size of print, viewing distance and subject matter. I've seen excellent portraits and sports shots from low res cameras, but for subjects that contain a lot of fine detail, more megapixels is generally a good thing.

I freely admit to being a pixel peeper - I view my photos at 800% and press my nose up against my 5K monitor when I'm editing them...

I also often need to crop fairly heavily when editing wildlife photos, so I like a lot of pixels!

Technical quality is very much secondary to subject matter, lighting, composition etc which are what distinguish a great photo from a mediocre one, but I like, as much as I can manage, to have really sharp, finely detailed and noise-free shots. All of us have different thresholds of acceptability, and judge images in different ways. If someone is happy with 12mp, who am I to argue?


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Here is how I carry my 600 f/4 and never get tired arms or hands. Just FYI. Link to my video:


Nice video and very helpful, thanks!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> I freely admit to being a pixel peeper - I view my photos at 800% and press my nose up against my 5K monitor when I'm editing them...
> 
> I ……….


I’ve been using 5DS cameras for over five years now and the conclusion that I’ve come to is that viewing an image at 800% on a 5K monitor is one of the few instances where the 50mp makes sense. This assumes of course, that viewing an image at 800% on a 5K monitor makes any sense in the first place.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 26, 2021)

On a 5K iMac you have to view at 200% or larger in Photoshop to pixel peep.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2021)

stevelee said:


> On a 5K iMac you have to view at 200% or larger in Photoshop to pixel peep.


Yes I know, and this is where, I believe, the desire for higher and higher mp comes from, not from the desire to actually output high quality images. Hence why many professional photographers aren’t so hung up on very high mp.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes I know, and this is where, I believe, the desire for higher and higher mp comes from, not from the desire to actually output high quality images. Hence why many professional photographers aren’t so hung up on very high mp.


I wonder who Canon designed the R3 for…I suspect their target market wasn’t people who routinely view images at 800% with their noses pressed to a 5K monitor.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder who Canon designed the R3 for…I suspect their target market wasn’t people who routinely view images at 800% with their noses pressed to a 5K monitor.


I edit my 30MP shots from the 5DMkiv the same way...

I'm not in the market for an R3 or R1, and wouldn't be even if they had 100MP, as I don't want a gripped camera. R5 has a few shortcomings, but I can't think of anything else, regardless of brand or cost, that I'd choose in preference.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes I know, and this is where, I believe, the desire for higher and higher mp comes from, not from the desire to actually output high quality images. Hence why many professional photographers aren’t so hung up on very high mp.


The desire for higher MP initially comes from all the advertising hype. It often convinces people that they must have features that they don't really need. I bought my 5DS primarily because of the increased ability to crop, which is valuable for wildlife photography and allows the use of shorter, lighter and less expensive lenses.

There are some negative aspects to high MP of course - blur from camera shake and subject movement is harder to control as MP gets higher - and the noise at ISO 800 or above on the old 5DS was pretty awful. For those reasons I shot the bulk of my images with the 30MP 5DMkiv.

My experience with the latter taught me that I wouldn't personally be happy with less than 30MP for wildlife photography, although it was fine for landscapes and sports. For various reasons (eye-AF, silent shutter, faster burst speed), I decided to abandon the DSLR boat and get a FF MILC. The choice for me was between the Sony a7Riv and the Canon R5. I chose the R5 and it suits my style of working very well.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> The actual minimum figure I've seen quoted to make 8K possible is 33.17mp.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't worry about it. I've been accused of making up facts when expressing my opinion here.
Continue your contributions to this forum, and not worry over bullying behaviour.


----------



## slclick (Aug 27, 2021)

I'm holding out for the R5.7, the APS-H 1D Mk4 killer. 

I heard some of you curmudgeons are still clicking away on that bad billy. EOL bwahahahahahahaha


----------



## exige24 (Aug 27, 2021)

Can't wait to get beyond this gimped camera. Unless it is the same price as an R5, such a disappointment.

$6000 for a photo centric 24mp camera in 2021. Imagine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

Can’t wait for this camera to be announced, ordered and in my hands, such excitement.

An unknown price for a photo centric unconfirmed MP count camera that will probably be released in 2021. Imagine all the angst that seems to cause some people.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can’t wait for this camera to be announced, ordered and in my hands, such excitement.


I felt the same thing when I put down a deposit on the R5 last February... no regrets!


----------



## Alam (Aug 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 24mpx at 30 fps generates only 0.45Gb CRAW files or 0.2Gb jpegs per second. A factor of two is the same as going from 24mpx to 48mpx, which is what Canon has achieved with its CRAW technology that appears to have close to zero effect on IQ.


Okay, still huge file tho, considering the discipline that require high fps demand you to stay out for long time


entoman said:


> If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.
> 
> The choice is between buying a 24MP camera, and being stuck with a maximum of 24MP, with consequent disadvantages when it comes to cropping.
> ... or buying a 50MP camera that offers a choice of shooting 50MP, 25MP or 12MP (these figures are not precise - they'll vary from model to model) simply by twiddling a dial or selecting the appropriate option in the menu.
> ...



Well, diffraction exist, better avoid high pixel count unless, you shoot wide open all the time

Diffraction already hit R5 at f11, that's huge limitation


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> You can make huge high quality prints from a 12mp FF camera.


Sure you can. Of course! But the huge prints will look better with a 50mp FF camera.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Don't worry about it. I've been accused of making up facts when expressing my opinion here.
> Continue your contributions to this forum, and not worry over bullying behaviour.


Y'all have a really low threshold for 'bullying'


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2021)

Alam said:


> Well, diffraction exist, better avoid high pixel count unless, you shoot wide open all the time
> 
> Diffraction already hit R5 at f11, that's huge limitation


That's not really how it works, but w/e.


----------



## Joules (Aug 27, 2021)

Alam said:


> Diffraction already hit R5 at f11, that's huge limitation


It is a huge limitation, as all the limits of physics are. But not as big as having a lower MP camera in the first place.

For example, the 45 MP R5 has 1.5 times as much linear resolution ("reach" for birders) as the 20 MP 1DX III. If at f/11 diffraction begins to diminish the actual resolution of the images coming out of the R5, that means its relative advantage over the 1DX III shrinks. But it does not immediately vanish, it gradually decreases as apertures becomes more narrow.

What's worse? Using a high resolution body and requiring the right conditions (shutter speed, aperture, light) to capture high detail images? Or using a low resolution body and being limited by the camera even if the other conditions are perfect?

If you don't need the high detail / reach, you of course don't benefit from a higher resolution. But there simply is no IQ penalty for using modern high resolution bodies. They are not more limited than lower resolution ones.


----------



## Joules (Aug 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> They probably instead asked if customers would like their 100-400 to be able to extend to 500mm even if it were only 7.1 at that end.


Which is the better question, as increasing the f number and focal length at the same time is the only way to upgrade a lens without making it something completely different.

A 400 mm 5.6 and 500 mm 7.1 need the 71 mm diameter opening. 500 mm 5.6 needs 89 mm. That's a 57 % increase just in area, and has of course additional implications for size and weight of a lens, which are proportional to how much glas is in the lens.

A 100-500 mm 5.6 would not have been a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400mm 5.6.


----------



## dba101 (Aug 27, 2021)

I’ve read a few people mentioning ‘some drawbacks‘ with the R5.
Could someone briefly mention what these are, please, as I plan my next camera move.
Eagerly awaiting the R3, as my 1DC has started to chug a bit, but don‘t have time to wait for a potential Nov/Dec release of the R3.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2021)

dba101 said:


> I’ve read a few people mentioning ‘some drawbacks‘ with the R5.
> Could someone briefly mention what these are, please, as I plan my next camera move.
> Eagerly awaiting the R3, as my 1DC has started to chug a bit, but don‘t have time to wait for a potential Nov/Dec release of the R3.


If you use 1dc, you are a filmmaker. The ONLY issue with R5 is the overheating - which has not been an issue with me in the three corporates, four music videos and one commercial I have shot with it. Just be careful about the heating issues by powering off between takes and all is ok. If you will use R5 for the same as 1DC (4k), there are no issues at all. R5 is FANTASTIC. BTW I am an ex 1dc user. Here is the commercial:


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 27, 2021)

Joules said:


> What's worse? Using a high resolution body and requiring the right conditions (shutter speed, aperture, light) to capture high detail images? Or using a low resolution body and being limited by the camera even if the other conditions are perfect?


The problem is that a high resolution mody will make you always want to achieve an image that is sharp enough for that high resolution. That takes some of the fun away from photography. For example I might carry a heavy tripod with me more often, if I had a high resolution body, because a high resolution body limits the amount of camera shake that still allows a sharp photo. It also forces me to make the exposure shorter and the depth of field larger. The other extreme are very low resolution photos that will almost always get sharp. Those are the most fun to take. So a moderate resolution between 20 and 30 megapixels is a good compromise between fun and quality. And if I need a higher resolultion, I can take multiple photos and then stitch them, as long as the subject is not moving. I sometimes do that with architecture shots. The result can have 100 megapixels or more and effectively is a photo from a medium or even large format sensor with all the benefits from that.


----------



## Joules (Aug 27, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem is that a high resolution mody will make you always want to achieve an image that is sharp enough for that high resolution. That takes some of the fun away from photography. For example I might carry a heavy tripod with me more often, if I had a high resolution body, because a high resolution body limits the amount of camera shake that still allows a sharp photo. It also forces me to make the exposure shorter and the depth of field larger. The other extreme are very low resolution photos that will almost always get sharp. Those are the most fun to take. So a moderate resolution between 20 and 30 megapixels is a good compromise between fun and quality. And if I need a higher resolultion, I can take multiple photos and then stitch them, as long as the subject is not moving. I sometimes do that with architecture shots. The result can have 100 megapixels or more and effectively is a photo from a medium or even large format sensor with all the benefits from that.


If you have two images of the same scene with differing resolutions and view them at the same physical size (so NOT 100 % magnification, for example), either 

* they will look virtually identical
* or the higher resolution one will look more detailed, if the magnification is great enough to start showing the pixels of the lower resolution one

There is no scenario in which a lower resolution body produces more detailed images than a higher res one. If you personally can't tolerate any blur at 100 % magnification, meaning your definition of a sharp image is one that is sharp on the pixel level, that would of course result in a high res body being a disadvantage FOR YOU - but you could still just downscale the image and get what you would have if a lower resolution body was used. So still no IQ disadvantage, just wasted file space and digital processing time.


----------



## dba101 (Aug 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> If you use 1dc, you are a filmmaker. The ONLY issue with R5 is the overheating - which has not been an issue with me in the three corporates, four music videos and one commercial I have shot with it. Just be careful about the heating issues by powering off between takes and all is ok. If you will use R5 for the same as 1DC (4k), there are no issues at all. R5 is FANTASTIC. BTW I am an ex 1dc user. Here is the commercial:


Thanks Sanj for your straightforward reply. I have been using the 1Dc for weddings/corporate videos/footage, and also blasting out stills with it. I saved for two years to get it and paid cash £6k. I have to say it still offers me more every time I use it, and the value Canon gave me at that price point was immeasurable. 
I was aware of the R5 overheating situation and not worried one bit. I just heard somewhere about the auto-focus being slightly suspect, when most of what I heard was that the auto-focus is absolutely superb. 
Your commercial is beautiful. I loved every bit of it. Thanks for posting.
I will wait for the approx 14th R3 announcement, and see how the land lies, but I have 99% made up my mind to get that awesome R5 in my hands and enjoy what I now know is another beaut from Canon.
I have been filming boats coming back from sea and entering the harbour, and the 8k will be very handy In short clips.
So thanks again in helping me decide those burning questions one considers when going for another camera purchase.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2021)

dba101 said:


> Thanks Sanj for your straightforward reply. I have been using the 1Dc for weddings/corporate videos/footage, and also blasting out stills with it. I saved for two years to get it and paid cash £6k. I have to say it still offers me more every time I use it, and the value Canon gave me at that price point was immeasurable.
> I was aware of the R5 overheating situation and not worried one bit. I just heard somewhere about the auto-focus being slightly suspect, when most of what I heard was that the auto-focus is absolutely superb.
> Your commercial is beautiful. I loved every bit of it. Thanks for posting.
> I will wait for the approx 14th R3 announcement, and see how the land lies, but I have 99% made up my mind to get that awesome R5 in my hands and enjoy what I now know is another beaut from Canon.
> ...


Thank you. It was shot at 8k. One day I will upload it at 4k. 4k looks way better than 2k. Time will come when 8k will be posted more often and then 2k will look dated. I, personally, prefer higher mpx for stills and 8k. But I do understand people who prefer speed and lower mpx.


----------



## rbielefeld (Aug 27, 2021)

y


entoman said:


> Nice video and very helpful, thanks!


Glad you found it useful.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 27, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Y'all have a really low threshold for 'bullying'


Perhaps. But I have seen forums devolve into nothing but insult flinging, and thus become unreadable. I would hate to see CR go that route. Better to keep things civil.


----------



## dba101 (Aug 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> Thank you. It was shot at 8k. One day I will upload it at 4k. 4k looks way better than 2k. Time will come when 8k will be posted more often and then 2k will look dated. I, personally, prefer higher mpx for stills and 8k. But I do understand people who prefer speed and lower mpx.


Was the question I omitted from my previous post. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.


I'm not.


----------



## slclick (Aug 27, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Perhaps. But I have seen forums devolve into nothing but insult flinging, and thus become unreadable. I would hate to see CR go that route. Better to keep things civil.


It does go there on occasion and that's when some of us long timers have learned to step away for a bit and let the dust settle, wait for the blood to be mopped and the thin skin to be thickened.


----------



## entoman (Aug 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Can't wait to get beyond this gimped camera. Unless it is the same price as an R5, such a disappointment.
> 
> $6000 for a photo centric 24mp camera in 2021. Imagine.


Sarcasm? I hope so!

The R3 will almost certainly become the go to workhorse for thousands of professionals, a versatile machine that can cover anything from wildlife and sports, to wedding, event, reportage and landscape. Well heeled amateurs will scramble to get orders in too.

I fully expect it to be extremely reliable, very well sealed against the elements, and durable enough to take a professional bashing.

I also expect it to be able to handle everything that the $7000 1Dxiii can do, but with much faster burst speeds, no EVF blackout, much less bulk and weight, silent shutter, higher resolution, more dynamic range, less noise, access to all the stunning RF glass and a whole lot more.

If it costs $6000 it will be a bargain, and professionals in almost all genres of photography will be all over it.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> Sarcasm? I hope so!
> 
> The R3 will almost certainly become the go to workhorse for thousands of professionals, a versatile machine that can cover anything from wildlife and sports, to wedding, event, reportage and landscape. Well heeled amateurs will scramble to get orders in too.
> 
> ...


I agree with your statement. I rarely print larger than 16x20 and for prints that size 24 MP is just fine. Back in the day, I used to make 16x20 prints from a 10 MP Nikon D200 and they were sharp as well. I look forward to the formal announcement to learn more specifics; I still hope that the electronic shutter is not fixed at 30 fps, but also functions at 5, 10, 20 fps as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I agree with your statement. I rarely print larger than 16x20 and for prints that size 24 MP is just fine. Back in the day, I used to make 16x20 prints from a 10 MP Nikon D200 and they were sharp as well. I look forward to the formal announcement to learn more specifics; I still hope that the electronic shutter is not fixed at 30 fps, but also functions at 5, 10, 20 fps as well.


Yeah, but what about when you spot a flying unicorn in the far, far distance and you only have your 50mm lens. I bet then you’ll be kicking yourself for buying a camera with a paltry 24 MP when if only Canon had provided 80 MP in the R3 you could have cropped away 98% of the image and still had a sharp, 16x20” print of a flying unicorn.


----------



## slclick (Aug 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but what about when you spot a flying unicorn in the far, far distance and you only have your 50mm lens. I bet then you’ll be kicking yourself for buying a camera with a paltry 24 MP when if only Canon had provided 80 MP in the R3 you could have cropped away 98% of the image and still had a sharp, 16x20” print of a flying unicorn.


It's pretty common to get Pegasus mixed up with unicorns. Pass given.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2021)

slclick said:


> It's pretty common to get Pegasus mixed up with unicorns. Pass given.


It’s pretty common to not know what an alicorn is, which is why I used ‘flying unicorn’ instead. A Pegasus’ head lacks the single horn characteristic of unicorns (which are wingless) and alicorns (which have wings). Mythical taxonomy lesson over.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Aug 28, 2021)

I agree 100% that 24mp is more than enough for the vast majority of professionals who earn a living at photography.

This is a bit off (thread) topic, However:

For those saying 10-12, or even 20mp is enough for printing large prints... Please, pause, take a breath and ask yourself; Have I every printed an image by doing more than pressing the print button (or sending a file to a printer)?

I'm not saying you need uberpixels, but they most certainly can be a limiting factor.

For those who map colour profiles between screens and paper types, understand paper types, labour over sharpening (not a slider bar in Lightroom, by the way), know the difference between dpi and ppi, make and use swatches, set black and white points, and understand the value of ink, it's not hard to tell when a print lacks in megapixels.

For those saying you stand XX feet back from a large print anyway, so you'll never see the difference... No, not in a lot of cases. If you see a beautifully detailed image, with the file quality (megapixels are part of this), processing skill, and printing knowledge all coming together in one large print, hung on a properly lit wall, you'll most certainly see people who walk right up close and lose themselves completely in the details. This is one of the differences between motion and still images. I've never seen anyone walk right up to an 8K television screen, but I've most certainly seen people walk up to the equivalent resolution photographic print.


----------



## masterpix (Aug 28, 2021)

Only one thing? GPS? how fast does it focus? sensor size? ... battery life..


----------



## rick1 (Aug 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> Sarcasm? I hope so!
> 
> The R3 will almost certainly become the go to workhorse for thousands of professionals, a versatile machine that can cover anything from wildlife and sports, to wedding, event, reportage and landscape. Well heeled amateurs will scramble to get orders in too.
> 
> ...


The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2021)

rick1 said:


> The only people that will buy this camera are canon users.


That's the majority of the ILC market.


----------



## dba101 (Aug 28, 2021)

rick1 said:


> The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.


Depending on what it’s aimed at.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 28, 2021)

Joules said:


> If you have two images of the same scene with differing resolutions and view them at the same physical size (so NOT 100 % magnification, for example), either
> 
> * they will look virtually identical
> * or the higher resolution one will look more detailed, if the magnification is great enough to start showing the pixels of the lower resolution one
> ...


That's not my point. My point is that knowing that your images will not get any sharper than they are at 20 megapixels will relief you from the presserure of trying to achieve 50 megapixel sharpness. Think of the other extreme: Those 400 megapixel images with pixel shifting from a Hasselblad H6D that will always require a very steady tripod even in daylight. Of course you will also be able to take handheld photos with that camera that only look sharp if they are downsampled to 50 megapixels or less, but if you have that camera, you will always be trying to get the best sharpness and therefore carry your tripod with you while you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. That will spoil your Paris trip quite a lot. 

You can compare it with running. Person A has the goal of running 2,000 metres a day and person B wants to run 5,000 metres a day. Person A might achieve their goal much more often then person B. So will over time person B may have run much more than person A, person A may be more satisfied because even on bad days they mostly achieve their goal of 2,000 metres.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 28, 2021)

rick1 said:


> The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.


For that kind of money, I would not look at anybody’s FF camera. I am a bit tempted by the Fujifilm, but doubt that I would shoot enough landscapes when I wanted that sort of resolution to make it worth getting.


----------



## Joules (Aug 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That's not my point. My point is that knowing that your images will not get any sharper than they are at 20 megapixels will relief you from the presserure of trying to achieve 50 megapixel sharpness. Think of the other extreme: Those 400 megapixel images with pixel shifting from a Hasselblad H6D that will always require a very steady tripod even in daylight. Of course you will also be able to take handheld photos with that camera that only look sharp if they are downsampled to 50 megapixels or less, but if you have that camera, you will always be trying to get the best sharpness and therefore carry your tripod with you while you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. That will spoil your Paris trip quite a lot.
> 
> You can compare it with running. Person A has the goal of running 2,000 metres a day and person B wants to run 5,000 metres a day. Person A might achieve their goal much more often then person B. So will over time person B may have run much more than person A, person A may be more satisfied because even on bad days they mostly achieve their goal of 2,000 metres.


I get your point, but it only seems to apply to you yourself. Certainly not to me. I'm aware of the trade offs between the settings and willing to compromise on one aspect of image quality in favor of another if necessary.

Even if you want to get each shot pixel level sharp, you would not have to carry a tripod around all the time. With enough light, you can just compensate with exposure time. If you get a sharp handheld image with 1/100 s at 20 MP, you should also get a sharp one at 1/200 s and 80 MP (twice the linear resolution). If losing that one stop of light is too much, it must be quite a dark subject. Especially with IBIS, the situations where the use of a tripod benefits the high res body would also benefit the lower resolution one.


----------



## Joules (Aug 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but what about when you spot a flying unicorn in the far, far distance and you only have your 50mm lens. I bet then you’ll be kicking yourself for buying a camera with a paltry 24 MP when if only Canon had provided 80 MP in the R3 you could have cropped away 98% of the image and still had a sharp, 16x20” print of a flying unicorn.


What a weird example. After all, the physical limits that prevent cameras from taking sharp images of cryptids and mythical beings would cause even the most appropriate tele equipment to yield a common, blurry UFO image


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2021)

Joules said:


> I get your point, but it only seems to apply to you yourself. Certainly not to me. I'm aware of the trade offs between the settings and willing to compromise on one aspect of image quality in favor of another if necessary.
> 
> Even if you want to get each shot pixel level sharp, you would not have to carry a tripod around all the time. With enough light, you can just compensate with exposure time. If you get a sharp handheld image with 1/100 s at 20 MP, you should also get a sharp one at 1/200 s and 80 MP (twice the linear resolution). If losing that one stop of light is too much, it must be quite a dark subject. Especially with IBIS, the situations where the use of a tripod benefits the high res body would also benefit the lower resolution one.


Doesn't it get tedious and repetitive? The same old arguments that high resolution requires oh so specialised technique, tripods etc have been going on since Nikon introduced its 36 Mpx D800 series nearly over 9 years ago. Those of us using the 5DS and 5DSR have been shooting hand held with pixel level sharpness for over 5 years now.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 28, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
> I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
> I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.


The R3 is not an A9 level camera, so that speculation is far fetched


----------



## jam05 (Aug 28, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.


Not really. Most of us cant afford an R1 and dont really want one. There are far more 5D owners on the planet than 1DX3s. You only speak for yourself. I wouldnt speculate based on editable EXIF data. Most likely Jeff Cable, the Canon ambassador changed that EXIF data. Thats where CR got its info from that Jeff refused to confirm. So its actually a BS rumor


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 28, 2021)

YEEEY! 
The R6 with inbuilt battery grip is almost ready!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 28, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Not really. Most of us cant afford an R1 and dont really want one. There are far more 5D owners on the planet than 1DX3s. You only speak for yourself. I wouldnt speculate based on editable EXIF data. Most likely Jeff Cable, the Canon ambassador changed that EXIF data. Thats where CR got its info from that Jeff refused to confirm. So its actually a BS rumor


I think a lot of us can't afford an R3 either...or and R5. Post Covid, the pro photographic industry is in tatters. 
There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market. I really can't believe the vast price price difference between the ef and rf lens range has anything to do with R&D / manufacturing costs. Canon have openly admitted that the most expensive overhead of a DSLR is actually the combined pentaprism, separate metering and AF module / engineering costs. Negate those from your build and pass that over to a Software based system that works off sensor. Canon hasn't passed on those cost savings to the consumer...instead they have jacked up their prices to offset the declining market size.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think a lot of us can't afford an R3 either...or and R5. Post Covid, the pro photographic industry is in tatters.
> There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market. I really can't believe the vast price price difference between the ef and rf lens range has anything to do with R&D / manufacturing costs. Canon have openly admitted that the most expensive overhead of a DSLR is actually the combined pentaprism, separate metering and AF module / engineering costs. Negate those from your build and pass that over to a Software based system that works off sensor. Canon hasn't passed on those cost savings to the consumer...instead they have jacked up their prices to offset the declining market size.


It seems to be working for them.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wait, wait...I thought Canon hasn't announced the MP of the R3 because they were just waiting to read the responses on CanonRumors before making a final decision. I expect they're waiting until that thread hits 1000 posts, then they'll just count up the votes in there and decide what sensor to use. That's an easy change, so they can just pop the chosen sensor into the cameras as they're produced and I anticipate one will be in my hands by late September. Who knows, maybe they'll decide not to decide and they'll just offer a choice so when people order they just tick a box to choose 24, 30, 45 or 80 MP. Go Canon!


Canon is genius. The sensors mount with a Lego backing. Velcro is a $500 option.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That's not my point. My point is that knowing that your images will not get any sharper than they are at 20 megapixels will relief you from the presserure of trying to achieve 50 megapixel sharpness. Think of the other extreme: Those 400 megapixel images with pixel shifting from a Hasselblad H6D that will always require a very steady tripod even in daylight. Of course you will also be able to take handheld photos with that camera that only look sharp if they are downsampled to 50 megapixels or less, but if you have that camera, you will always be trying to get the best sharpness and therefore carry your tripod with you while you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. That will spoil your Paris trip quite a lot.
> 
> You can compare it with running. Person A has the goal of running 2,000 metres a day and person B wants to run 5,000 metres a day. Person A might achieve their goal much more often then person B. So will over time person B may have run much more than person A, person A may be more satisfied because even on bad days they mostly achieve their goal of 2,000 metres.



I feel very sorry for you if when you take a photo that your goal is maximum sharpness - or that sharpness can create some sort of stress and pressure. I can safely say that in 40 years of taking photos, I have never once thought about sharpness as I am taking a photo or about to take a photo. Only if I am taking photos of birds or wildlife knowing that I will need to crop severely, will I examine my photos on the computer for sharpness. But the idea that one will feel pressure to achieve some sort of sharpness with a 50 MP camera compared to a 24 MP camera is very odd, in my opinion.

I just bought a 45 MP Nikon Z7 and did some comparison shooting with my 24 MP Z5. First of all, shooting hand held reveals very little difference in sharpness (resolution really) - so the idea that I should feel pressure shooting with the 45 MP camera just doesn't materialize. The camera will give me whatever sharpness/resolution advantage without my worrying about it. For subjects around 50 feet away, I couldn't see any difference in resolution at 100% crop on the Z7 & 137% crop for the Z5 (to get the same size image) shooting with a 300mm lens. For subjects about 100 feet away, there was a minor difference or advantage to the Z7. Only at more distant subjects was the Z7's advantage more noticeable at 100%/137% crops. Obviously, my results may not be everyone else's results. Lenses matter, atmospheric conditions matter, the cameras AA filter matters. Using a tripod would probably create more of an advantage for the Z7, but I doubt it would be that much of a factor as a tripod helps regardless of the cameras MPs. I might carry a tripod less since the camera's additional MPs will give me at least a little bit if an advantage ov er the Z5. But considering that the resolution differences in my real world shooting between 24 MP and 45 MP were minor, it is not the increased MPs that are the reason I'm getting the Z7 - it's the quicker focusing and better focusing in low light that is the major factor. The differences in MP would not be a deciding factor if choosing between the two cameras for what I shoot (mostly landscapes and flowers - not a lot of wildlife.)

That's just my opinion of course.


----------



## sanj (Aug 28, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> YEEEY!
> The R6 with inbuilt battery grip is almost ready!


I do not agree with you, but the way you put it made me laugh.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 28, 2021)

Joules said:


> It is a huge limitation, as all the limits of physics are. But not as big as having a lower MP camera in the first place.
> 
> For example, the 45 MP R5 has 1.5 times as much linear resolution ("reach" for birders) as the 20 MP 1DX III. If at f/11 diffraction begins to diminish the actual resolution of the images coming out of the R5, that means its relative advantage over the 1DX III shrinks. But it does not immediately vanish, it gradually decreases as apertures becomes more narrow.
> 
> ...


My only reason for preferring high resolution cameras has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or advertising.
It's about depth of field, when shooting macro. You simply can opt to be further away from the subject, resulting in more d.o.f, and then simply reframe by cropping.
Otherwise, i do not feel the NEED for more than, say, 24 - 30 MP. Ideal combo (for me): R5 for macro, R3 for the rest .And a 5D V !!!!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> Sure you can. Of course! But the huge prints will look better with a 50mp FF camera.


Yes, that's true, but the difference is not as great as some seem to think. Here's a shot I took to compare the 50mp 5DS with the 26mp RP. These scene was shot using a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC at f/5.6, and is apparently one of my highest resolving lenses, nearly matching Otus levels at this aperture in the centre. Studio tripod, delayed release etc etc. Here's the whole frame:



At 300 dpi the native output of the 5DS is 29" across long side. So I printed the middle of this image onto A4. The RP has a native output size of 21" long side at 300 dpi. To produce matching print sizes I upscaled the RP image to 29" across at 300 dpi. This was only done in PS, not with any fancy upsizing software. 

Here is a photo of the two prints. Remember that the full size image is 29" across; this is just the middle for a comparison. Now it should be immediately obvious which was shot on the 50mp 5DS and the budget 26mp RP. Can you tell which is which ? Sure, the 50 mp is better when you press your nose up to the print. I apologise for the difference in contrast but I'm not doing it again !

Incidentaly the wire mesh on that cage is 3mm and the distance is 300m, yet some people call 24 mp "low resolution".


----------



## sanj (Aug 28, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes, that's true, but the difference is not as great as some seem to think. Here's a shot I took to compare the 50mp 5DS with the 26mp RP. These scene was shot using a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC at f/5.6, and is apparently one of my highest resolving lenses, nearly matching Otus levels at this aperture in the centre. Studio tripod, delayed release etc etc. Here's the whole frame:
> View attachment 199843
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for this. However, I suspect that if viewed on a large print, the difference might be more visible.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> Thank you for this. However, I suspect that if viewed on a large print, the difference might be more visible.


If you look at the full size image I put up it is equivalent of looking at the full size print through a magnifying glass ! Yes you can see the difference but for me the interesting part is that the 50mp hasn’t really _resolved_ much more than the 26mp, only the native size is just bigger.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Doesn't it get tedious and repetitive? The same old arguments that high resolution requires oh so specialised technique, tripods etc have been going on since Nikon introduced its 36 Mpx D800 series nearly over 9 years ago. Those of us using the 5DS and 5DSR have been shooting hand held with pixel level sharpness for over 5 years now.


Yes. But then the entire CR speckiverse seems to consist almost entirely of the same half a dozen questions posted in a few different ways.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 28, 2021)

It seems that the most common reason for high megapixels is the ability to crop and to end with a low megapixel file afterwards anyway. I understand the bird photographers who need to crop the hell out of their photos even with a long tele lens, but my subject are skyscrapers and those are rather too big than too small. Only if I stand on a very tall building like Shangai Tower and I need to take photos down, I want some more reach, but then the hot air will spoil the image quality anyway. I usually travel in the hottest months, because then the air pollution in those large cities is the lowest. So I am very happy if a building looks relatively sharp at 500mm and 18 megapixels. I am not sure that 45 megapixels would help.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> *Yes. But then the entire CR speckiverse seems to consist almost entirely of the same half a dozen questions posted in a few different ways. *


Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose​


----------



## stevelee (Aug 28, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> My only reason for preferring high resolution cameras has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or advertising.
> It's about depth of field, when shooting macro. You simply can opt to be further away from the subject, resulting in more d.o.f, and then simply reframe by cropping.
> Otherwise, i do not feel the NEED for more than, say, 24 - 30 MP. Ideal combo (for me): R5 for macro, R3 for the rest .And a 5D V !!!!


So with enough megapixels you don’t need true 1:1 macro lenses, since you are cropping anyway, and can use shorter focal lengths for greater depth of field?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s pretty common to not know what an alicorn is, which is why I used ‘flying unicorn’ instead. A Pegasus’ head lacks the single horn characteristic of unicorns (which are wingless) and alicorns (which have wings). Mythical taxonomy lesson over.


A flying unicorn could just mean the unicorn is in an airplane or other flying contraption, it doesn't necessarily imply it has wings. On the other hand if you had said a unicorn with wings then obviously you would have been better using the correct term alicon.

But to be honest the part of your statement that causes me the most concern is the suggestion the taxonomy is mythical!

Here is a photo leaked by an early tester of the R1. Before anybody looks, all the EXIF has been stripped but the pixel dimensions suggest it is an 8472px x 8472px, 72mp square sensor.......


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose​


I've always been fond of, *"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." * Which certainly applies to forum debates as well.


----------



## entoman (Aug 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems that the most common reason for high megapixels is the ability to crop and to end with a low megapixel file afterwards anyway. I understand the bird photographers who need to crop the hell out of their photos even with a long tele lens, but my subject are skyscrapers and those are rather too big than too small. Only if I stand on a very tall building like Shangai Tower and I need to take photos down, I want some more reach, but then the hot air will spoil the image quality anyway. I usually travel in the hottest months, because then the air pollution in those large cities is the lowest. So I am very happy if a building looks relatively sharp at 500mm and 18 megapixels. I am not sure that 45 megapixels would help.


More megapixels will help if you shoot with a wideangle and have to correct converging verticals in post - the more resolution you start with, the less interpolation is needed, so you'll get genuine detail rather than interpolated "guesswork".

But ideally you'd be using tilt-shift glass, to minimise the need for corrections in post.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 28, 2021)

stevelee said:


> So with enough megapixels you don’t need true 1:1 macro lenses, since you are cropping anyway, and can use shorter focal lengths for greater depth of field?


I use the same focal length (100mm), at a longer distance, to obtain more DOF. 
I rarely use 1:1 since I usually take pictures of entire flowers, mostly wild orchids. An alternative would be to use high MP APS-C , same lens, and same distance as high MP FF, so, same result without the need for cropping.
Hoping for the R 7 , if it ever gets produced, which will be far less expensive than the R1 while offering a high pixel density, EOS 90D style.


----------



## Chig (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I use the same focal length (100mm), at a longer distance, to obtain more DOF.
> I rarely use 1:1 since I usually take pictures of entire flowers, mostly wild orchids. An alternative would be to use high MP APS-C , same lens, and same distance as high MP FF, so, same result without the need for cropping.
> Hoping for the R 7 , if it ever gets produced, which will be far less expensive than the R1 while offering a high pixel density, EOS 90D style.


Have you tried using the EF100-400ii or the RF100-500 ?
I have a 7Dii and the EF100-400ii and find it great for close up near macro as the working distance is more practical . I often use this combo' with a screw on diopter 500D lens which gives a great working distance of about 30-40cm and magnification of up to 0.7:1 (or more if I use 1.4x or 2x T.Cs ), I would like to see how well this would work with an R5.
I have been waiting for the rumoured R7 but it seems a bit doubtful now so will probably save up for an R5 for my bird and close up bug photography.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> My only reason for preferring high resolution cameras has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or advertising.
> It's about depth of field, when shooting macro. You simply can opt to be further away from the subject, resulting in more d.o.f, and then simply reframe by cropping.
> Otherwise, i do not feel the NEED for more than, say, 24 - 30 MP. Ideal combo (for me): R5 for macro, R3 for the rest .And a 5D V !!!!


Do you have any actual examples of that because when I tried it in the real world with the EF 100L Macro that simply isn't what I found to be true.





__





Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]


You can also quite clearly see, in DPReview's DR comparison tool, that the D850 (higher pixel density) yields better results under a +5 or +6 push than pretty much anything else, even when starting at ISO 100. Again, one must ask the question, is what DP Review measuring actually DR, or is it...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## canonmike (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.


I don't think that Canon's upcoming release of the R3 is an attempt to get Nikon and Sony users to defect. Rather, they just want to satisfy a need for more mirrorless options among the Canon users niche group. More options is a good thing, even if you and I would not buy an R3. Personally, I don't think the R3 will fall under the disappointment category and I'd sure like to have one but I have never felt like any Mfgs. high end cameras are bargains. That's not who they are targeted for. You want high end specs and results, you have to pay up to play in that market. Again, I'll be very surprised if the R3 is a disappointment and am convinced that most will find it another great tool to get the job done, no matter what the MP's are.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> If you look at the full size image I put up it is equivalent of looking at the full size print through a magnifying glass ! Yes you can see the difference but for me the interesting part is that the 50mp hasn’t really _resolved_ much more than the 26mp, only the native size is just bigger.


This has been a great education. Thank you. I wonder, then, why does Canon make high MPX cameras?


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I feel very sorry for you if when you take a photo that your goal is maximum sharpness - or that sharpness can create some sort of stress and pressure. I can safely say that in 40 years of taking photos, I have never once thought about sharpness as I am taking a photo or about to take a photo. Only if I am taking photos of birds or wildlife knowing that I will need to crop severely, will I examine my photos on the computer for sharpness. But the idea that one will feel pressure to achieve some sort of sharpness with a 50 MP camera compared to a 24 MP camera is very odd, in my opinion.
> 
> I just bought a 45 MP Nikon Z7 and did some comparison shooting with my 24 MP Z5. First of all, shooting hand held reveals very little difference in sharpness (resolution really) - so the idea that I should feel pressure shooting with the 45 MP camera just doesn't materialize. The camera will give me whatever sharpness/resolution advantage without my worrying about it. For subjects around 50 feet away, I couldn't see any difference in resolution at 100% crop on the Z7 & 137% crop for the Z5 (to get the same size image) shooting with a 300mm lens. For subjects about 100 feet away, there was a minor difference or advantage to the Z7. Only at more distant subjects was the Z7's advantage more noticeable at 100%/137% crops. Obviously, my results may not be everyone else's results. Lenses matter, atmospheric conditions matter, the cameras AA filter matters. Using a tripod would probably create more of an advantage for the Z7, but I doubt it would be that much of a factor as a tripod helps regardless of the cameras MPs. I might carry a tripod less since the camera's additional MPs will give me at least a little bit if an advantage ov er the Z5. But considering that the resolution differences in my real world shooting between 24 MP and 45 MP were minor, it is not the increased MPs that are the reason I'm getting the Z7 - it's the quicker focusing and better focusing in low light that is the major factor. The differences in MP would not be a deciding factor if choosing between the two cameras for what I shoot (mostly landscapes and flowers - not a lot of wildlife.)
> 
> That's just my opinion of course.


The joy of photography is creating images that give us joy and satisfaction. Subject, emotion, light, beauty, SHARPNESS etc are all part of the image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> The joy of photography is creating images that give us joy and satisfaction. Subject, emotion, light, beauty, SHARPNESS etc are all part of the image.


Yes but for many of us sharpness comes way way down the list of importance whereas for some it is everything. For me, and I'd guess most photographers rather than people who use photography as a part of a broader hobby, subject, emotion, and light ARE the reasons for the images.

The focal length limited birders here will scoff at anything that isn't pixel level sharp whatever the mp number, meanwhile I couldn't care if I never saw another picture of a bird, sharp or not. Look at some of the greatest emotive photography ever and you will see so many examples where sharpness would be considered a joke, yet the emotions they stirred in us as kids and impressionable young adults lite a fire inside for us to follow. Yet we piss that legacy away with irrelevant arguments about what is good enough, how sharp, how many MP, enough DR....


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> This has been a great education. Thank you. I wonder, then, why does Canon make high MPX cameras?


Because the customers think they need it. Canon isn't in the business of giving people what they need, it is in the business of making people what they want. People wanted 45mp, 8K, 20fps, etc etc, most of them don't need anything more than an R6, but they aspire to an R5.

I am a member of a very modest camera club, all the other members are hobbyists. Four of them have R5's and I am the only pro in the group and I shoot professionally with 20mp. I buy what I need and does the job I need it to do......


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because the customers think they need it. Canon isn't in the business of giving people what they need, it is in the business of making people what they want. People wanted 45mp, 8K, 20fps, etc etc, most of them don't need anything more than an R6, but they aspire to an R5.
> 
> I am a member of a very modest camera club, all the other members are hobbyists. Four of them have R5's and I am the only pro in the group and I shoot professionally with 20mp. I buy what I need and does the job I need it to do......


Dear Private. I am finding it difficult to believe that Canon makes high Mpx cameras just because 'customers think they need them'. I still believe that a high mpx camera will make better larger prints and allow for cropping, and a lower mpx will allow for cameras to have better 'speed'. But, I am exploring this actively now and will keep learning.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 29, 2021)

It depends partly on your usage, and access to lenses etc. I'm largely a macro photographer, and a lot of that is fungi (including only a few mm high). So, before I got my 100mm x2 lens, I was filling a lot less of my sensor than (sometimes) I wanted. Therefore, cropping - and sometimes quite a bit - was a real thing for me. Plus I was often using minimal lighting, so higher ISOs were a thing. I therefore loved going from the 6D to the EOS R, partly because I had more MP to play with in post. BUT - with the right lens, and slightly more liberal use of lighting, I find I'm now no longer cropping much at all - so I see less need for more and more MP - and I could even imagine going down in MP if and when I upgrade my EOS R.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes but for many of us sharpness comes way way down the list of importance whereas for some it is everything. For me, and I'd guess most photographers rather than people who use photography as a part of a broader hobby, subject, emotion, and light ARE the reasons for the images.
> 
> The focal length limited birders here will scoff at anything that isn't pixel level sharp whatever the mp number, meanwhile I couldn't care if I never saw another picture of a bird, sharp or not. Look at some of the greatest emotive photography ever and you will see so many examples where sharpness would be considered a joke, yet the emotions they stirred in us as kids and impressionable young adults lite a fire inside for us to follow. Yet we piss that legacy away with irrelevant arguments about what is good enough, how sharp, how many MP, enough DR...


When I return from a photography trip and scan my photos, the first ones I delete are the ones that are not sharp. But, I know what you mean.


----------



## HotPixels (Aug 29, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think a lot of us can't afford an R3 either...or and R5. Post Covid, the pro photographic industry is in tatters.
> There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market. I really can't believe the vast price price difference between the ef and rf lens range has anything to do with R&D / manufacturing costs. Canon have openly admitted that the most expensive overhead of a DSLR is actually the combined pentaprism, separate metering and AF module / engineering costs. Negate those from your build and pass that over to a Software based system that works off sensor. Canon hasn't passed on those cost savings to the consumer...instead they have jacked up their prices to offset the declining market size.


So now every rumor counts as truth? Canon introduced the RF mount because the entire industry was moving to mirrorless. 

As to prices and passing along any cost savings on mirrorless to consumers...Canon is not a charity but a for profit business, as are all camera companies. Is Sony passing along the cost savings on mirrorless to consumers? They released an $6500 mirrorless model the that has the same dinky body as their much cheaper ones. Oh and BTW, the R5 is at least 90 to 95% of what the A1 is but at 60% of the price.

The reality is that the camera industry has suffered a very steep decline in sales due to smartphones. Smartphones have gobbled up the bottom of the market, and now are doing the same with the mid tier. The volume of camera sales today is roughly one tenth of what it was about 10 years ago. So imagine you work in an industry where you've lost 90% of your customers. How do you attempt to make up for that? You try to create higher profit per unit. The math is the math. 

No camera company can afford to count on a large enough volume of sales of cheaper units. That does not exist any longer. And as smartphones gobble up the market from the bottom, that leaves the consumers who want the better, more fully featured models. 

All camera companies are releasing new models at higher prices than the old ones. Sony released that A1, which was really an A9III, but called it an A1 to justify putting it at the much higher price. They came out with the A7SIII which was more expensive than the A7SII. When they release their A7 IV, it will be more expensive than their A7 III. And don't tell me those dinky Sony bodies cost that much to produce. 

In this market you don't want to be a company chasing every lower prices. You can have lower priced products, but overall you need to be going upscale to survive.

Now in return, the companies do offer you cameras with more features. But they are not a charity. They need to pay their bills, which includes their employee salaries and benefits.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes but for many of us sharpness comes way way down the list of importance whereas for some it is everything. For me, and I'd guess most photographers rather than people who use photography as a part of a broader hobby, subject, emotion, and light ARE the reasons for the images.
> 
> The focal length limited birders here will scoff at anything that isn't pixel level sharp whatever the mp number, meanwhile I couldn't care if I never saw another picture of a bird, sharp or not. Look at some of the greatest emotive photography ever and you will see so many examples where sharpness would be considered a joke, yet the emotions they stirred in us as kids and impressionable young adults lite a fire inside for us to follow. Yet we piss that legacy away with irrelevant arguments about what is good enough, how sharp, how many MP, enough DR....


I printed out a picture on 13” wide paper of a shot I made of the harbor in Victoria from my hotel room in the Empress near sunset. It was shot with my Canon s95, and I obviously didn’t pay attention to the shutter speed, so it is not terribly sharp. It has a nice atmospheric quality, some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot. It definitely conveys the feeling and mood of being there. I spent $90 or so having it framed, and it is in my living room.

For travel I had the S95 and then the S120 and then the G7X II and now the G5X II. In normal times, I take most of my pictures with the travel camera. Prints from them grace walls in my house. In late 2019 I took over 3,000 pictures with the G5X II. 

During the pandemic, I have been using my DSLR a lot more, because I am here to use it all the time. I rented TS-E lenses to play with, and got that mostly out of my system.

After reading all this discussion about resolution and such, I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera. I am unsure of what lenses I would want, and really I doubt that I would develop enough interest in taking landscapes around here to justify owning the camera. And the more I think of my pattern of shooting, I suspect that if life and travel get back more to normal, I would use it even less. But a birthday is coming up in just over a month, so I won’t try to predict what I might do.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I printed out a picture on 13” wide paper of a shot I made of the harbor in Victoria from my hotel room in the Empress near sunset. It was shot with my Canon s95, and I obviously didn’t pay attention to the shutter speed, so it is not terribly sharp. It has a nice atmospheric quality, some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot. It definitely conveys the feeling and mood of being there. I spent $90 or so having it framed, and it is in my living room.
> 
> For travel I had the S95 and then the S120 and then the G7X II and now the G5X II. In normal times, I take most of my pictures with the travel camera. Prints from them grace walls in my house. In late 2019 I took over 3,000 pictures with the G5X II.
> 
> ...


"some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot" Why?
"I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera" Why, if technically better is not important, sir?


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I printed out a picture on 13” wide paper of a shot I made of the harbor in Victoria from my hotel room in the Empress near sunset. It was shot with my Canon s95, and I obviously didn’t pay attention to the shutter speed, so it is not terribly sharp. It has a nice atmospheric quality, some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot. It definitely conveys the feeling and mood of being there. I spent $90 or so having it framed, and it is in my living room.
> 
> For travel I had the S95 and then the S120 and then the G7X II and now the G5X II. In normal times, I take most of my pictures with the travel camera. Prints from them grace walls in my house. In late 2019 I took over 3,000 pictures with the G5X II.
> 
> ...


Happy Birthday in advance!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 29, 2021)

The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.


*What’s in a name? That which we call a rose*
*By any other name would smell as sweet*​ _Shakespeare_


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> *What’s in a name? That which we call a rose*​*By any other name would smell as sweet*​_Shakespeare_


Was this the same Shakespeare who once twitted that: 


> _"_There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 29, 2021)

I should follow that Shakespeare guy on Twitter.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> This has been a great education. Thank you. I wonder, then, why does Canon make high MPX cameras?


Just to be clear, I have no argument with someone who wants a 50, 60 or 100 mp FF camera, my argument is with those that say "24mp isn't enough and not up to the standards required in 2021" or "24 mp is low resolution". 

When I bought my first 5DS camera I did so because I wanted improved colour definition, not so much resolution and output size. I got what I wanted but I now realise that this was due to the improved tech rather than high mp. 

50mp FF does give a slightly superior image at native output size compared with 24 / 26 mp interpolated up, but it is so slight it is really difficult to see, and therefore for the very few occasions that an image is going to be shown at 30 to 36" across, it's not worth it IMO if that compromises the camera / process in other ways; initial cost, speed of operation, processing speed / requirements, data storage etc etc. If you are one of tiny fractions of photographer who routinely produce 36 - 48" fine art prints then 50 mp all the way, but honestly those very few people will want DMF sized sensors anyway. When it comes to real resolution larger format size wins every time. I say "fine art prints" because as the print becomes bigger and bigger a print at lower DPI will actually have more perceived sharpness at the appropriate viewing distance, and so you don't need such a high native output in the first place. 

Camera manufacturers have to keep selling their products, and higher and higher mp is an obvious choice whilst the web is awash with experts pointing out how brilliant the data is from these sensors when viewed at 800% on a 5K monitor, so as @privatebydesign says, the manufacturers will produce what people want, and a lot of people want, or aspire to, very high mp. Lets face it, if the only people who bought a 50 - 60 mp camera were those who really needed that output size, then the cameras would either be 20 x the price or, more likely, not produced at all ! So thank goodness for those people who like to view their images at 800% on a 5K monitor, or crop in to micro 4/3 size and still print 24". 

Incidentally I looked at the images in your portfolio and they would be good whether shot on 12, 20 or 50 mp  Content is king.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.


I am confused. You are saying that with the same specs, but with R1 label, the camera would be worth buying?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Do you have any actual examples of that because when I tried it in the real world with the EF 100L Macro that simply isn't what I found to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I do.
A friend of mine owns an R5 with EF 100L, I own the 5 DIV with the same lens. Same subject, same iso etc...
After cropping the R5 shot, the flower was frame-filling in both cases. His (R5) showed more DOF, not a huge amount, but convincing for me.
As to sharpness, I can't objectively compare, 2 different monitors were being used.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Yes, I do.
> A friend of mine owns an R5 with EF 100L, I own the 5 DIV with the same lens. Same subject, same iso etc...
> After cropping the R5 shot, the flower was frame-filling in both cases. His (R5) showed more DOF, not a huge amount, but convincing for me.
> As to sharpness, I can't objectively compare, 2 different monitors were being used.


I meant some kind of actual example you can show us that stands up to the most basic of scrutiny, like the examples I used. I'd bet had you taken a shot from the same place as your friend and resized to the same pixels and crop the images, when viewed on the same screen, would have been practically identical.

When doing comparisons at macro distances it is important to be accurate and methodical to get actual useful data.

To be sure I am not saying anybody that wants an R5 shouldn't get one, I'm just questioning the specific technical detail you suggested.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I meant some kind of actual example you can show us that stands up to the most basic of scrutiny, like the examples I used. I'd bet had you taken a shot from the same place as your friend and resized to the same pixels and crop the images, when viewed on the same screen, would have been practically identical.
> 
> When doing comparisons at macro distances it is important to be accurate and methodical to get actual useful data.
> 
> To be sure I am not saying anybody that wants an R5 shouldn't get one, I'm just questioning the specific technical detail you suggested.


I understand what you meant, but, unfortunately, I have no longer access to my friend's pictures. By the way, I wasn't really thinking "R5 45MP", but R1 with, according to the rumors, about 80MP, to get the same pixels cropped and uncropped. My own DOF trials were also based on using the 5DIV and 100L at different distances for the same subject. Despite the loss of sharpness (logical after cropping), most of the time I kept the "longer distance" shots for the gain of DOF.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> I am confused. You are saying that with the same specs, but with R1 label, the camera would be worth buying?


Yes, if that was the R1, I might consider it, but I do not want to spend 6000 Euros on a camera that is marketed as non flagship. It feels like spending $999 or so on the non pro iPhone. Of course calling a phone "Pro" is ridiculous anyway.

I don't like that Canon has switched to suggesting that a low resolution sensor is somehow inferior. We saw that with the R5 and R6.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2021)

Chig said:


> Have you tried using the EF100-400ii or the RF100-500 ?
> I have a 7Dii and the EF100-400ii and find it great for close up near macro as the working distance is more practical . I often use this combo' with a screw on diopter 500D lens which gives a great working distance of about 30-40cm and magnification of up to 0.7:1 (or more if I use 1.4x or 2x T.Cs ), I would like to see how well this would work with an R5.
> I have been waiting for the rumoured R7 but it seems a bit doubtful now so will probably save up for an R5 for my bird and close up bug photography.


I fully agree, I love the EF 100-400  for macros too. Ideal for remaining on the path, getting the picture, without destroying the surrounding vegetation. It is my second-often used lens. You just convinced me to get the 500 D dioptre!


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> When I return from a photography trip and scan my photos, the first ones I delete are the ones that are not sharp. But, I know what you mean.


I try to delete duplicates first and when those are gone, I have a look at sharpness. It sometimes happens that the only picture I have of something is unsharp, so I keep those. 
Since most of my outside the house stuff has been reach limited macro, I can always use room to crop. Be it from a better AA filter (1Dx3 beats RP) or more MP.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> When I return from a photography trip and scan my photos, the first ones I delete are the ones that are not sharp. But, I know what you mean.


There’s a world of difference between an image that is not critically sharp (due to limitations of lens, sensor, film, light, air diffusion etc) and one that is unintentionally out of focus or blurred due to motion. I’m guessing that private is referring to the former and you’re referring to the latter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> There’s a world of difference between an image that is not critically sharp (due to limitations of lens, sensor, film, light, air diffusion etc) and one that is unintentionally out of focus or blurred due to motion. I’m guessing that private is referring to the former and you’re referring to the latter.


Meh. If looking at the image doesn’t slice your retinas to ribbons, drag it to the bin.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I understand what you meant, but, unfortunately, I have no longer access to my friend's pictures. By the way, I wasn't really thinking "R5 45MP", but R1 with, according to the rumors, about 80MP, to get the same pixels cropped and uncropped. My own DOF trials were also based on using the 5DIV and 100L at different distances for the same subject. Despite the loss of sharpness (logical after cropping), most of the time I kept the "longer distance" shots for the gain of DOF.


But as my accurately measured shots taken with that same lens (which being internal focusing is subject to larger than normal focal length breathing at macro distances) illustrate that simply isn't true.

Getting a feeling between two shots characteristics can result in confirmation bias unless we do well set up tests that give good accurate data.

Don't forget if you enlarge more, in this case crop, you are reducing depth of field.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 29, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I don't think that Canon's upcoming release of the R3 is an attempt to get Nikon and Sony users to defect. Rather, they just want to satisfy a need for more mirrorless options among the Canon users niche group. More options is a good thing, even if you and I would not buy an R3. Personally, I don't think the R3 will fall under the disappointment category and I'd sure like to have one but I have never felt like any Mfgs. high end cameras are bargains. That's not who they are targeted for. You want high end specs and results, you have to pay up to play in that market. Again, I'll be very surprised if the R3 is a disappointment and am convinced that most will find it another great tool to get the job done, no matter what the MP's are.


That's what's wrong. Sony is on the attack and has poached a crap load of users from canon, and canon is over here just trying to hold on to their own customers. Canon needs to go on the attack and be competitive in the marketplace. a $6k 24mp camera is not that


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> *What’s in a name? That which we call a rose*​*By any other name would smell as sweet*​_Shakespeare_


Such a sophisticated forum 
When we’re not discussing DR or MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Sony is on the attack and has poached a crap load of users from canon, and canon is over here just trying to hold on to their own customers.


In 2020, Canon gained ILC market share. So did Sony, but not as much as Canon. Nikon was the big loser. Canon’s market share is greater than the next four manufacturers combined.




It’s sad when a person’s opinions are so strong they can willfully ignore the data that prove their opinions wrong. That’s why we have flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because the customers think they need it. Canon isn't in the business of giving people what they need, it is in the business of making people what they want. People wanted 45mp, 8K, 20fps, etc etc, most of them don't need anything more than an R6, but they aspire to an R5.


The megapixel race is nothing new.
Phones are over 100 MP.
What surprises me is that everyone needs 30 FPS stills now.
I am also well aware in the FPS race in video.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Such a sophisticated forum
> When we’re not discussing DR or MP.


Yes French and Shakespeare in the same 24 hours! We are going to have to start limiting Alan less he drags us all up a notch.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I understand what you meant, but, unfortunately, I have no longer access to my friend's pictures. By the way, I wasn't really thinking "R5 45MP", but R1 with, according to the rumors, about 80MP, to get the same pixels cropped and uncropped. My own DOF trials were also based on using the 5DIV and 100L at different distances for the same subject. Despite the loss of sharpness (logical after cropping), most of the time I kept the "longer distance" shots for the gain of DOF.


R5 has sharper focus.
The resolution is not the only difference.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 29, 2021)

30 fps is faster than I swipe on Tinder.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The megapixel race is nothing new.
> Phones are over 100 MP.
> What surprises me is that everyone needs 30 FPS stills now.
> I am also well aware in the FPS race in video.


I think it illustrates an interesting diversion from people who shoot professionally who buy the equipment that does the job they need and predominantly enthusiasts who are as interested in specific technicalities.

The prospect of managing the files from 30fps at 50/60MP or more is just something I, personally, don't need or want.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 29, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera.


The price has not been confirmed.
What surprises me is that people are talking like they seem to think the R3 and R1 will cost about the same.
If the R3 is too expensive then I would expect the R5 too be too expensive as well.
I do not at all expect Canon to pull a Black Magic and have an old 4.6 K and more advanced 12 K version cost the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The price has not been confirmed.
> What surprises me is that people are talking like they seem to think the R3 and R1 will cost about the same.
> If the R3 is too expensive then I would expect the R5 too be too expensive as well.
> I do not at all expect Canon to pull a Black Magic and have an old 4.6 K and more advanced 12 K version cost the same.


The R3 may be a bellwether for the R1, which I’d expect will cost ~$2K more.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But as my accurately measured shots taken with that same lens (which being internal focusing is subject to larger than normal focal length breathing at macro distances) illustrate that simply isn't true.
> 
> Getting a feeling between two shots characteristics can result in confirmation bias unless we do well set up tests that give good accurate data.
> 
> Don't forget if you enlarge more, in this case crop, you are reducing depth of field.


And yet, in my understanding, if distance to subject is increased, so is DOF...
I do not understand why cropping a picture should reduce DOF ???


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose​


Alphonse Karr...(not my favorite author, I tend to prefer the Bard).
Let's rename this forum "Canon intellectual rumors", remember, you read it here first.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes French and Shakespeare in the same 24 hours! We are going to have to start limiting Alan less he drags us all up a notch.


Maybe when a thread gravitates down to the Pit of Despair we should quote Shakespeare instead of Princess Bride ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Maybe when a thread gravitates down to the Pit of Despair we should quote Shakespeare instead of Princess Bride ?


Inconceivable!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> And yet, in my understanding, if distance to subject is increased, so is DOF...
> I do not understand why cropping a picture should reduce DOF ???


Because to measure/compare DoF in different conditions, certain parameters are held constant. Two of those are output size and viewing distance (DoF calculators typically use an 8x10 print viewed at 25 cm). If you crop an image, it must be enlarged more to that fixed output size. That greater enlargement makes the DoF shallower.


----------



## yeahright (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> And yet, in my understanding, if distance to subject is increased, so is DOF...
> I do not understand why cropping a picture should reduce DOF ???


DOF is the range of 'acceptable' sharpness, that is, the region where the circle of confusion of light coming from behind and from in front of the focus plane is not larger than a specific diameter RELATIVE to the total image size. If you reduce the image size by cropping, a previously acceptably small circle of confusion will now be too large when viewing the image at the same size as before, thus reducing DOF.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Inconceivable!


But are you left handed?


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 29, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.


Besides the fact that we really don't know the price or resolution of this camera, what exactly is it that would make this the 2nd or 3rd best camera? Resolution? There is much more to a camera than megapixels. So, if this camera has the best AF in the business, is it still junk because it's only 24mp? That's just one example. You can take a 1 Series camera in a monsoon right now... would you risk an A1? Before you quote specs, I've seen guys wash off their 1 Series cameras with a garden hose (I never tried it, but it has been done without issue). I have personally had my 1 Series cameras out and shooting in very heavy rain. Since the R3 has the same build, it looks like you can do the same with it. But if it isn't 50mp I guess none of that matters... The fact is that we don't know enough right now about the R3. We have exif from one user at the olympics. He could've been shooting in crop mode... the firmware could've limited him to a certain mode... The firmware could be written to misreport the resolution to be sure there were no stupid leaks.. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Even then, if it were 24mp that doesn't make it any less a camera than any other without taking the sum of the whole into account. Let's just wait and see.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 29, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Besides the fact that we really don't know the price or resolution of this camera, what exactly is it that would make this the 2nd or 3rd best camera? Resolution? There is much more to a camera than megapixels. So, if this camera has the best AF in the business, is it still junk because it's only 24mp? That's just one example. You can take a 1 Series camera in a monsoon right now... would you risk an A1? Before you quote specs, I've seen guys wash off their 1 Series cameras with a garden hose (I never tried it, but it has been done without issue). I have personally had my 1 Series cameras out and shooting in very heavy rain. Since the R3 has the same build, it looks like you can do the same with it. But if it isn't 50mp I guess none of that matters... The fact is that we don't know enough right now about the R3. We have exif from one user at the olympics. He could've been shooting in crop mode... the firmware could've limited him to a certain mode... The firmware could be written to misreport the resolution to be sure there were no stupid leaks.. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Even then, if it were 24mp that doesn't make it any less a camera than any other without taking the sum of the whole into account. Let's just wait and see.


As I read it, he's literally more concerned that it be _labeled_ as a 1 series than a 3 series. Same camera, different label--now he's interested.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

SteveC said:


> As I read it, he's literally more concerned that it be _labeled_ as a 1 series than a 3 series. Same camera, different label--now he's interested.


----------



## entoman (Aug 29, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The R3 would pretty much my perfect camera (except for being mirrorless).....



My 5DMkiv has been in the cupboard since I bought an R5 about 6 months ago. This was a deliberate move, because I wanted to concentrate on developing R5 "muscle memory" and the R5 is clearly more capable, with IBIS, higher resolution, silent shutter, faster burst speed and animal-eye AF. Today, just for the heck of it, I got the 5DMkiv out, and to be honest it felt a whole lot nicer in my hands. Looking through the viewfinder I was instantly delighted - bigger, brighter and clearer than the R5. And that nice mechanical mode dial on the 5DMkiv is so much better than the one on the R5.

Don't get me wrong, the R5 is a fantastic camera, but if Canon produced a "5DMk5" with the 45MP sensor, 1DXiii-level AF, and a quieter shutter/mirror unit, I'm pretty sure that the R5 would be the one in the cupboard, and the "5DMk5" would be my go-to camera.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> That's what's wrong. Sony is on the attack and has poached a crap load of users from canon, and canon is over here just trying to hold on to their own customers. Canon needs to go on the attack and be competitive in the marketplace. a $6k 24mp camera is not that


Well, rick1, we certainly can see, unlike PBD, your name will not be at the top of the R3 acquisition list. No drooling going on here. Maybe one future day, not too distant hopefully, Canon can come out with a camera that will meet your expectations, hopefully before Sony crushes them. I guess it's just doom and gloom for Canon. Somebody should tell them. Having such strong feelings about it, perhaps, you could share your forecast with them, as they may be unaware of the imminent peril the most inadequate R3 has placed them in.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because to measure/compare DoF in different conditions, certain parameters are held constant. Two of those are output size and viewing distance (DoF calculators typically use an 8x10 print viewed at 25 cm). If you crop an image, it must be enlarged more to that fixed output size. That greater enlargement makes the DoF shallower.


Convinced!


----------



## canonmike (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I think it illustrates an interesting diversion from people who shoot professionally who buy the equipment that does the job they need and predominantly enthusiasts who are as interested in specific technicalities.
> 
> The prospect of managing the files from 30fps at 50/60MP or more is just something I, personally, don't need or want.


Personally, I wouldn't look fwd to culling photos taken at 30fps at any MP level. Adds a lot of down time to the editing process, especially if your photo shoot contains 2-3k photos or more. In my experience, trying to find the best photo out of a multitude of photos in a huge 20fps album becomes very tedious, often causing me to just start picking photos at random and moving on.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In 2020, Canon gained ILC market share. So did Sony, but not as much as Canon. Nikon was the big loser. Canon’s market share is greater than the next four manufacturers combined.
> 
> View attachment 199881
> 
> ...


ILC is not only the professional market, it is the consumer market also. Canon has lost huge ground in the professional market in the past few years. I know dozens of canon wedding photographers that have dumped canon for sony. I did and then I partially switched back with the R5. The R3 is not going to convince me to make the full switch back that's for sure.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 29, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Well, rick1, we certainly can see, unlike PBD, your name will not be at the top of the R3 acquisition list. No drooling going on here. Maybe one future day, not too distant hopefully, Canon can come out with a camera that will meet your expectations, hopefully before Sony crushes them. I guess it's just doom and gloom for Canon. Somebody should tell them. Having such strong feelings about it, perhaps, you could share your forecast with them, as they may be unaware of the imminent peril the most inadequate R3 has placed them in.


I'm preordering the R3 when it's released. It is going to replace my sony a9ii. I am only buying it because money is not a concern currently. If money was a concern it would be a hard pass.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Was this the same Shakespeare who once twitted that:
> 
> ?


The very same one who penned: "Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit."


----------



## canonmike (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I'm preordering the R3 when it's released. It is going to replace my sony a9ii. I am only buying it because money is not a concern currently. If money was a concern it would be a hard pass.


Well, after your neg commentary about the R3, I'm surprised you're getting it but do hope it works for you. As to money being of no current concern, of course, we don't yet know the price, guesses of which are all over the board. To most of the rest of us out here, money, at some level is usually a concern.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> ILC is not only the professional market, it is the consumer market also. Canon has lost huge ground in the professional market in the past few years. I know dozens of canon wedding photographers that have dumped canon for sony.


Wow, you know a few people. Good for you. News flash: anecdotes ≠ data. 55% of the press cameras used at the recent Tokyo Olympics were Canon. Those are data. Can you see the difference? Oh, I know…sporting events aren’t weddings. Fine, share the data on wedding photographers. Except we both know you have no such data.

So all you can say is that Canon has lost huge ground in the minuscule market niche that comprises the handful of professionals you know. Your personal experience differs from the available data.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> And yet, in my understanding, if distance to subject is increased, so is DOF...
> I do not understand why cropping a picture should reduce DOF ???


Cropping per se doesn't reduce the dof. But then enlarging the smaller sensor area to the same output size does reduce dof. Take a look at this thread.






How (and why) does sensor size change DOF?


The simplest answer is from Gale Tattersall, DP of the TV show HOUSE : a larger sensor requires a longer lens to achieve the same field of view. The longer the lens the less DOF. (aperture staying the same of course) Which aperture: the f-stop or the physical one? If it is the former, start...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> ILC is not only the professional market, it is the consumer market also. Canon has lost huge ground in the professional market in the past few years. I know dozens of canon wedding photographers that have dumped canon for sony. I did and then I partially switched back with the R5. The R3 is not going to convince me to make the full switch back that's for sure.


But do Canon or Sony care if the A1 or R5 is sold to an amateur or professional? A sale is a sale and Canon rules the sales with over twice the volume as Sony and over 30% more increase in market share than Sony.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But do Canon or Sony care if the A1 or R5 is sold to an amateur or professional? A sale is a sale and Canon rules the sales with over twice the volume as Sony and over 30% more increase in market share than Sony.


I meant canon has gained ground with it's low level consumer cameras. Sony prosumer mirrorless has largely devastated canon in the past few years


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I meant canon has gained ground with it's low level consumer cameras. Sony prosumer mirrorless has largely devastated canon in the past few years


But you don't know the sales numbers of the different models. Certainly Canon were selling every R5 they could make and ship for a long time.


----------



## Chig (Aug 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I fully agree, I love the EF 100-400  for macros too. Ideal for remaining on the path, getting the picture, without destroying the surrounding vegetation. It is my second-often used lens. You just convinced me to get the 500 D dioptre!


The 500D diopter is great but quite hard to find


----------



## rick1 (Aug 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But you don't know the sales numbers of the different models. Certainly Canon were selling every R5 they could make and ship for a long time.


Yes I am talking about before the R5. They've gained ground with the R5. The R5 was revolutionary


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> I am confused. You are saying that with the same specs, but with R1 label, the camera would be worth buying?


Don't feel bad. You are not confused. If the camera isn't labeled "Super Charged" somewhere, I'm not buying either. Damn the performance. Also, the camera must address me as "Stallion" at startup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I meant canon has gained ground with it's low level consumer cameras. Sony prosumer mirrorless has largely devastated canon in the past few years


Low level consumer camera sales have been falling for quite some time, across all manufacturers. Yet Canon has gained overall. But if facts aren’t enough to overcome your opinions, it’s unlikely deductive reasoning will be able to do so.


----------



## Chig (Aug 29, 2021)

SteveC said:


> As I read it, he's literally more concerned that it be _labeled_ as a 1 series than a 3 series. Same camera, different label--now he's interested.


He should buy a Leica then


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Low level consumer camera sales have been falling for quite some time, across all manufacturers. Yet Canon has gained overall. But if facts aren’t enough to overcome your opinions, it’s unlikely deductive reasoning will be able to do so.


I am not refuting that canon has gained ground in low level consumer cameras. I just said the area where canon has been killed by sony (pre-R5) is prosumer mirrorless


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I just said the area where canon has been killed by sony (pre-R5) is prosumer mirrorless


Yes. Among the handful of people you know. You’re assuming those you know are somehow representative of a broader group, with no evidence to support that assumption.

I know several advanced enthusiast and pro photographers who shoot FF and have recently switched from Sony to Canon, and one who switched from Nikon to Sony. But I am not concluding that Canon is killing Sony in the prosumer mirrorless arena, because I understand the difference between anecdotes and data, an understanding that you apparently lack.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes. Among the handful of people you know. You’re assuming those you know are somehow representative of a broader group, with no evidence to support that assumption.
> 
> I know several advanced enthusiast and pro photographers who shoot FF and have recently switched from Sony to Canon, and one who switched from Nikon to Sony. But I am not concluding that Canon is killing Sony in the prosumer mirrorless arena, because I understand the difference between anecdotes and data, an understanding that you apparently lack.


When you see famous people on IG switching to sony from canon, peers in your industry, when you read articles about people switching to mirrorless, and then when you yourself switch, it is very easy to deduce what is going on. It is widely known that people have been dropping nikon and canon for sony mirrorless when sony had the only mirrorless offering in the market. If you don't see that then you're living under a rock


----------



## John Wilde (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I meant canon has gained ground with it's low level consumer cameras. Sony prosumer mirrorless has largely devastated canon in the past few years


"In the second quarter, the share of total sales attributable to the EOS R5 and EOS R6, for which sales remain strong, has increased more than expected. "

- Canon financial document


----------



## dba101 (Aug 30, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, if that was the R1, I might consider it, but I do not want to spend 6000 Euros on a camera that is marketed as non flagship. It feels like spending $999 or so on the non pro iPhone. Of course calling a phone "Pro" is ridiculous anyway.
> 
> I don't like that Canon has switched to suggesting that a low resolution sensor is somehow inferior. We saw that with the R5 and R6.


I agree with that sentiment. Crisp class deep Canon every time. Because you can navigate to hold it properly. Beauty.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> When you see famous people on IG switching to sony from canon, peers in your industry, when you read articles about people switching to mirrorless, and then when you yourself switch, it is very easy to deduce what is going on. It is widely known that people have been dropping nikon and canon for sony mirrorless when sony had the only mirrorless offering in the market. If you don't see that then you're living under a rock


Sony (and other manufacturers) routinely compensate influencers to publicly switch. Sure, Sony had FF mirrorless for 5 years longer than Canon. So anyone who wanted a FF MILC went Sony. That has changed. As I stated, 55% of the press at the Olympics used Canon. That’s higher than Canon’s 48% share of the ILC market as a whole.

Bringing personal anecdotes and your own opinion to an objective discussion rarely ends well. If you want to claim you think Sony makes the bestest cameras ever, that’s fine. If you want to claim that Sony is crushing Canon in the prosumer camera market, bring some data.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> "In the second quarter, the share of total sales attributable to the EOS R5 and EOS R6, for which sales remain strong, has increased more than expected. "
> 
> - Canon financial document


yes absolutely, if you've read the thread I said pre-R5 sony has devastated canon in mirrorless.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sony (and other manufacturers) routinely compensate influencers to publicly switch. Sure, Sony had FF mirrorless for 5 years longer than Canon. So anyone who wanted a FF MILC went Sony. That has changed. As I stated, 55% of the press at the Olympics used Canon. That’s higher than Canon’s 48% share of the ILC market as a whole.
> 
> Bringing personal anecdotes and your own opinion to an objective discussion rarely ends well.


Dude I'm not talking about present day, I'm referring to pre-R5 days. I've made that clear like 5 times in this thread.


----------



## dba101 (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Dude I'm not talking about present day, I'm referring to pre-R5 days. I've made that clear like 5 times in this thread.


What’s on the menu in Japan baby


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Dude I'm not talking about present day, I'm referring to pre-R5 days. I've made that clear like 5 times in this thread.


Oh? In which of these posts on the topic did you ‘make it clear’? The first one below was your initial post in this thread related to the ILC market, and is very much in the present tense.



rick1 said:


> Sony is on the attack and has poached a crap load of users from canon, and canon is over here just trying to hold on to their own customers





rick1 said:


> ILC is not only the professional market, it is the consumer market also. Canon has lost huge ground in the professional market in the past few years. I know dozens of canon wedding photographers that have dumped canon for sony.





rick1 said:


> I meant canon has gained ground with it's low level consumer cameras. Sony prosumer mirrorless has largely devastated canon in the past few years



It’s hard to rewrite history when the forum remembers. Clearly you and facts have only a passing acquaintance. It’s a rather pathetic but common tactic to attempt to reframe the discussion when your opinion is refuted by the data.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> "some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot" Why?
> "I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera" Why, if technically better is not important, sir?


Technically better is not always better. A higher resolution is an artistic choice, among other things. I like impressionist paintings. If you pixel peep at them, they usually don’t look so hot. I’ve never heard their being criticized for not being so sharp. A nice painting of my harbor scene would likely be even lower resolution. As I suggested, I didn’t set out to make an unsharp picture. That was just serendipity. I printed it out anyway and was surprised at how much I like the print.

I might find the medium format camera useful sometimes, and maybe not. That’s why I can’t decide whether to spend a bunch of money on it. But it does seem clear to me that were I to spend that kind of money, I would go to medium format rather than getting an R5 or R3.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> Happy Birthday in advance!


Thanks.


----------



## GoldWing (Aug 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.


Smart Guy! I need a 24MP Camera like I need a hole in the head


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> As I read it, he's literally more concerned that it be _labeled_ as a 1 series than a 3 series. Same camera, different label--now he's interested.


Somehow that makes sense to me. As we understand their naming conventions, R3 suggests that something better is on the way and might be worth waiting for. R1 suggests this is the ultimate for a good while, until the R1 Mark II.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The very same one who penned: "Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit."


Better well hung than ill wed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Smart Guy! I need a 24MP Camera like I need a hole in the head


You have a big hole in your head. The Latin name for it is the foramen magnum.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Better well hung than ill wed.


Brevity is the soul of wit


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> My 5DMkiv has been in the cupboard since I bought an R5 about 6 months ago. This was a deliberate move, because I wanted to concentrate on developing R5 "muscle memory" and the R5 is clearly more capable, with IBIS, higher resolution, silent shutter, faster burst speed and animal-eye AF. Today, just for the heck of it, I got the 5DMkiv out, and to be honest it felt a whole lot nicer in my hands. Looking through the viewfinder I was instantly delighted - bigger, brighter and clearer than the R5. And that nice mechanical mode dial on the 5DMkiv is so much better than the one on the R5.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the R5 is a fantastic camera, but if Canon produced a "5DMk5" with the 45MP sensor, 1DXiii-level AF, and a quieter shutter/mirror unit, I'm pretty sure that the R5 would be the one in the cupboard, and the "5DMk5" would be my go-to camera.


You might, or might not, find this thread worth a look: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/is-mirrorless-a-giant-con.40770/


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Personally, I wouldn't look fwd to culling photos taken at 30fps at any MP level. Adds a lot of down time to the editing process, especially if your photo shoot contains 2-3k photos or more. In my experience, trying to find the best photo out of a multitude of photos in a huge 20fps album becomes very tedious, often causing me to just start picking photos at random and moving on.


I generally agree. For the most part, I feel like the speed of the mechanical shutter is more than sufficient. But, I can see a few cases where I might use the electronic shutter. For example, trying to catch the moment when a bat actually hits the ball. It's still going to be a crapshoot, but the odds get better with each additional frame per second. I could also consider taking the stills from a 30fps sequence and turning them into a short video clip of a player making a layup. I don't like to switch between video and stills while shooting and I need to make sure I've got the still shot first, but having the frames before and afterwards might be nice at times to make a clip. Of course, I know it's likely to stutter a bit since it would be shot at 1/800 of a second rather than 1/60, but for a short clip on social media, it wouldn't be a problem. However, yeah, I definitely wouldn't want to shoot a whole game that way. It takes me too long to cull through the shots as it is.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 30, 2021)

Handling the tons of files from a burst would be much faster if you could scroll through them in a much smoother way. Like through the frames of a video. At Lightroom it takes a while to load each frame and you can only click them one by one. Unless there is a trick I do not know yet. That makes handling tons of similar images quite a pain. 

If you just try to compare them by sharpness, a look at the file sizes is the fastest way. If shots are quite similar - like frames of a baseball player catching a ball - the files with the largest file size are among the sharpest. That works both with RAW and with JPEG files. Each little blur makes compression algorithms work a little better and therefore make the files a little smaller.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh? In which of these posts on the topic did you ‘make it clear’? The first one below was your initial post in this thread related to the ILC market, and is very much in the present tense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have mentioned that I am referring to pre-R5 days at least 6 times in this thread. But I am proud of you that you can pick out every response I've made where I don't mention it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I have mentioned that I am referring to pre-R5 days at least 6 times in this thread. But I am proud of you that you can pick out every response I've made where I don't mention it.


This makes the third time, all coming after several posts where you failed to make any such qualification (I quoted your first three posts on the topic). Evidently you can’t count, either. Perhaps your embarrassment from your opinion refuted by actual data has you flummoxed and that’s why you’re frantically trying to backpedal now. You go right ahead and rewrite history in your head, if that helps you feel better. The truth is right in your posting history for anyone to read.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> This makes the third time, all coming after several posts where you failed to make any such qualification (I quoted your first three posts on the topic). Evidently you can’t count, either. Perhaps your embarrassment from your opinion refuted by actual data has you flummoxed and that’s why you’re frantically trying to backpedal now. You go right ahead and rewrite history in your head, if that helps you feel better. The truth is right in your posting history for anyone to read.


Let me try to explain this to you really slow so maybe you can understand. Up until the R5 was released canon's mirrorless lineup was absolutely pathetic. It was widely known that sony was stealing long time canon users. I ditched my canon dslr's when the a7iii was released. The release of the R5 was revolutionary. Enough to bring some of their customers back (me included). Although I am in limbo at the moment and using both systems. If the R3 is nothing great compared to the sony A1 (assuming they are the same price) they will not have enough sway to convince sony converts to come back to canon. I hope I explained this well enough for you to understand. You seem a bit slow.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 30, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The price has not been confirmed.
> What surprises me is that people are talking like they seem to think the R3 and R1 will cost about the same.
> If the R3 is too expensive then I would expect the R5 too be too expensive as well.
> I do not at all expect Canon to pull a Black Magic and have an old 4.6 K and more advanced 12 K version cost the same.



Nobody is saying they will cost the same.
The R3 will be around 6000 euro’s.
The R1 will be around 8000 euro’s.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 30, 2021)

And I am not willing to spend around 6k (times two, for two bodies) for a camera that is already outdated before it is even launched. 24mpix is disappointing, however you spin, twist or turn it.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 30, 2021)

Dear Canon,

Please announce the R3 announcement day so we can stop the current mud-flinging threads on CR, so they can be replaced by other mud-flinging threads on CR.

Love, me.


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Let me try to explain this to you really slow so maybe you can understand. Up until the R5 was released canon's mirrorless lineup was absolutely pathetic. It was widely known that sony was stealing long time canon users. I ditched my canon dslr's when the a7iii was released. The release of the R5 was revolutionary. Enough to bring some of their customers back (me included). Although I am in limbo at the moment and using both systems. If the R3 is nothing great compared to the sony A1 (assuming they are the same price) they will not have enough sway to convince sony converts to come back to canon. I hope I explained this well enough for you to understand. You seem a bit slow.


Nice condescending reply in an attempt to reframe your argument. You're the one coming across as not arguing in good faith. The ad-hominem attack undelines the weakness in your argument.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2021)

Chig said:


> The 500D diopter is great but quite hard to find


I just ordered one !


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> My 5DMkiv has been in the cupboard since I bought an R5 about 6 months ago. This was a deliberate move, because I wanted to concentrate on developing R5 "muscle memory" and the R5 is clearly more capable, with IBIS, higher resolution, silent shutter, faster burst speed and animal-eye AF. Today, just for the heck of it, I got the 5DMkiv out, and to be honest it felt a whole lot nicer in my hands. Looking through the viewfinder I was instantly delighted - bigger, brighter and clearer than the R5. And that nice mechanical mode dial on the 5DMkiv is so much better than the one on the R5.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the R5 is a fantastic camera, but if Canon produced a "5DMk5" with the 45MP sensor, 1DXiii-level AF, and a quieter shutter/mirror unit, I'm pretty sure that the R5 would be the one in the cupboard, and the "5DMk5" would be my go-to camera.


Nikon made what is essentially the 5DV (apart from the noisy shutter) with a superb 45 Mpx sensor and exceptional AF for a DSLR - much better than my 5DiV. I used one for a year, and it's now the in the cupboard and the R5 is my go to.


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Handling the tons of files from a burst would be much faster if you could scroll through them in a much smoother way. Like through the frames of a video. At Lightroom it takes a while to load each frame and you can only click them one by one. Unless there is a trick I do not know yet. That makes handling tons of similar images quite a pain.
> 
> If you just try to compare them by sharpness, a look at the file sizes is the fastest way. If shots are quite similar - like frames of a baseball player catching a ball - the files with the largest file size are among the sharpest. That works both with RAW and with JPEG files. Each little blur makes compression algorithms work a little better and therefore make the files a little smaller.


Photo Mechanic is the best for initial culling before Lightroom, it's super fast and it buffers several shots either side of the one you're looking at so that as you swipe through they are rendered instantly with no lag.
It's used by most sports pros to speed up their workflows . Jeff Cable recommends it on his blog https://blog.jeffcable.com/search?q=Photo+Mechanic


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Let me try to explain this to you really slow so maybe you can understand. Up until the R5 was released canon's mirrorless lineup was absolutely pathetic. It was widely known that sony was stealing long time canon users. I ditched my canon dslr's when the a7iii was released. The release of the R5 was revolutionary. Enough to bring some of their customers back (me included). Although I am in limbo at the moment and using both systems. If the R3 is nothing great compared to the sony A1 (assuming they are the same price) they will not have enough sway to convince sony converts to come back to canon. I hope I explained this well enough for you to understand. You seem a bit slow.


Thanks for restating your opinion yet again. I understand that you believe that the EOS R and RP were pathetic. Canon claimed they sold well, but of course you're welcome to your opinion about their quality. Thanks also for sharing that you switched from Canon to Sony, and have partially switched back. No one but you actually cares about that.

When you state, "It was widely known that sony was stealing long time canon users," where is your evidence to back that up? I could just as easily state that it is widely known that the COVID-19 vaccine causes sterility and contains nanotrackers that the shadow government wants to use to target people with space lasers. I bet I could even find some links on the internet to 'support' that drivel...but no actual data, of course.

Your underlying assumption (note that the first three letters of that word are a-s-s) is that your choices and your observation of a handful of others are representative of a wide swath of photographers, but you have zero evidence to support that assumption. The available data clearly argue against it. Canon has not lost market share, they have gained and for the past decade have held nearly half of the ILC market share.

It is plausible that some photographers shooting with Canon DSLRs who, for some reason, felt compelled to switch to a mirrorless system prior to the R5 would have switched to Sony. Certainly some 'influencers' publicly switched, and probably not all of them were compensated by Sony. But it's equally plausible that some Canon DSLR users who wanted a MILC started using the EOS R (hint: not everyone shares your opinion of the quality of the R). Even more likely is that not all that many photographers felt compelled to switch to a MILC when their 5DIV, 5DIII, 1D X II and 1D X III bodies were working just fine with their collection of lenses.

Shall I share a bit more data? In the fall, BCN typically reports annual sales (Nov-Oct) for electronics in Japan. Here are the data specifically for full frame MILCs from October 2020, brown is Sony and red is Canon:




You can see that Sony's share of the FF MILC market started dropping when other manufacturers entered the space. I added a dotted line at the time the R5 was launched, and you can also see that Canon's FF MILC sales were doing well and significantly eroding Sony's FF MILC market share even prior to the R5. Actually, you may want to pretend you don't see that, because it's more data that show the fallacy of your position. A large swath of the market thought the R and RP were worth buying.

I will also point out that the above data are for FF mirrorless only, and Japan only. Sony actually sold slightly more FF ILCs overall (DSLR + MILC) in Japan in 2019 (38% share for Sony, 36% for Canon), but globally Canon still retained the lead in FF ILCs (along with their domination of the ILC market as a whole, of which FF mirrorless comprises <11% of the units and 25% of the revenues, those are the blue and red bars at the bottom, respectively).

To summarize, it's your opinion that, "Sony prosumer mirrorless has largely devastated canon in the past few years," yet the available data clearly show that is simply not true. You can restate your opinion using small words, or as slowly and condescendingly as you like. The facts show that your opinion is as valid as those who claim the earth is flat. Instead of restating your opinion repeatedly, why don't you provide some actual data to support it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

Chig said:


> Photo Mechanic is the best for initial culling before Lightroom, it's super fast and it buffers several shots either side of the one you're looking at so that as you swipe through they are rendered instantly with no lag.
> It's used by most sports pros to speed up their workflows . Jeff Cable recommends it on his blog https://blog.jeffcable.com/search?q=Photo+Mechanic


Thanks, looks worth checking out. I used to use Aperture for image triage, it would zip through RAW files, and the loupe made it easy to check focus. I use DxO for RAW conversions, but it’s a poor tool for image review IMO, despite some recent improvements.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for restating your opinion yet again. I understand that you believe that the EOS R and RP were pathetic. Canon claimed they sold well, but of course you're welcome to your opinion about their quality. Thanks also for sharing that you switched from Canon to Sony, and have partially switched back. No one but you actually cares about that.
> 
> When you state, "It was widely known that sony was stealing long time canon users," where is your evidence to back that up? I could just as easily state that it is widely known that the COVID-19 vaccine causes sterility and contains nanotrackers that the shadow government wants to use to target people with space lasers. I bet I could even find some links on the internet to 'support' that drivel...but no actual data, of course.
> 
> ...


Again I am not talking about overall ILC market share. That includes low level consumer cameras. Look at the charts for full frame cameras. Do you see the downward progression of canon and upward of sony? I don't understand how I still have to explain this to you











BCNranking Full Frame japanese market analysis: Sony is crushing Canon and Nikon - sonyalpharumors


I am a bit surprised to see this: Sony Full Frame camera sales in Japan did growth enormously in Japan. And the surprise is that Nikon Z7 camera didn’t manage to change Nikon’s fortune (UPDATE: Maybe the Z6 will change this). Sony still outsold the Nikon cameras by a huge margin. Only Canon...




www.sonyalpharumors.com


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

tangerine_sedge said:


> Nice condescending reply in an attempt to reframe your argument. You're the one coming across as not arguing in good faith. The ad-hominem attack undelines the weakness in your argument.


Do you see the downward progression of canon and upward of sony? That is sony taking canon's customers  Not sure why I am still have to explain this


----------



## entoman (Aug 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You might, or might not, find this thread worth a look: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/is-mirrorless-a-giant-con.40770/


An interesting thread. Here is my take:

Canon is in business to make money, and there is little doubt that their position in the marketplace would have dropped a few notches if they hadn't entered the FF mirrorless arena. They are traditionally a very conservative company, and seemed pretty reluctant to produce MILCs until Sony became a serious challenger. The motivation is always money, and in this case Sony provided the motivation for them to make money from FF mirrorless.

However I think they have done their DSLR user base a disservice. They launched the M6ii alongside the 90D, with identical sensors, giving buyers a choice - mirrorless or DSLR. I don't know which of those cameras has sold in the greatest numbers, but I see plenty of 90Ds when I'm out and about, so they must be pretty popular.

I think it's a great shame that they didn't offer a similar choice with FF, namely by launching a 45MP "5DMk5" alongside the R5. But they clearly wanted to switch all their existing customers to the RF mount, which gives Canon the opportunity to sell tones of lucrative RF glass, as well as new bodies. The 1Dxiii clearly demonstrates that a "5DMk5" could have been produced with a faster burst speed, less vibration, and a far better AF system. In certain areas it would have been a lot less capable than the R5, but at least we would have had a choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Look at the charts for full frame cameras. Do you see the downward progression of canon and upward of sony?


A chart showing one year of data, from 4 years ago. A time period in which Sony introduced a new FF MILC at the beginning and another in the middle, and Canon introduced only one FF camera, the EOS R, during the last month with wide availability coming after the end of the period of data shown (and therefore not contributing to the plotted sales figures in a meaningful way).

Nicely cherry-picked, not helping your case though.



rick1 said:


> Do you see the downward progression of canon and upward of sony? That is sony taking canon's customers Not sure why I am still have to explain this


Do you not realize that in this graph (which I previously posted), Sony is brown and Canon is red? Since apparently you need this explained to you, the brown line (that’s Sony, remember) is going down. The red line (that’s Canon, remember) is going up. Did I go slowly enough for you?

This graph covers a 3-year period, the other graph that you posted represents the left-most 1/3 of the graph above.

It’s now quite clear why you’re so confused – you really don’t know how to comprehend or interpret data.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Do you see the downward progression of canon and upward of sony? That is sony taking canon's customers  Not sure why I am still have to explain this
> 
> View attachment 199920


Ehm, let's see that graph with western names:


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Ehm, let's see that graph with western names:
> 
> View attachment 199922


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A chart showing one year of data, from 3-4 years ago. A time period in which Sony introduced a new FF camera at the beginning and another in the middle, and Canon introduced only one FF camera, during the last month with wide availability coming after the end of the period of data shown.
> 
> Nicely cherry-picked, not helping your case though.
> 
> ...


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 30, 2021)

And the BCN raking 2 months later....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> View attachment 199926


Those data show all MILCs, not just FF (or 'prosumer' models). Do you not understand that, or did you ‘forget’ to state that? Thanks @koenkooi for linking the source data. 

You've been saying for several posts that you're talking about only the prosumer market, and now you show data for all MILCs (nearly 90% of which are APS-C). Seriously, quit while you're behind. You're just embarrassing yourself now.


----------



## entoman (Aug 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Nikon made what is essentially the 5DV (apart from the noisy shutter) with a superb 45 Mpx sensor and exceptional AF for a DSLR - much better than my 5DiV. I used one for a year, and it's now the in the cupboard and the R5 is my go to.


I agree 100%. The D850 was (and is) the ultimate DSLR, albeit a little bulky for my taste. I borrowed one and tested it on bird photography alongside my 5DS and 5DMkiv. The AF system on the 5DMkiv is pretty good, but the Nikon "3D" system is far more intelligent, being able to easily acquire and lock onto birds half-hidden among foliage, whereas the 5DMkiv can't, despite fully exploring all the focus cases and other AF-related options.

The D850 betters the Canon DSLRs is many other ways too, and when it was launched I seriously began to doubt whether I'd made the right choice, when I got into the Canon system 9 years ago. The problem for me was purely financial - I could have afforded (just about) to sell my Canon gear and switch completely to a D850 based system, but I didn't think the gains were sufficient to justify the considerable expense of doing so. I had other more important priorities for my money.

Ultimately, convinced by the benefits of animal-eye AF, faster burst speeds, IBIS and silent shutter, it came down to a choice between the R5 and the Sony a7Riv. I read numerous reviews, and downloaded the manuals for both cameras. Due to Covid shutting all the stores, I had no opportunity to handle an R5, but I'd handled the a7Riv and the R. After much hesitation I eventually ordered an R5, and for the most part have been very happy with it, but I do really wish that Canon had released a "5DMk5" alongside it, and given me the choice.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those data show all MILCs, not just FF (or 'prosumer' models). Do you not understand that, or did you ‘forget’ to state that? Thanks @koenkooi for linking the source data.
> 
> You've been saying for several posts that you're talking about only the prosumer market, and now you show data for all MILCs (nearly 90% of which are APS-C). Seriously, quit while you're behind. You're just embarrassing yourself now.


You are asking me to produce data for something that is obvious. I can't find a chart for full frame market share over the past 10 years. Can you?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2021)

It’s so obvious that there are no data. Cool.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> You are asking me to produce data for something that is obvious. I can't find a chart for full frame market share over the past 10 years. Can you?


All that's obvious is that you think your opinions are facts and that you suffer from confirmation bias. The data that are available refute your opinion. I'm not the one making unsupported claims, that's you. Your inability to find data to support them is not my problem.

I will point out one major limitation of the BCN data, which is that those are from Japan only. According to BCN, in July 2021, MILCs represented ~80% of ILC sales. That's reasonably consistent with the latest CIPA data which shows that in June 2021, MILCs were 73% of ILC shipments to Japan. However, in that same period shipments globally were only 57% MILCs – clearly, Japan does not represent the global market well.

On the other hand, the Tokyo Olympics was covered by a global press pool of photographers who are by definition professionals, and more of them were shooting Canon than any other brand. Just one more example of data vs. your unsupported opinion.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> All that's obvious is that you think your opinions are facts and that you suffer from confirmation bias. The data that are available refute your opinion. I'm not the one making unsupported claims, that's you. Your inability to find data to support them is not my problem.
> 
> I will point out one major limitation of the BCN data, which is that those are from Japan only. According to BCN, in July 2021, MILCs represented ~80% of ILC sales. That's reasonably consistent with the latest CIPA data which shows that in June 2021, MILCs were 73% of ILC shipments to Japan. However, in that same period shipments globally were only 57% MILCs – clearly, Japan does not represent the global market well.
> 
> On the other hand, the Tokyo Olympics was covered by a global press pool of photographers who are by definition professionals, and more of them were shooting Canon than any other brand. Just one more example of data vs. your unsupported opinion.


Again, I am referring to the time period before the R5 was released. Canon has taken back ground since the R5. I've explained this to you like 2 times. Did you get bad grades in school? Do you have data for market share of full frame cameras over the past 10 years? If so you'll see sony gaining huge ground up until the R5 was released.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Again, I am referring to the time period before the R5 was released. Canon has taken back ground since the R5. I've explained this to you like 2 times. Did you get bad grades in school? Do you have data for market share of full frame cameras over the past 10 years? If so you'll see sony gaining huge ground up until the R5 was released.


You mean data like you said showed Sony gaining ground and Canon losing ground in the FF MILC market from 2017-2020, except that you mixed up Sony and Canon on the plot so the data show the exact opposite of your conclusion? 




I'm not the one who doesn't know how to read a graph, lol. My grades were excellent, all the way through my PhD.

You embarrass yourself further with each successive post. It's becoming pathetic..but OTOH, it's mildly amusing to see you flailing around, so by all means, keep going.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You mean data like you said showed Sony gaining ground and Canon losing ground in the FF MILC market from 2017-2020, except that you mixed up Sony and Canon on the plot so the data show the exact opposite of your conclusion?
> 
> View attachment 199931
> 
> ...


But that chart still shows sony is ahead in FF market share, right? Do you think they've always been ahead? Or do you think they got ahead in the past few years before that chart?? This is common sense 3rd grade stuff bud.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Smart Guy! I need a 24MP Camera like I need a hole in the head


Dang. Wasn't it you, not too awful long ago, who proclaimed that sports photog professionals don't need more than 20mp? That Canon was ignoring you?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> But that chart still shows sony is ahead in FF market share, right? Do you think they've always been ahead? Or do you think they got ahead in the past few years before that chart?? This is common sense 3rd grade stuff bud.


Hi genius. Sony was ahead by default when that chart started. Now Sony is losing share. Why? Because there are now actual MILC ff competitors. Sony has never been ahead in total ff market share world wide. Never.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hi genius. Sony was ahead by default when that chart started. Now Sony is losing share. Why? Because there are now actual MILC ff competitors. Sony has never been ahead in total ff market share world wide. Never.


Lets take this really slow. Sony had the only mirrorless FF option available in the market for years. Mirrorless market share grew for years. That means more people started using sony cameras right? If more people started using sony mirrorless cameras, do you think they still used old DSLRs? What happens to the market share when customers use company A's products more than Company B's? Does company A's market share grow or Company B's? I'm not sure if I am explaining this slow enough for you guys but trying to get to the point that sony has been making gains for years when canon and nikon had no mirrorless offering. They lost a crap load of customers. Long time canon users switched to sony in mass.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Lets take this really slow. Sony had the only mirrorless FF option available in the market for years. Mirrorless market share grew for years. That means more people started using sony cameras right? If more people started using sony mirrorless cameras, do you think they still used old DSLRs? What happens to the market share when customers use company A's products more than Company B's? Does company A's market share grow or Company B's? I'm not sure if I am explaining this slow enough for you guys but trying to get to the point that sony has been making gains for years when canon and nikon had no mirrorless offering. They lost a crap load of customers. Long time canon users switched to sony in mass.


You seem to have a very basic problem: Not understanding that Sony has never been #1, and never will be. That, and your complete blindness. Canon did not lose a large number of customers to Sony.


----------



## John Wilde (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Long time canon users switched to sony in mass.


No.

The Cameras That Shot the Winning Photos of World Press Photo 2020​


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You seem to have a very basic problem: Not understanding that Sony has never been #1, and never will be. That, and your complete blindness. Canon did not lose a large number of customers to Sony.


They lost a crap load of users, me included. I've seen many famous photographers on social media switch to sony in the past few years. Many of my peers in the industry have left canon for sony. With the R5 everything has changed, but I'm not sure they have the funds to switch back to canon after investing heavily in sony. Me personally, I will be switching back to canon when the R1 arrives. I partially switched back when the R5 came out


----------



## adrian_bacon (Aug 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Which brings us to the R3. None of us knows which of the features of the R3 were determined by market research and which were determined by design and budget considerations. A 24mp sensor will certainly move data faster than a 45mp sensor. A 24mp sensor will certainly clear the buffer faster than a 45mp sensor. Could a 45mp sensor move data as fast and clear the buffer as quickly as the 1Dx III? I imagine that may very well be a financial decision -- To hit the price point of the R3, which will be below the 1Dx III, I doubt if Canon wanted to invest in design and manufacturing changes that added significant costs over the 1Dx III.



Another thing to keep in mind is this is their first full frame stacked BSI sensor. It might be 24MP for no reason other than this is a significant change to sensor design and manufacturing and it's probably not a wise thing to make a high MP full frame monster on a design and process that is new to them.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> They lost a crap load of users, me included. I've seen many famous photographers on social media switch to sony in the past few years. Many of my peers in the industry have left canon for sony. With the R5 everything has changed, but I'm not sure they have the funds to switch back to canon after investing heavily in sony. Me personally, I will be switching back to canon when the R1 arrives. I partially switched back when the R5 came out


Again, you seem to be under the illusion that the people you know and YouTube videos = a crap load of users. It Don't, Clem.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> No.
> 
> The Cameras That Shot the Winning Photos of World Press Photo 2020​


He never claimed the best photographers were using Sony


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> But that chart still shows sony is ahead in FF market share, right? Do you think they've always been ahead? Or do you think they got ahead in the past few years before that chart?? This is common sense 3rd grade stuff bud.


The chart shows the FF mirrorless market share. Sony released the market's first FF MILC in 2013 (it's not a coincidence that came soon after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, which Sony had dominated up to that point). If Sony sold even a single FF MILC in 2013, they'd have 100% market share. Same in 2014, and unless you count Leica (which no one does, their sales don't even make a blip on anyone's charts) it was the same in 2015 and 2016.

You're asking for 10 years of data, but don't you realize that 2020 was the first year that ILC makers produced more MILCs than DSLRs? In 2017, the year the chart to which you are referring starts, Sony had 100% of FF MILC sales, but MILCs as a whole comprised only 34% of ILCs shipped that year. And since FF models have consistently represented ~10-12% of the market for the past several years, 100% of the FF MILC market is ~4% of the total market in 2017. So what was everyone else buying? The pros and prosumers, like most consumers, were mostly buying DSLRs.



rick1 said:


> They lost a crap load of users, me included. I've seen many famous photographers on social media switch to sony in the past few years. Many of my peers in the industry have left canon for sony.


No matter how many times someone says the earth is flat, it will remain (roughly) spherical. Similarly, no matter how many times you claim a significant fraction of the industry left Canon for Sony, it won't become true. So far, your data are 1) very limited in scope (FF camera sales in one country for one year), 2) erroneously interpreted (the BCN FF MILC data where you switched Canon and Sony and drew the diametrically incorrect conclusion), and 3) irrelevant to your own main point (data on all MILCs when you have repeatedly stated you are referring to the professional or 'prosumer' market). 

TL;DR: you don't represent the market, bud.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Again, you seem to be under the illusion that the people you know and YouTube videos = a crap load of users. It Don't, Clem.


Not an illusion bud, come out from under your rock and look around once and a while


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Not an illusion bud, come out from under your rock and look around once and a while


Did you look around at the Tokyo Olympics and notice that the majority of professional photographers were using Canon cameras? Or were you under your rock, still believing your opinions are the same as facts?


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 30, 2021)

Errr, Canon, is it possible to finally release the R3 alright? Sony will come up with another epic camera if you keep on delaying this over and over...


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did you look around at the Tokyo Olympics and notice that the majority of professional photographers were using Canon cameras? Or were you under your rock, still believing your opinions are the same as facts?


Just wondering, do you work in the industry? Do you follow the industry? I shoot 60-65 weddings per year(in my free time - I'm a software engineer). I follow dozens of photographers, both local and world renowned. I don't know about sports photography, but I can tell you first hand that sony has been stealing users left and right from canon and nikon over the years in the wedding industry. I've noticed a shift back when the R5 came out


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just wondering, do you work in the industry? Do you follow the industry? I shoot 60-65 weddings per year(in my free time - I'm a software engineer). I follow dozens of photographers, both local and world renowned. I don't know about sports photography, but I can tell you first hand that sony has been stealing users left and right from canon and nikon over the years in the wedding industry. I've noticed a shift back when the R5 came out www.instagram.com/samosphotography


I see. So now it's not 'the market', and it's not 'the professional market' or 'the prosumer market'. Now it's 'the wedding photographer market'.

What you really mean is the 'me and a few people I follow on the internet market'. I have no problem with you claiming that many people in that market have switched to Sony over the years. Nor is there any need for data to support that claim, since the claim itself is meaningless and irrelevant (except to you, of course). Thanks for finally admitting that, and also for confirming that you're not a professional photographer (according to the CPS definition).


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see. So now it's not 'the market', and it's not 'the professional market' or 'the prosumer market'. Now it's 'the wedding photographer market'.
> 
> What you really mean is the 'me and a few people I follow on the internet market'. I have no problem with you claiming that many people in that market have switched to Sony over the years. Nor is there any need for data to support that claim, since the claim itself is meaningless and irrelevant (except to you, of course). Thanks for finally admitting that, and also for confirming that you're not a professional photographer (according to the CPS definition).


Dude do you actually do anything in the field except troll people on forums all day and maybe take pictures of your dog? I am providing first hand observations from someone deep in the professional photography community. Not sure how that isn't relevant? You seem to be just trolling again


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Dude do you actually do anything in the field except troll people on forums all day and maybe take pictures of your dog? I am providing first hand observations from someone deep in the professional photography community. Not sure how that isn't relevant? You seem to be just trolling again


You, and the dozen people you know, are not relevant. Not. At. All. Part timer "deep in the professional photography community". Yeah, ok. While we all like to imagine we are relevant to the market, we ain't. Relevant to those closest to us, but not to the world.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Dude do you actually do anything in the field except troll people on forums all day and maybe take pictures of your dog? I am providing first hand observations from someone deep in the professional photography community. Not sure how that isn't relevant? You seem to be just trolling again



Have you not embarrassed yourself enough already?


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You, and the dozen people you know, are not relevant. Not. At. All.


Do you know what statistical inference is? People use this all the time and it's actually quite accurate. Lets say I follow 500 people in the industry all around the world. If 50 of those people have converted to sony, there's a very good chance the percentage of people that have converted to sony globally is around 10%. If I only followed local photographers this would not be an accurate representation. I feel like I'm a elementary school teacher today


----------



## entoman (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I've seen many famous photographers on social media switch to Sony in the past few years.


In the early days of the a7 series, quite a lot of people bought Sony bodies on which to use their Canon glass. Many of them saw it as a stop gap measure, while they were waiting for what they really wanted, i.e. a FF Canon MILC. Sony bodies slowly improved and those that stayed with Sony were rewarded with excellent cameras such as the a7Riv, a9 and now the a1. Others dumped their Sony bodies as soon as Canon launched the R5. Those are the facts.

But please - trying to justify your argument by saying that "many famous photographers *on social media*" have switched to Sony, is extraordinarily naive -

Did they buy their Sony gear with their own money? Or whether it was given to them by Sony in exchange for "influencing" easily led people into switching brands.? Are these famous photographers well paid Sony Ambassadors? *My impression* is that most of them are well paid "shills"...

Canon of course have their own paid ambassadors too, but *my impression* is that they tend to be more transparent about their relationship with the manufacturer.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> In the early days of the a7 series, quite a lot of people bought Sony bodies on which to use their Canon glass. Many of them saw it as a stop gap measure, while they were waiting for what they really wanted, i.e. a FF Canon MILC. Sony bodies slowly improved and those that stayed with Sony were rewarded with excellent cameras such as the a7Riv, a9 and now the a1. Others dumped their Sony bodies as soon as Canon launched the R5. Those are the facts.
> 
> But please - trying to justify your argument by saying that "many famous photographers *on social media*" have switched to Sony, is extraordinarily naive -
> 
> ...


I suspect that a certain percentage of social media influencers switch things up simply to keep generating content, regardless of whether or not they get paid or compensated to do so. As anyone who reads CR knows, you have to keep feeding the content monster or people will quit clicking on your site.


----------



## entoman (Aug 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I suspect that a certain percentage of social media influencers switch things up simply to keep generating content, regardless of whether or not they get paid or compensated to do so. As anyone who reads CR knows, you have to keep feeding the content monster or people will quit clicking on your site.


I would agree if you are talking about the guys who make instructional or brand-neutral videos, but I wouldn't classify them as "influencers". The purpose of the latter is to promote a particular brand. I'm sure also that *some* influencers genuinely believe in the product or brand they are promoting. My impression though, based on years of watching videos, and of reading the comment sections and forums on many of the "neutral" photography websites, is that a high percentage of the Sony fans (more so than fans of other brands) are so evangelical in their comments that they are either blinded by love, or are paid to make their comments.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Do you know what statistical inference is? People use this all the time and it's actually quite accurate. Lets say I follow 500 people in the industry all around the world. If 50 of those people have converted to sony, there's a very good chance the percentage of people that have converted to sony globally is around 10%. If I only followed local photographers this would not be an accurate representation. I feel like I'm a elementary school teacher today


Not 

Besides, you leave out those who went from Sony to Canon completely. You fail to see the road runs two ways.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just wondering, do you work in the industry? Do you follow the industry? I shoot 60-65 weddings per year(in my free time - I'm a software engineer). I follow dozens of photographers, both local and world renowned. I don't know about sports photography, but I can tell you first hand that sony has been stealing users left and right from canon and nikon over the years in the wedding industry. I've noticed a shift back when the R5 came out www.instagram.com/samosphotography


I am of the opinion that wedding photography would be amongst the first sectors of the pro industry to embrace MILC cameras due to their superior video features vs DSLRs.
Its a YouTube world, and wedding photographers must have extensive video and still image capability to be competitive. 
Now that Canon and to a lesser extent Nikon are incorporating strong video features into their mirrorless offerings, Sony's initial lead in mirrorless is declining rapidly.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not
> 
> Besides, you leave out those who went from Sony to Canon completely. You fail to see the road runs two ways.


I haven't seen a single person that has gone from sony mirrorless to a canon dslr. The majority of sony converts I've seen were within a year of the a7iii release. I've seen lots of people go back to canon after the R5 was released


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I haven't seen a single person that has gone from sony mirrorless to a canon dslr. The majority of sony converts I've seen were within a year of the a7iii release. I've seen lots of people go back to canon after the R5 was released


Yeah, we ain't just talking dslr. But, just because you don't know something happened, doesn't mean it didn't... That's the reason for Neuro's emphasis on actual hard data. Your feelings, hunches, guesses and such mean nothing. What your best buddy did means nothing. Point is you made claims based on feelings and hunches. You made zero claims based on actual data. You even bring up a statistically insignificant...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Do you know what statistical inference is? People use this all the time and it's actually quite accurate. Lets say I follow 500 people in the industry all around the world. If 50 of those people have converted to sony, there's a very good chance the percentage of people that have converted to sony globally is around 10%. If I only followed local photographers this would not be an accurate representation.


I do, evidently with a far deeper understanding than yours. One of the tenets of drawing such an inference is that to be valid, your sample must be selected in a random or systematic random manner from the population being evaluated. You stated, “I follow dozens of photographers, both local and world renowned.” That is not a random or systematic random sample of wedding photographers. Those are people you either know, or have personally chosen to follow.

Your ‘sample’ represents a very biased and intentional selection, and thus cannot be used to draw an inference about ‘wedding photographers’.

Then there’s the fact that you previously attempted to re-frame your initial claim to narrow it to the ‘professional’ or ‘prosumer’ market. Not surprisingly, you’re now trying to re-re-frame your claim to apply to just the wedding photography market…and you’ve failed just as badly at that as your previous attempt.



rick1 said:


> I feel like I'm a elementary school teacher today


I would honestly like to believe that your comprehension of basic data interpretation and logic is insufficient to qualify you as a primary/elementary educator. Sadly, I suspect most educational systems would consider you qualified, which is why STEM education in this country is in such a pathetic state.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I do, evidently with a far deeper understanding than yours. One of the tenets of drawing such an inference is that to be valid, your sample must be selected in a random or systematic random manner from the population being evaluated. You stated, “I follow dozens of photographers, both local and world renowned.” That is not a random or systematic random sample of wedding photographers. Those are people you either know, or have personally chosen to follow.
> 
> Your ‘sample’ represents a very biased and intentional selection, and thus cannot be used to draw an inference about ‘wedding photographers’.
> 
> ...


Here's some common sense for you. Every single sony user you see that has been in this field for over 7 years IS a canon or nikon convert. No professional photographer used sony cameras in their infancy, 99% of the people who use them today used to use nikon or canon. There are a few people that use other camera brands but the numbers aren't significant. So you see all of those sony users? That's how many people canon or nikon lost. There's some common sense for you without statistical information to back it up.  Again, how are you professionally involved in this industy? Or are you a hobbyist?


----------



## Billybob (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> I haven't seen a single person that has gone from sony mirrorless to a canon dslr. The majority of sony converts I've seen were within a year of the a7iii release. I've seen lots of people go back to canon after the R5 was released


EDIT: I misread Rick's post. See my subsequent post below.

I guess you haven't seen me. I picked up the R5 because I was dissatisfied with the A9II's low MP count. Clearly stacked-sensors and fast readout is the solution to getting the best AF and tracking for wildlife photography, however, the R5's resolution trumped the superior AF of the A9 cameras in my book. I thought that I'd shoot Sony side-by-side with the R5, but I strongly prefer the R45 and now very rarely pick up my A7R bodies.

Note, I would have probably gone for the A1 if it had been released before or at the same time as the R5. However, that ship has sailed, and I'm willing to wait for a high-MP body with a stacked sensor from Canon or Nikon for a variety of reasons.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I guess you haven't seen me. I picked up the R5 because I was dissatisfied with the A9II's low MP count. Clearly stacked-sensors and fast readout is the solution to getting the best AF and tracking for wildlife photography, however, the R5's resolution trumped the superior AF of the A9 cameras in my book. I thought that I'd shoot Sony side-by-side with the R5, but I strongly prefer the R45 and now very rarely pick up my A7R bodies.


As I said a ton of people went back to canon when the R5 was released, me included. The R5 blows away everything sony has to offer except the a1


----------



## Billybob (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> As I said a ton of people went back to canon when the R5 was released, me included. The R5 blows away everything sony has to offer except the a1


Oops! Bad reading comprehension on my part. No, I didn't go back to Canon DSLR from Sony. I sold my last Canon DSLR body in 2016 and have not seen anything out of Canon DSLRs that would tempt me since.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> As I said a ton of people went back to canon when the R5 was released, me included. The R5 blows away everything sony has to offer except the a1


Ton. Now that's valuable information, and obviously the pulse of the industry. Don't get too caught up on that "pro" stuff, part timer. Professionals are part of the market, but a small part compared to enthusiasts with deep pockets. Glad to know a "ton" switched... Whatever the hell that means. It feels strangely close to a teen yelling, "But mom! Everyone else gets to do it!" Yeah. Means nothing. BTW: my first pro use of a digital camera was a Sony Mavica way back in 1997. That was 24 years ago. Yeah, back in the digital infancy. So again, your knee jerk generalizations leave you short again. Stick to facts when trying to be factual


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ton. Now that's valuable information, and obviously the pulse of the industry. Don't get too caught up on that "pro" stuff, part timer. Professionals are part of the market, but a small part compared to enthusiasts with deep pockets. Glad to know a "ton" switched... Whatever the hell that means. It feels strangely close to a teen yelling, "But mom! Everyone else gets to do it!" Yeah. Means nothing.


Oh geez I apologize I don't have charts for you. lol


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Oops! Bad reading comprehension on my part. No, I didn't go back to Canon DSLR from Sony. I sold my last Canon DSLR body in 2016 and have not seen anything out of Canon DSLRs that would tempt me since.


Your experience and decisions are exactly what I've seen all over the industry. But I don't have charts and stats to prove the numbers so the observation is not relevant it seems lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Here's some common sense for you. Every single sony user you see that has been in this field for over 7 years IS a canon or nikon convert. No professional photographer used sony cameras in their infancy, 99% of the people who use them today used to use nikon or canon. There are a few people that use other camera brands but the numbers aren't significant. So you see all of those sony users? That's how many people canon or nikon lost. There's some common sense for you without statistical information to back it up.  Again, how are you professionally involved in this industy? Or are you a hobbyist?


Considering the remarkably high failure rate for wedding photographers (see sba.gov, in the US it’s estimated at 85% failing in three years), there aren’t many wedding photographers who’ve been in the field for over 7 years. Yet it remains a popular profession to enter, because of the low startup costs (a camera kit, even a high end one, costs far less than a physical plant or storefront). Given the high turnover in the wedding photography industry, and the ‘buzz’ about Sony in the media (driven in substantial part by Sony’s effective PR), it’s ‘common sense’ that a portion of Sony FF MILCs have been bought by new wedding photographers, not those switching from Canon or Nikon.

Multiple blogs/guides on getting into the wedding photography business recommend an APS-C camera like a Sony a6400, Canon 90D, or a Fuji as a starter camera, in addition to the logical FF choices. It seems likely that someone following that advice and starting with an APS-C Sony alpha would upgrade to a Sony FF. 

As was previously pointed out, most of the FF MILC market in recent years comprises enthusiasts, not professionals. 

So perhaps you’d like to re- re- re-frame your claim to refer to successful wedding photographers with careers spanning more than 7 years? Or maybe be honest and just narrow it to you and some people you follow. Probably not though, as that would require you to have a modicum of ‘common sense’.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Considering the remarkably high failure rate for wedding photographers (see sba.gov, in the US it’s estimated at 85% failing in three years), there aren’t many wedding photographers who’ve been in the field for over 7 years. Yet it remains a popular profession to enter, because of the low startup costs (a camera kit, even a high end one, costs far less than a physical plant or storefront). Given the high turnover in the wedding photography industry, and the ‘buzz’ about Sony in the media (driven in substantial part by Sony’s effective PR), it’s ‘common sense’ that a portion of Sony FF MILCs have been bought by new wedding photographers, not those switching from Canon or Nikon.
> 
> Multiple blogs/guides on getting into the wedding photography business recommend an APS-C camera like a Sony a6400, Canon 90D, or a Fuji as a starter camera, in addition to the logical FF choices. It seems likely that someone following that advice and starting with an APS-C Sony alpha would upgrade to a Sony FF.
> 
> ...











V I C K Y B A U M A N N (@vickybaumann.de) • Instagram photos and videos


106K Followers, 1,106 Following, 528 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from V I C K Y B A U M A N N (@vickybaumann.de)




www.instagram.com












Hochzeitsfotografen | Mentoren (@carmenandingo) • Instagram photos and videos


35K Followers, 812 Following, 611 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Hochzeitsfotografen | Mentoren (@carmenandingo)




www.instagram.com












WEDDING | ELOPEMENTS | COUPLES (@beloved_photography_com) • Instagram photos and videos


18K Followers, 2,877 Following, 907 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from WEDDING | ELOPEMENTS | COUPLES (@beloved_photography_com)




www.instagram.com












Wedding Photographer (@justmarriedphotography) • Instagram photos and videos


114K Followers, 487 Following, 1,308 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Wedding Photographer (@justmarriedphotography)




www.instagram.com












Michael Anthony Photography (@michaelanthonyphotography) • Instagram photos and videos


114K Followers, 1,891 Following, 2,743 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Michael Anthony Photography (@michaelanthonyphotography)




www.instagram.com












Lola - Wedding Photographer (@lolas_hochzeitsfotografie) • Instagram photos and videos


15K Followers, 697 Following, 455 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Lola - Wedding Photographer (@lolas_hochzeitsfotografie)




www.instagram.com









Hochzeitsfotografin Aga (@aga_photography) • Instagram photos and videos







www.instagram.com












Aisle & Co. (@aisleandco) • Instagram photos and videos


7,845 Followers, 2,659 Following, 1,351 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Aisle & Co. (@aisleandco)




www.instagram.com












Tampa Wedding Photographer (@styleandstory) • Instagram photos and videos


13K Followers, 658 Following, 1,241 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Tampa Wedding Photographer (@styleandstory)




www.instagram.com





the majority of successful photographers (at least in my area) have been doing this for 7+ years. 

Enthusiasts don't have money to buy $hit lol. Which is why you use a 1DX and an Eos R. The majority of the market that actually buys new cameras are professionals.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> the majority of successful photographers (at least in my area) have been doing this for 7+ years.


Wow, nine photographers. That’s impressive. LOL. Thanks for confirming that the people you know are most definitely _not_ representative of the wedding photography market. Not that your claims could be made less bogus than they were from the start. 



rick1 said:


> Enthusiasts don't have money to buy $hit lol. Which is why you use a 1DX and an Eos R. The majority of the market that actually buys new cameras are professionals.


Now you’re moving beyond self-embarrassment and into asinine foolishness. Well done!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2021)

This is one reason why I can't seem to quit CanonRumors. While I often find @neuroanatomist annoying (he knows I do) and often enjoy tangling with him (he knows I do), I really enjoy it when he hooks a big one. Congrats, Neuro you've got @rick1 on the line and I know you are just playing with him until he wears himself out. I'm going to go put some popcorn in the microwave.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow, nine photographers. That’s impressive. LOL. Thanks for confirming that the people you know are most definitely _not_ representative of the wedding photography market. Not that your claims could be made less bogus than they were from the start.
> 
> 
> Now you’re moving beyond self-embarrassment and into asinine foolishness. Well done!


Those were 9 photographers off the top of my head bud. And I was an enthusiast once. I rarely bought a camera and when I did I had to save up considerably, compared to today, I bought 2 sony FX3's, 2 sony A7SIIIs, and an R5 just in the past year or so, and then an R3 soon! You are the foolish one bro. I am the one with common sense


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Lets take this really slow. Sony had the only mirrorless FF option available in the market for years. Mirrorless market share grew for years. That means more people started using sony cameras right? If more people started using sony mirrorless cameras, do you think they still used old DSLRs? What happens to the market share when customers use company A's products more than Company B's? Does company A's market share grow or Company B's? I'm not sure if I am explaining this slow enough for you guys but trying to get to the point that sony has been making gains for years when canon and nikon had no mirrorless offering. They lost a crap load of customers. Long time canon users switched to sony in mass.


We do not need to take this slow. We are not stupid. Insinuating that we are is not going to win you any arguments.

We understand that while Sony was the only one offering mirrorless FF, this means that some Canon and Nikon users started to buy Sony. We understand that while Sony continued to offer mirrorless FF and Nikon and Canon still had not entered this market, Sony continued making gains.

This is all fairly clear and had you stopped there, I don't think any one would have argued. 

But you didn't. Assuming "a crap load" is a large number, well, you have presented no evidence and sales numbers from various sources seem to indicate that, no, Canon never did lose "a crap load" of customers. (P.S. Buying a Sony does not mean that Canon users did not keep their Canons or did not buy a new Canon camera as well as their Sony).

And, again, saying that long time Canon users switched to Sony "in mass" is not only incorrect linguistically, but also not true based on sales numbers. The phrase, by the way, is "en masse." 

The question I am puzzled by is, why do people care if Sony or Canon sells more cameras? And why do people continually use these over-exaggerations when discussing Sony sales and their impact on reducing Canon sales? Even if every single wedding photogapher or every single wildlife photographer switched to Sony, why do you care?


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Those were 9 photographers off the top of my head bud. And I was an enthusiast once. I rarely bought a camera and when I did I had to save up considerably, compared to today, I bought 2 sony FX3's, 2 sony A7SIIIs, and an R5 just in the past year or so, and then an R3 soon! You are the foolish one bro. I am the one with common sense


You could have listed 90 photographers and it still would not mean anything staistically. You could have listed 900 and it still may not mean anyhting statistically. The world is a very big place. Certainly you understand that you can take all the wedding photographers in one country and it still may not mean much compared to the global market. I think that is the point people are making when you base your argument on a very small, unscientifically chosen sample size.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> ...I bought 2 sony FX3's, 2 sony A7SIIIs, and an R5 just in the past year or so, and then an R3 soon! You are the foolish one bro. I am the one with common sense.


Somehow I don't think buying five cameras in one year and planning to buy another one as soon as it comes out, does much for your argument about who is the foolish one.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The question I am puzzled by is, why do people care if Sony or Canon sells more cameras? And why do people continually use these over-exaggerations when discussing Sony sales and their impact on reducing Canon sales? Even if every single wedding photogapher or every single wildlife photographer switched to Sony, why do you care?


Other than rooting for your "team" it doesn't make any sense. People always act like it is some sort of race where one company is trying to drive another company out of business, But that isn't the way business works. Canon and Sony care far more about profits and return on investment. Market share is important only in that context. As a consumer, I only care if the brand I have purchased is sufficiently profitable to allow them to invest in R&D and bring new products to market. Clearly, both companies can do that, so it doesn't impact me.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> You could have listed 90 photographers and it still would not mean anything staistically. You could have listed 900 and it still may not mean anyhting statistically. The world is a very big place. Certainly you understand that you can take all the wedding photographers in one country and it still may not mean much compared to the global market. I think that is the point people are making when you base your argument on a very small, unscientifically chosen sample size.


He asked me to list a few photographers who have been doing this for 7+ years so I did, not sure what you are saying


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Somehow I don't think buying five cameras in one year and planning to buy another one as soon as it comes out, does much for your argument about who is the foolish one.


Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> We do not need to take this slow. We are not stupid. Insinuating that we are is not going to win you any arguments.
> 
> We understand that while Sony was the only one offering mirrorless FF, this means that some Canon and Nikon users started to buy Sony. We understand that while Sony continued to offer mirrorless FF and Nikon and Canon still had not entered this market, Sony continued making gains.
> 
> ...


I don't really care if I used terminology that you don't approve of. Bottom line is that sony stole a significant amount of DSLR users from canon and nikon (one just commented a few comments ago!). And then the R5 brought him back to canon (just like I was saying). Anyone that denies this is living under a rock or not in touch with the professional community.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Those were 9 photographers off the top of my head bud. And I was an enthusiast once. I rarely bought a camera and when I did I had to save up considerably, compared to today, I bought 2 sony FX3's, 2 sony A7SIIIs, and an R5 just in the past year or so, and then an R3 soon! You are the foolish one bro. I am the one with common sense


Which was I supposed to be more impressed by, the fact that you claim to know at least 9 successful photographers in your area who have been working longer than 7 years, or that fact that you claim to have spent close to $20K on camera gear in a year? LOL. The answer is neither. I might have been (slightly) impressed if you had just admitted that you overstepped with your claims, but obviously that's beyond you. 

It seems you have exhausted your limited intellectual capacity in this discussion, and are now re- re- re- re-framing it in terms of how much money you spend. I suggest you stop before you start posting pictures of your penis resting on a ruler. That might cause @unfocused to spit out his popcorn and make a mess, so you should probably just quit now that you're irredeemably foundering in this thread.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.


Wrong.

Are you a full time wedding photographer or are you a software engineer? Because you said you were a software engineer which makes me think you are supplementing your photo business with your software engineering. Which would also make you atypical of most wedding photographers and most professional photographers of any kind. 

It's pretty well documented that all the major camera manufacturers are pursuing the enthusiast market over the professional market. There is a simple economic reason for that. Professionals are limited by the return on investment when they buy a piece of equipment. And, professionals have to pay the rent, buy the groceries, send their kids to college, etc. etc., on their earnings before they can consider buying new equipment. Enthusiasts are limited only by their discretionary income. They can buy a piece of equipment because they want it, not because they need it to turn a profit.


----------



## rick1 (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Which was I supposed to be more impressed by, the fact that you claim to know at least 9 successful photographers in your area who have been working longer than 7 years, or that fact that you claim to have spent close to $20K on camera gear in a year? LOL. The answer is neither. I might have been (slightly) impressed if you had just admitted that you overstepped with your claims, but obviously that's beyond you.
> 
> It seems you have exhausted your limited intellectual capacity in this discussion, and are now re- re- re- re-framing it in terms of how much money you spend. I suggest you stop before you start posting pictures of your penis resting on a ruler. That might cause @unfocused to spit out his popcorn and make a mess, so you should probably just quit now that you're irredeemably foundering in this thread.


This is the last time I am going to comment on this thread. You'll keep trolling people but you are really just talking out of your a$$. You have no clue about the professional community. Go take some more pictures of your dog with your 1DX lol


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2021)

I don’t know any photographers who use Sony cameras. I know of only one other photographer who shoots Canon. He is the friend to whom I gave my S95 and S120. All of the other photographers have Nikon DSLRs, both amateur and pro.

So common sense tells us that we can conclude market share from that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> This is the last time I am going to comment on this thread.


That’s a good choice. Your repeated, floundering attempts to make your opinion appear correct through multiple goalpost moves and trite repetition, in the face of actual data to the contrary, had become pathetic. Your descent into puerile insults was unnecessary, but not unexpected.

You really should have quit while you were behind and spared yourself the embarrassment, as I suggested about 50 posts back in this thread. But as I predicted a couple of posts later, it has been mildly amusing to watch you flail about.


----------



## sanj (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.


No no. Enthusiasts spend much more because they earn much more than most professional photographers do. While most photographers know how to use their 'inferior gear better. My thinking.


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Aug 31, 2021)

sanj said:


> No no. Enthusiasts spend much more because they earn much more than most professional photographers do. While most photographers know how to use their 'inferior gear better. My thinking.


That's true, I considered a career in photography and just couldn't make the numbers work. Kudos to any Pro's here, but not for me!

I think this thread has just been a continuation of the best gear arguments that have been running since forever. People focus on stats and buy into a brand and then feel like they have to convert people to their choice to help justify their own decisions. I've been around long enough to know that the 'best' changes from release to release, and actually the most important part of the image creation process is the photographers brain.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Other than rooting for your "team" it doesn't make any sense. People always act like it is some sort of race where one company is trying to drive another company out of business, But that isn't the way business works. Canon and Sony care far more about profits and return on investment. Market share is important only in that context. As a consumer, I only care if the brand I have purchased is sufficiently profitable to allow them to invest in R&D and bring new products to market. Clearly, both companies can do that, so it doesn't impact me.


Canon and Sony are two very smart companies. They are very focussed on profitability and margins and their return on investment. Market share is important to both of them. Scale helps but can impact margins if you are selling alot of low margin products (which Canon probably have more of than Sony). For both companies the camera sector is important but not as important as it once was. When you see what's happening to Nikon who still make fine cameras you wonder are they considering their long term future in the sector. I'd have moderate concerns for both Canon and Sony in this regards. If the returns aren't there both companies may not invest in R&D and technological improvements will taper off. Most of us here have no access to actual sales figures to completely judge things in terms of sales Canon V Sony. Our best evidence is annecdotal evidence (which isn't very reliable) . I'd be the serious amateur type with alot friends with a similar level of interest. My annecdotal experience would be a large decrease in Nikon users (used to be almost 50:50 Canon/Nikon before Sony turned up), mainly to Sony, a smaller drift of Canon users to Sony, the odd Fuji user exists but most other brands have disappeared. This probably doesn't reflect the whole worldwide market. 
Typically in the past if you'd have asked me the best DSLR camera I'd have instantly said Canon 1 series.
Today I'd say its the Sony A1 and it will be a while before Canon better it as the rumours on the R1 haven't even start. Does that matter - I don't know.
If I was starting out today would I be influenced by the brands top of the range camera?- I probably would
If you are influenced by Youtube/Instagram there seem to be alot of Sony users. I don't know if Sony target them with free gear.
Whereas before you'd be influenced by camera magazines I'd say alot of younger people are influenced by what they see online.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> [..]Most of us here have no access to actual sales figures to completely judge things in terms of sales Canon V Sony.[..]


Every year when Sony does their financial report, they move the camera section to a different division. So it's impossible to infer how well it does year over year. The organizational musical chairs they are doing makes me think it is as profitable as their Vaio division was.



Hector1970 said:


> If you are influenced by Youtube/Instagram there seem to be alot of Sony users. I don't know if Sony target them with free gear.
> Whereas before you'd be influenced by camera magazines I'd say alot of younger people are influenced by what they see online.


Manny Ortiz said on his channel that Sony didn't give him free gear or money, but that they facilitated getting big jobs, like the work he did for Walmart. I strongly suspect that other influencer get both money and gear, but I haven't seen any one of them going on record about that, beyond generic "We all know how this works" statements.
Another persistent rumour is that Sony gives resellers a better deal, which is likely why stores put Sony front and center.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.


Me neither, but as the kids left the nest and as my "needs" diminished, suddenly my modest pension that seemed like it would be so meagre when I was still working turned out to be quite adequate. So instead of buying the usual "necessities" of life I opted for feeding my addiction. And I must add my wife has no issue with this addiction, probably recognizing that there are much worse ones! 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s a good choice. Your repeated, floundering attempts to make your opinion appear correct through multiple goalpost moves and trite repetition, in the face of actual data to the contrary, had become pathetic. Your descent into puerile insults was unnecessary, but not unexpected.
> 
> You really should have quit while you were behind and spared yourself the embarrassment, as I suggested about 50 posts back in this thread. But as I predicted a couple of posts later, it has been mildly amusing to watch you flail about.


CR for the humour! I freely admit I probably shouldn't laugh.

Jack


----------



## JohnC (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.


In the photography industry I suspect that more often than not they have more than the pros.


----------



## HotPixels (Aug 31, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Every year when Sony does their financial report, they move the camera section to a different division. So it's impossible to infer how well it does year over year. The organizational musical chairs they are doing makes me think it is as profitable as their Vaio division was.
> 
> 
> Manny Ortiz said on his channel that Sony didn't give him free gear or money, but that they facilitated getting big jobs, like the work he did for Walmart. I strongly suspect that other influencer get both money and gear, but I haven't seen any one of them going on record about that, beyond generic "We all know how this works" statements.
> Another persistent rumour is that Sony gives resellers a better deal, which is likely why stores put Sony front and center.


Interesting point about how difficult it is to really discern the performance of the Sony camera division.

Also interesting what Manny Ortiz said. No doubt if Sony helps him get big jobs like Walmart, then that is far better and bigger compensation than free gear. There are many ways that a YouTuber can benefit from praising/recommending Sony. 

Sony can promote you on their website, Alpha Universe, citing your video and linking to it, which will greatly accelerate your views and how much people know about you. For YouTube, views/follows/likes are like ratings for TV shows. The higher you go the more money you make. Also Sony fans seems to have a greater presence in social media and be more active. This may in part be fueled by Sony promotion. But either way, if you want to get more popular on YouTube, one way is to review and praise Sony.

I know a few YTers have also remarked about how the Sony PR people just do a great job reaching out and maintaining the relationships. One time iJustine mentioned about the Sony schwag she received and was positively giddy about it. Now that's minor in terms of money, but in some cases that can help make an impression.

And then of course, if Sony can help some land big jobs, well, that is quite the compensation. 

As for retailers, no doubt that it's common to pay for product placement. A few years back at a conference where B&H was an exhibitor, one of the sales people mentioned that, at least at the time, they were able to buy Sony gear at half price. So all of the sales people used Sony. Now the sales people at B&H are great, and I would say definitely try their best to be impartial and offer great advice, but if you are owning and using the gear that definitely helps you recommend it.

So there are all sorts of levers to be pulled, and Sony has the cash to do so. They are very aggressive with their marketing.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 31, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do....


According to Ziprecruiter, in the USA the "Top Earning" pro photographers can earn around $55,000. Average salary is $39,376. These figures are lower than the average USA full time employee salary. 

It's funny in a way that people on forums continually make statements - that they represent as fact -that are incorrect, when we live in a world where information is right at our fingertips. It took me less than a minute to find out this info on my smartphone. Considering it takes almost no effort to find out information, why do people comtinually decide not to? Do they really think that the rest of us are either so stupid or so lazy that we won't try to find out the facts?


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 31, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> Interesting point about how difficult it is to really discern the performance of the Sony camera division.
> 
> Also interesting what Manny Ortiz said. No doubt if Sony helps him get big jobs like Walmart, then that is far better and bigger compensation than free gear. There are many ways that a YouTuber can benefit from praising/recommending Sony.
> 
> ...


Many of the reasons that I will never buy Sony again. And, in my opinion, they care more about marketing than making quality cameras. The fact that there is a class action suit in NY state claining that their shutters in the A7 III often fail between 10,000 and 50,000 actuations, falling far below the stated life expectancy of 200,000 actuations, also reinforces my belief that Sony takes a lot of shortcuts when it comes to making reliable cameras. Their sub-par dust removal and weather sealing in the past are also signs of the same.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 31, 2021)

I think if Apple built cameras, the would tell us to buy a new one every year. The iCamera 12 will be sooooo outdated, when the iCamera 13 comes out. Each new camera will have much deeper pixels.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> [..]I know a few YTers have also remarked about how the Sony PR people just do a great job reaching out and maintaining the relationships. One time iJustine mentioned about the Sony schwag she received and was positively giddy about it. Now that's minor in terms of money, but in some cases that can help make an impression.[..]


That's something Gerald Undone mentioned as well, Sony PR is a well oiled machine for getting gear on your desk, under embargo, to enable you to make a decent review in that time. He specifically mentioned that Sony takes care of virtually all the paperwork and red tape. Imagine getting hit with import duty for your review loaner or having to spend a day on the phone to get it shipped back at their cost. A reviewer might just say "No, hard pass" if your PR department is hard to deal with.
So Gerald has a lot of Sony content, not just because it gets many clicks, but also because Sony is easy to deal with.

But the overall behaviour of the Sony internet army combined with the flood of reviews after an embargo ends have given me a knee-jerk dislike for Sony cameras.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I think if Apple built cameras, the would tell us to buy a new one every year. The iCamera 12 will be sooooo outdated, when the iCamera 13 comes out. Each new camera will have much deeper pixels.


No, the 13 Pro Ultra is the best! The green cast to the pictures is just the colour of your dollars flowing into Apples pockets


----------



## Billybob (Aug 31, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> That's something Gerald Undone mentioned as well, Sony PR is a well oiled machine for getting gear on your desk, under embargo, to enable you to make a decent review in that time. He specifically mentioned that Sony takes care of virtually all the paperwork and red tape. Imagine getting hit with import duty for your review loaner or having to spend a day on the phone to get it shipped back at their cost. A reviewer might just say "No, hard pass" if your PR department is hard to deal with.
> So Gerald has a lot of Sony content, not just because it gets many clicks, but also because Sony is easy to deal with.
> 
> But the overall behaviour of the Sony internet army combined with the flood of reviews after an embargo ends have given me a knee-jerk dislike for Sony cameras.


This is rather curious. So a company that employs smart and sophisticated marketing is to be despised for employing good business practices? Do you have problems with Canon and Nikon providing free loaners to Pros at major sporting events? Frankly, I wish all companies would employ these practices. Sony makes damn good gear as does Canon and Nikon. If the cameras were bad, then the attempts to curry favor with influencers would backfire when YTubers get frustrating with cameras that just don't perform on par with the competition (hint: Nikon, this comment is for you). Maybe if that class action lawsuit is successful, I'll change my opinion, but I'm not seeing a lot of reports of Sony cameras failing or being more unreliable than other brands despite their lesser level of weather sealing. 

Criticize the brand for poor performance or lack of desired features, but disliking a brand for trying to get information out to the public just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> This is rather curious. So a company that employs smart and sophisticated marketing is to be despised for employing good business practices? Do you have problems with Canon and Nikon providing free loaners to Pros at major sporting events? Frankly, I wish all companies would employ these practices. Sony makes damn good gear as does Canon and Nikon. If the cameras were bad, then the attempts to curry favor with influencers would backfire when YTubers get frustrating with cameras that just don't perform on par with the competition (hint: Nikon, this comment is for you). Maybe if that class action lawsuit is successful, I'll change my opinion, but I'm not seeing a lot of reports of Sony cameras failing or being more unreliable than other brands despite their lesser level of weather sealing.
> 
> Criticize the brand for poor performance or lack of desired features, but disliking a brand for trying to get information out to the public just doesn't make sense to me.


It's not the publicity wave itself that annoys me, it's what comes after it: the Sony trolls ruining most of the internet with their vile behaviour. CanonRumors is a nice quiet place to wait that out, but don't go near dpreview, fredmiranda or other places.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It's not the publicity wave itself that annoys me, it's what comes after it: the Sony trolls ruining most of the internet with their vile behaviour. CanonRumors is a nice quiet place to wait that out, but don't go near dpreview, fredmiranda or other places.


Isn't it just human behaviour to take shots at the top whatever, especially in sports, and anonymity helps shield the pests from public shaming although Neuro tries hard. Observe carefully in any forum and you learn a lot about psychology, especially egos and don't be fooled, CR has had its share of unbecoming behaviour from time to time. For true friendly calm, visit the bird thread. 

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Me neither, but as the kids left the nest and as my "needs" diminished, suddenly my modest pension that seemed like it would be so meagre when I was still working turned out to be quite adequate. So instead of buying the usual "necessities" of life I opted for feeding my addiction. And I must add my wife has no issue with this addiction, probably recognizing that there are much worse ones!
> 
> Jack


My aunt told me that when she retired, her take-home pay nearly doubled. For most of us it is less extreme. Still what people often don’t realize is that in the US when you quit having earned income, you no longer are paying payroll or self-employment taxes. And when you quit saving for retirement, those payments are not going out. For middle income folks, that can be like a 20% or 30% raise if the income stays about the same. When you are no longer supporting kids or elderly parents, needs can go down very fast.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My aunt told me that when she retired, her take-home pay nearly doubled. For most of us it is less extreme. Still what people often don’t realize is that in the US when you quit having earned income, you no longer are paying payroll or self-employment taxes. And when you quit saving for retirement, those payments are not going out. For middle income folks, that can be like a 20% or 30% raise if the income stays about the same. When you are no longer supporting kids or elderly parents, needs can go down very fast.


In our present unnecessary Canadian election the politicians are promising to spend billions more after already digging the biggest hole since WW2 so maybe in time we won't have any pensions.

I think it's time CR gave us some more substantial rumours so we don't have to stray so far off topic! 

Jack


----------



## Billybob (Aug 31, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Isn't it just human behaviour to take shots at the top whatever, especially in sports, and anonymity helps shield the pests from public shaming although Neuro tries hard. Observe carefully in any forum and you learn a lot about psychology, especially egos and don't be fooled, CR has had its share of unbecoming behaviour from time to time. For true friendly calm, visit the bird thread.
> 
> Jack


I'll second that. The bird forums are a very nice, calm place in which to hang out. I also agree with your more recent comment. The debates in this thread have gotten more than stale. Definitely, "much ado about nothing".


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I don’t know any photographers who use Sony cameras. I know of only one other photographer who shoots Canon. He is the friend to whom I gave my S95 and S120. All of the other photographers have Nikon DSLRs, both amateur and pro.
> 
> So common sense tells us that we can conclude market share from that.


 Similar situation here (Colorado, USA). Judging from what I see around me Nikon owns 80% of the market.

That may even be true--locally. I don't know; I generally see global (or sometimes Japan only) numbers posted here. 

But that's the whole point; I _cannot_ judge global numbers from what I see around me; I can't even judge my city's numbers, much less the state, much less the USA.

And anyone who does so anyway is a window-licking fool.


----------



## John Wilde (Aug 31, 2021)

(Bart Simpson voice)

Is it here yet?
Is it here yet?
Is it here yet?
Is it here yet?


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 31, 2021)

Billybob said:


> This is rather curious. So a company that employs smart and sophisticated marketing is to be despised for employing good business practices? Do you have problems with Canon and Nikon providing free loaners to Pros at major sporting events? Frankly, I wish all companies would employ these practices. Sony makes damn good gear as does Canon and Nikon. If the cameras were bad, then the attempts to curry favor with influencers would backfire when YTubers get frustrating with cameras that just don't perform on par with the competition (hint: Nikon, this comment is for you). Maybe if that class action lawsuit is successful, I'll change my opinion, but I'm not seeing a lot of reports of Sony cameras failing or being more unreliable than other brands despite their lesser level of weather sealing.
> 
> Criticize the brand for poor performance or lack of desired features, but disliking a brand for trying to get information out to the public just doesn't make sense to me.


I have no problem with smart and sophisticated marketing. I do have a problem with fake reviews and the well organized troll network that Sony has. Yes, I have no idea if Sony is involved in any way, but it is odd that there seems to be no equivalent Nikon troll or Canon troll network, immediately rushing out video reviews and other online content - often using the exact same phrasing and text. That aside, having owned (briefly) both the A7 and the A7 II, they were definitely poor performers despite their industry leading specs. Both cameras badly underexposed by a stop or more. The viewfinders (which I'm sure had class leading specs) were dark and below par compared to the competition. The ergonomics (as many have noted) were very poor, in my opinion. 

I think that Sony's problems with sensor dust have been widely documented. Some well respected photographers have made some interesting observations. Ming Thein, in his review of the Sony A7 II says: "

I’ve already got stubborn dust spots on mine that cannot be dislodged with blower or shaker. It will have to be wet cleaned, but the sensor suspension mechanism is delicate and this makes me very nervous. Note: in four years of multiple Olympus bodies and over 100,000 images plus lens changes with no heed for ambient dust, I’ve _never_ had to wet clean a sensor. Or even use a blower, for that matter.
From Graham Lloyd's blog:

Today, I used Sony’s clean sensor feature, which vibrates like heck for a second or so, then requires you to turn off the camera. Of all the visible dust, not a single speck budged in spite of doing so 10 times. This is not stuck-on dust as dabbing with a micro fiber cloth proves.

Other camera vendors use ultrasonic cleaning, and that works pretty well. Not Sony—it’s a total joke, a placebo checklist useless feature. Shame on Sony for such worthless tech.

Those are older reviews, but if you think that the problem has now been solved. Photoblogger says this in an article from Aug. 2, 2021: 

There are lots of fantastic things about Sony cameras. But one of the biggest flaws they all have is build quality. Do they work in the rain? Sure. Do they get dusty? Oh yeah. Unfortunately, it’s a problem with lots of Sony cameras. We just got done reviewing a few lenses on Sony bodies, and we ran into lots of dust issues. And guess what? Those issues seldom happen with other camera systems.

And…

This, of course, has lead our team to believe that there’s an inherent fault with the mount. This hasn’t happened with Canon, Panasonic, Leica, or Nikon cameras when using weather-sealed lenses.

If I thought Sony cameras were made as well as Canon or Olympus (the two brands I have used for years) I would be glad to say so, even if I have a dislike for their trolling activity. But I don't believe they even come particularly close when it comes to quality.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I have no problem with smart and sophisticated marketing. I do have a problem with fake reviews and the well organized troll network that Sony has.
> 
> <snip>


By the sound of it their marketing (including the specs that leave out key details, and the trolls) exists to _compensate_ for a factually inferior product.

I generally don't trust companies that put a _huge_ emphasis on marketing; obviously some is necessary. If you're having to hire trolls, you have something to hide.

Realtors [at least in the US] tend to put their own picture into their ads; I could never understand why but it always struck me as a bit cheesy.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2021)

Genuine question: what is the evidence for paid Sony trolls claimed by various posters?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> I think it's time CR gave us some more substantial rumours so we don't have to stray so far off topic!
> 
> Jack


Even my thoughts, questions, and desires related to new equipment are off-topic here. I’m discussing my next Mac and wondering whether I would use a medium format Fuji enough to buy one. (I realize the thing they have in common is how much of an upgrade is needed to be worth the trouble and thousands of dollars.)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Genuine question: what is the evidence for paid Sony trolls claimed by various posters?


None


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> But that's the whole point; I _cannot_ judge global numbers from what I see around me; I can't even judge my city's numbers, much less the state, much less the USA.


Yeah, but if you followed a few people from a few different places on Instagram, then you’d _totally_ know, with pinpoint accuracy, the current state of the ILC market.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Genuine question: what is the evidence for paid Sony trolls claimed by various posters?


Obviously none of us will have direct evidence of the Sony trolls being paid. And of course, it could just be a case of groupthink, where a trend gets started. But there is still an army of Sony trolls out there.

But here is what I have observed. There is a lot of message discipline among the troll army. They tend to repeat the same talking points in the same way. 

I am a political junkie and it is known that good political campaigns conduct their messaging on the opponent in a certain way. First, stay on message and have all messengers repeat the same thing. Second, find something to spin in a negative way on the opponent, even if it is really a positive. The funny example was given by LBJ who said if he could walk on water, his opponents would criticize him for not being able to swim. 

I saw an example of this with the 1DX III launch. It was weird, because in several different forums different Sony trolls criticized the 1DXIII for not being able to do 6K RAW video. Now it was an odd point, because at the time no other camera could do what this one could with RAW video, up to 5.5K. No Sony could touch it. But you had all sorts of trolls trying to make it seem like there was this big deficiency with the 1DX III. Now they quieted down on that as many told them that Sony couldn't even do 5.5K RAW, or any internal RAW for that matter. 

But we see this all of the time with the Sony trolls. So we don't know if they are paid, but the army of Sony trolls exists, and it swarms with efficiency and message discipline.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 1, 2021)

BTW, speaking of the army of Sony trolls...get ready for the swarm when the R3 is released. You will read the very predictable:
1) It's too big/heavy. 
2) Costs too much 
3) Only 24 MP


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> BTW, speaking of the army of Sony trolls...get ready for the swarm when the R3 is released. You will read the very predictable:
> 1) It's too big/heavy.
> 2) Costs too much
> 3) Only 24 MP


4) no 8K video
5) works natively only with the limited RF lens selection
6) only 24 MP
7) has mismatched card slots
8) probably has poor DR because it’s a Canon
9) doesn’t make toast
10) only 24 MP

Just rounding out the list for you.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 4) no 8K video
> 5) works natively only with the limited RF lens selection
> 6) only 24 MP
> 7) has mismatched card slots
> ...


You forgot to mention "only 24 MP, so I'm gonna get me a Sony."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> You forgot to mention "only 24 MP, so I'm gonna get me a Sony."


I also forgot to mention, “Only 24 MP, so no one will buy it and Canon is d00med.”


----------



## canonmike (Sep 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My aunt told me that when she retired, her take-home pay nearly doubled. For most of us it is less extreme. Still what people often don’t realize is that in the US when you quit having earned income, you no longer are paying payroll or self-employment taxes. And when you quit saving for retirement, those payments are not going out. For middle income folks, that can be like a 20% or 30% raise if the income stays about the same. When you are no longer supporting kids or elderly parents, needs can go down very fast.


I agree with you except on one level, that being the ridiculous ever increasing health care costs in retirement, which are mostly beyond ones control. This one item often puts a damper on a person's retirement income but is something one cannot be caught without. Here in the states, Medicare coverage is not enough. Two years ago, I had an arterial blockage, angioplasty surgery and a stent implanted after blockage was removed. I was only in the hospital for one night and received a bill close to $60k. In my case, it was/is easier to pay the outrageous monthly health ins premiums than it would have been to come up with the money to pay that bill. Medicare and our private ins supplement paid the entire bill. I will spare shocking you with what our annual health ins outlay is but just let me say that it's more than enough to purchase two R5 bodies and still have a couple thousand left over to buy a nice L lens.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 1, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I agree with you except on one level, that being the ridiculous ever increasing health care costs in retirement, which are mostly beyond ones control.


My aunt was a teacher, so she has good health coverage through the state, at least for now. My Medicare supplement is subsidized by my former employer, so I pay a small premium in addition to the Medicare B premium. Since the Medicare B premium magically disappears from my Social Security before I see it, I don’t even think about it. I also used to have a Medicare D premium, but this year that is included at no extra cost in my former employer’s plan. Drug copays are also much less, especially since there is no doughnut hole in this plan. So that is about a $2,000/year raise in effect. Other than prescriptions, I rarely have any copays. I don’t have any dental coverage. So, yes, in the US, health care and insurance costs are all over the map for people with otherwise similar circumstances.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> Obviously none of us will have direct evidence of the Sony trolls being paid. And of course, it could just be a case of groupthink, where a trend gets started. But there is still an army of Sony trolls out there.
> 
> But here is what I have observed. There is a lot of message discipline among the troll army. They tend to repeat the same talking points in the same way.
> 
> ...


Thanks. So, there is no evidence that Sony pays trolls and it is another conspiracy theory.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Thanks. So, there is no evidence that Sony pays trolls and it is another conspiracy theory.



There is, however, plenty of evidence that the trolls coordinate with each other on talking points. (Whether that's at Sony's behest or not cannot be proven from what is out in public today, but it's pretty doggone likely IMHO; is there an alternative explanation?)


----------



## GoldWing (Sep 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Dang. Wasn't it you, not too awful long ago, who proclaimed that sports photog professionals don't need more than 20mp? That Canon was ignoring you?


I never said that


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> There is, however, plenty of evidence that the trolls coordinate with each other on talking points. (Whether that's at Sony's behest or not cannot be proven from what is out in public today, but it's pretty doggone likely IMHO; is there an alternative explanation?)


I asked the question whether there is direct evidence, as has been categorically stated by several, that Sony pays trolls to trash Canon. The answers have been “obviously“ no direct evidence and just conspiracy theory comments like yours. Fanatics from QAnon to anti-vaxxers to political supporters to racists etc are all over the web, and individuals feed off each other, repeating claims without being paid. Memes spread by diffusion. I would not dispute in some cases there is central organisation to get things going and feed. Based on your argument, there may well be some who believe you and others are being paid by Canon to promote the claims that there are paid Sony trolls.


----------



## tron (Sep 1, 2021)

Fortunately a 24Mpixel will save my wallet which had a recent blow with the RF 85mm 1.2L 

P.S I wonder if the fact that I will not get it if it is 24Mpixel makes me a troll too 

P.S.2 But a R5II (or similar) camera with the body and battery of R3 (and zero delays) would make me buy it!


----------



## Joules (Sep 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I asked the question whether there is direct evidence, as has been categorically stated by several, that Sony pays trolls to trash Canon. The answers have been “obviously“ no direct evidence and just conspiracy theory comments like yours. Fanatics from QAnon to anti-vaxxers to political supporters to racists etc are all over the web, and individuals feed off each other, repeating claims without being paid. Memes spread by diffusion. I would not dispute in some cases there is central organisation to get things going and feed. Based on your argument, there may well be some who believe you and are being paid by Canon to promote the claims that there are paid Sony trolls.


Not to mention Canon DID lack DR, IBIS, eye AF and a few smaller features at the time were Sony discussions were much more frequent on this forum.

The importance of these features may have been overstated by a lot of Sony supporters. But I also feel like many who originally dismissed them are much more keen on these features, now that they have had first hand experience with it (and Canon actually has surpassed Sony, making the features even more useful).

The sentiment that Canon's doom was just around the corner may be a dead meme (for once, literally) by now, but it started out as sincere and that bit did always seem annoying to me. I don't know if Sony is to blame for it themselves, but there was a weird culture around their cameras.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

Joules said:


> Not to mention Canon DID lack DR, IBIS, eye AF and a few smaller features at the time were Sony discussions were much more frequent on this forum.
> 
> The importance of these features may have been overstated by a lot of Sony supporters. But I also feel like many who originally dismissed them are much more keen on these features, now that they have had first hand experience with it (and Canon actually has surpassed Sony, making the features even more useful).
> 
> The sentiment that Canon's doom was just around the corner may be a dead meme (for once, literally) by now, but it started out as sincere and that bit did always seem annoying to me. I don't know if Sony is to blame for it themselves, but there was a weird culture around their cameras.


And Sony DR, IBIS and eyeAF were trashed here. No doubt by the many paid Canon trolls in CR, coordinated by their leader CanonFanBoy. Interestingly, looking at the frequency of posting on Fredmiranda forums, you can see that Sony is by far the most frequent, with Canon far behind and Nikon a distant third. There are indeed many more active Sony supporters in net forums.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 4) no 8K video
> 5) works natively only with the limited RF lens selection
> 6) only 24 MP
> 7) has mismatched card slots
> ...


11) Doesn't make Coffee
12) Cannot spot-weld under water


----------



## kaihp (Sep 1, 2021)

On a more serious level (since the rumors are slow) - what should we expect in therms of CFexpress write performance?

From articles/tests available online (that I for whatever reason can't seem to find right now), it looks like that the R5 is limited to approx 300MB/sec, whereas there are many CFe cards that can do way more than that.

What about the list of lenses that supports the full 30fps?

Does all the RF lenses support the full 12fps of the R5?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9) doesn’t make toast


For making toast you need the R5, because it becomes very hot. Should work well for making toast.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> 11) Doesn't make Coffee
> 12) Cannot spot-weld under water


13) Cannot detect neutrinos


----------



## Billybob (Sep 1, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> Obviously none of us will have direct evidence of the Sony trolls being paid. And of course, it could just be a case of groupthink, where a trend gets started. But there is still an army of Sony trolls out there.
> 
> But here is what I have observed. There is a lot of message discipline among the troll army. They tend to repeat the same talking points in the same way.
> 
> ...


I think perhaps we--myself included--spend too much time on the InterWebs. 

Frankly, what "Sony Trolls" (and, yes, I was attacked by Sony fanatics for giving an honest opinion about Sony's failure to implement compressed RAW in its cameras even when my overall entry was quite positive about a Sony camera) think about a 1DX 3 (or an R3) is going to have 0 impact on any photographer who might be in the market for such a camera.

In short, Sony owned full-frame mirrorless for years. They took the leap and were greatly rewarded for releasing innovative and high-performing cameras. Canon and Nikon came in late with half-baked efforts and took some market share from Sony. However, shortly thereafter, Canon introduced the R5, a true tour de force. Sony has been hemorrhaging market share ever since. With the soon-to-be released R3 and Z9--assuming these cameras live up to expectations--Sony will lose even more market share. It will then be truly a 3-horse contest, and that's a good thing for photography.

Meanwhile, please release some interesting rumors, so that we can stop rehashing dead and well-beatened arguments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My aunt told me that when she retired, her take-home pay nearly doubled. For most of us it is less extreme. Still what people often don’t realize is that in the US when you quit having earned income, you no longer are paying payroll or self-employment taxes. And when you quit saving for retirement, those payments are not going out. For middle income folks, that can be like a 20% or 30% raise if the income stays about the same. When you are no longer supporting kids or elderly parents, needs can go down very fast.


Yeah – between being in a high tax bracket and after contributions to retirement and college savings plans, I get about 55% of my gross income. I've given a bit of thought to how that will change in retirement (still a good ways from that); my financial planner has given it more than a bit of thought, fortunately.



canonmike said:


> I agree with you except on one level, that being the ridiculous ever increasing health care costs in retirement, which are mostly beyond ones control.


Those costs can be pretty out of control for those in the workforce, as well. Most employers subsidize healthcare premiums at either 80% or 90%, and even with those subsidies the cost of premiums can be high, then there are often deductibles and co-insurance to be paid. I'm fortunate to have a zero-deductible plan with my premiums fully paid, so my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses are minuscule, but my employer is paying nearly $6K per month for that family coverage.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 1, 2021)

What I like about Sony is that they have not "crippled" their cameras to leave room for improvement. For a while it seemed that they wanted to put any innogvation into their latest cameras to give Canon a hard time. Canon sometimes seems to have new innovations, but saves them for a few cameras later. That is something I always hated about Canon.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What I like about Sony is that they have not "crippled" their cameras to leave room for improvement. For a while it seemed that they wanted to put any innogvation into their latest cameras to give Canon a hard time. Canon sometimes seems to have new innovations, but saves them for a few cameras later. That is something I always hated about Canon.


This is in some ways debatable but in others, very true and that's why there was such shock over the R5, which finally ticked my boxes. It was repeatedly stated by many that a "pro" camera couldn't have a flip-out screen etc. For me my bit of disgust at Canon came with there being zero value added after the fact features with the 1DX2 - one early bug fix and that was it. Of course that's been amplified by how they are now catering to the R5, so I have mixed emotions. Have they changed their philosophy?

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What I like about Sony is that they have not "crippled" their cameras to leave room for improvement. For a while it seemed that they wanted to put any innogvation into their latest cameras to give Canon a hard time. Canon sometimes seems to have new innovations, but saves them for a few cameras later. That is something I always hated about Canon.


This isn’t strictly true. Sony do leave or dumb down features in the cheaper models. An example that comes to mind is the EVF in the A7II. Can’t remember if this continued into the A7III.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Just reinforcing the point that enthusiasts don't have the money to spend like professionals do. I never had the money to buy a new camera as an enthusiast.


You are completely out of touch. Again, you conflate your personal experience to be identical to that of everyone else in the world. Enthusiasts are the financial base of all these camera companies. All. of. them.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 3, 2021)

There are more than 50 million millionaires in the world. If 1% of them are interested in photography, that's a lot of people that have a high budget for their hobby.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 3, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> This is in some ways debatable but in others, very true and that's why there was such shock over the R5, which finally ticked my boxes. It was repeatedly stated by many that a "pro" camera couldn't have a flip-out screen etc. For me my bit of disgust at Canon came with there being zero value added after the fact features with the 1DX2 - one early bug fix and that was it. Of course that's been amplified by how they are now catering to the R5, so I have mixed emotions. Have they changed their philosophy?
> 
> Jack


Concur with some of your commentary, Jack. Even the Canon naysayers romping in Sonyland and other realms, at least the ones in touch with reality, agree that the R5/R6s are very capable cameras. Even Hugh, with TBM&E almost thinks they're good cameras and that's really saying something, for him to go out on that limb. As to Canon's ongoing support for the R5, I think they licked their wounds after being battered around by the defection to Sony talk, real and imagined and came out deciding they would show everyone they could play hardball with the rest and have, somewhat sacrificing any support for the 1Dx2. Just bad timing, even with the 1Dxiii release, a stop gap measure imo to keep their pros happy while they shifted efforts to the R series. Noting that you are a current R5 and 1Dx2 user, I'd be interested in hearing YOUR thoughts and insight about upcoming R3 release.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I also forgot to mention, “Only 24 MP, so no one will buy it and Canon is d00med.”


And you forgot the naval option: "I'll jump ship".


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 3, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Concur with some of your commentary, Jack. Even the Canon naysayers romping in Sonyland and other realms, at least the ones in touch with reality, agree that the R5/R6s are very capable cameras. Even Hugh, with TBM&E almost thinks they're good cameras and that's really saying something, for him to go out on that limb. As to Canon's ongoing support for the R5, I think they licked their wounds after being battered around by the defection to Sony talk, real and imagined and came out deciding they would show everyone they could play hardball with the rest and have, somewhat sacrificing any support for the 1Dx2. Just bad timing, even with the 1Dxiii release, a stop gap measure imo to keep their pros happy while they shifted efforts to the R series. Noting that you are a current R5 and 1Dx2 user, I'd be interested in hearing YOUR thoughts and insight about upcoming R3 release.


I agree with your comments. I sold my 1DX2 and only sense a slight loss of AF capability with spot AF (major in the odd circumstance - I was photographing an auto spot paint repair where the final sanding had cut throw to the grey primer and it was ever so visible but a soft dominantly horizontal transition and AF was impossible until I went to portrait orientation). Others have noted the odd AF, more general issue but compare that to the superb animal eye AF with full coverage and I have no desire to have the 1DX2. The R3, fortunately for me, does not have enough resolution, so no GAS, and it was the same with the 1DX3. The only R3 feature my R5 doesn't have that I miss is the size for use with my 400 DO but for other lenses I don't really miss the size.

Grab the R5 and it seems all my fingers fit. In action for AF-ON use etc., my hand must slide down a little and and one finger is below in thin air. I never gripped the 1DX2 in portrait orientation so I don't miss the grip for that because I'm mostly shooting wildlife.

Funny, as others have said, when I heard 24 MP I sighed in relief.  Oh, and I have never had a thought of jumping ship - Canon is fine by me.

Jack


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> It does seem really drawn out. Also, what I find odd is that we haven't seen a solid leak on the outstanding issues yet. Nothing from Nokishita. I don't see EXIF data from the olympics as being enough to tell me that the camera is 24mp (although it very well may be) as this could represent a crop mode. It could actually have multiple crop modes for all we know. With that being said, I need a fast camera. The R5 just doesn't cut it for moving objects for me. Yeah, once I get something locked, it's great, but I've lost several shots because I couldn't get a lock and others because I couldn't get enough shutter without destroying the image with high ISO noise. In the DSLR world I was more than happy shooting my 1DX II @ 20mp instead of the 36 on the 5D IV for the same reason (as I'm sure many other wildlife photographers were) so if it's 24, I'll be fine. I still have my R5 for extreme cropping.



Where can I get one of those 36MP 5D Mark IV bodies? Mine is only 30MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> What makes you think Canon's official sports photography flagship R1 will be higher mp ?



Because the R3 is the official sports model? The R1 looks more and more like it will be a 1Ds type camera. Higher resolution but not as fast for non-sports shooters who do studio/fashion/portrait work.


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Because the R3 is the official sports model? The R1 looks more and more like it will be a 1Ds type camera. Higher resolution but not as fast for non-sports shooters who do studio/fashion/portrait work.


Canon have repeatedly stated that the R3 is _not_ their flagship replacement for the 1DXiii which _is _their Flagship model and _is_ a sports focused body.
Where do you get this idea that the R1 will be anything other than a flagship pro sports replacement for the 1DXiii ?
There's a rumoured high mp version of the R5 which would make a lot more sense and it would fit in well with what Canon has done previously with their DSLRs :

1DX line - low mp fast action high fps aimed at sports pros
5Div 30mp - medium fps aimed at all round pros
5Ds & 5Dsr 50mp - low fps high resolution aimed at landscape , etc.
Mirrorless

R3 & R1 - low mp fast action high fps aimed at sports pros
R5 45mp - medium fps aimed at all round pros
R5s 80mp? - low fps high resolution aimed at landscape , etc.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> Where do you get this idea that the R1 will be anything other than a flagship pro sports replacement for the 1DXiii ?



From Canon's history.

Before the 1D X was introduced in 2012 for over a decade there were both the APS-H lower resolution fast sports 1D series and the FF higher resolution slower 1Ds series. The 1Ds models ran about $2K more than the 1D sports models.

When Canon introduced the 1D X in 2012 they claimed to be combining the two lines.

But at the same time they upgraded the 5-Series from a high resolution FF camera with a dismal consumer grade AF system to a high resolution FF camera with the same AF system as the 1D X, better build quality and weather resistance, etc. It became a 1-series body in all but name and integrated grip with bigger battery. A LOT of the 1Ds shooters transitioned to the 5D-series, but a LOT more of other folks also bought 5D Mark III/IV bodies, particularly for shooting primarily stills (Many folks bought 5D II bodies for video), than bought 5D and 5D Mark II bodies.

At the time Canon apparently rightly reasoned that they could produce 5D Mark III bodies (and the 5D Mark IV bodies that followed in 2016) at enough of a lower cost compared to a 1-Series body with the same sensor and performance to sell them at a similar or even slightly lower profit and sell so many more of them that they would have higher net profits than if they had continued making their highest resolution bodies in a 1-series enclosure.

The world has changed since 2012 in significant ways. The types of buyers who are now buying the most expensive cameras are not the same. 

Canon apparently has reasoned that they can make more money selling a body with high resolution in a 1-series enclosure than they can selling an equally capable body in a 5-series enclosure. 

The difference seems to be that with fewer and fewer people making a good enough living doing full time photography to update to the latest body every time it comes out, and with fewer and fewer agencies with legions of staff photographers to outfit, the buyers of such cameras are now rich enthusiasts who would be more likely to pay $8K for a body with a "1" in the name because it is the "top of the line" than to pay $4K for a body with the same image quality performance in a 5-series type body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

entoman said:


> unfocused - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say above, with one exception:
> 
> I don't think there's any doubt that there *will* be an R1, because Canon have stated several times that the R3 is not their top of range model. The 1DXiii will retain that position after the R3 is launched, although 1Dx series owners will gradually switch over to R3 or R1.
> 
> ...



33MP only works for 8K if the sensor is 16:9 instead of 3:2. You need 39MP in a 3:2 sensor to do DCP 8K after cropping the aspect ratio to 16:9 at full width.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

entoman said:


> Thanks for the well thought out list, I think you're at least 50% correct.
> My guess (my preferences in blue) would be:
> 
> More than 33MP (for 8K), less than 50MP. Most likely 45MP like the R5.
> ...



The R1 ain't gonna' be a wildlife camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

degos said:


> So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.
> 
> Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?



Maybe it's a case of the shift in the market. 

Fifteen years ago I never saw a white lens at a youth sports event or high school game (unless a PJ from a paper shooting Canon was there - my hometown paper was a Nikon shop). Now they're everywhere.

The market for f/2.8 zooms back then was largely limited to full time working pros, many of them shooting sports were younger males who didn't mind heavy lenses.

Now the few working pros left are many of the same men who are now 40 years older and DO mind heavy lenses. The rest are weekend warriors and "soccer moms" who don't want heavy lenses in 2021.

Just last week at a HS football game a (mostly retired) grizzled old-timer looked at me, laughed, and said, "I haven't carried three bodies at the same time in at least ten years." (I typically carry two, but I'm playing with a Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sport in addition to my normal setup). Back in the day, he'd have been on the sideline of major college football with a 400/2.8, a 70-200/2.8, and a wider lens on that third body.


----------



## AEWest (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> Canon have repeatedly stated that the R3 is _not_ their flagship replacement for the 1DXiii which _is _their Flagship model and _is_ a sports focused body.
> Where do you get this idea that the R1 will be anything other than a flagship pro sports replacement for the 1DXiii ?
> There's a rumoured high mp version of the R5 which would make a lot more sense and it would fit in well with what Canon has done previously with their DSLRs :
> 
> ...


You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.

Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.
> 
> Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.


Global shutter, quad-pixel AF and yes, the R3 may be a one-off like the EOS 3 (film).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.
> 
> Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.


Good question but we don't have an answer yet. Interesting times.

Jack


----------



## JohnC (Sep 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.
> 
> Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.


This is a question I have as well.


----------



## Chig (Sep 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> You keep saying that both the R1 and R3 will be low MP sports cameras. Yet you never explain why Canon would have two similar pro body cameras competing with each other for the same target market.
> 
> Why would Canon want to compete with itself? In my view, the only way the R1 could be a low mp sports camera is if they discontinue the R3.


I think the R3 is a test bed for the R1 and only the most reliable features (and most popular with sports pros) will make it into the R1
They did the same thing with the film cameras : the eos 3 tested new features like the eye controlled focus and 45 point AF system before they launched their eos 1v Pro sports body and the eye controlled af didn't make the cut but the 45 point AF did.
The eos 3 was the same shape and layout but a bit plastically vs the eos 1v was magnesium bodied and full on pro build


----------



## AEWest (Sep 4, 2021)

Chig said:


> I think the R3 is a test bed for the R1 and only the most reliable features (and most popular with sports pros) will make it into the R1
> They did the same thing with the film cameras : the eos 3 tested new features like the eye controlled focus and 45 point AF system before they launched their eos 1v Pro sports body and the eye controlled af didn't make the cut but the 45 point AF did.
> The eos 3 was the same shape and layout but a bit plastically vs the eos 1v was magnesium bodied and full on pro build


Okay. But the R3 will have a pro build. So I can't see there being enough daylight between a low mp R1 and an R3 in terms of features to warrant a large price difference. Not to mention the problem of self competition.
Therefore, the low mp R1 would only make sense to me if the R3 were discontinued. 
Oh, and I agree with Jared Polin in his most recent video - the R3 is Canon's new flagship, not the 1DX3.


----------



## Chig (Sep 4, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Okay. But the R3 will have a pro build. So I can't see there being enough daylight between a low mp R1 and an R3 in terms of features to warrant a large price difference. Not to mention the problem of self competition.
> Therefore, the low mp R1 would only make sense to me if the R3 were discontinued.
> Oh, and I agree with Jared Polin in his most recent video - the R3 is Canon's new flagship, not the 1DX3.


Which is why the R1 is probably 2 or 3 years away (think Paris 2024) and the R3 is the de facto flagship until then while Canon develop the R1 which I suggest might be

similar mp but freakish dynamic range and low light capability ?
even faster fps say 40-50 ?
global shutter ?
quad pixel AF ?
pass through handle grip ?
twin processors but next generation arm chips similar to apple's new laptop M series ?
twin CF Express card slots or maybe no cards at all just wireless transfer ?
apps on the touch screen including 3rd party ones ?
a sim card ?
fully waterproof IP67 ?
AF acquisition better than any DSLR ?
all cross type sensor autofocusing points ?
automatic exposure compensation based on the object that is being tracked colouration (e.g. for a bird whether it's very pale or very dark or somewhere in between) rather than exposing for the overall image ?
Flash sync speed of 1/1000th of a second or higher ?
Is that enough differentiation to justify a higher price do you think ?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2021)

Chig said:


> The eos 3 was the same shape and layout but a bit plastically vs the eos 1v was magnesium bodied and full on pro build


The EOS 1 and 1n were both plastic like the 1998 EOS 3, but well finished. The 1v introduced in 2000 was mag alloy and was a result of Canon accepting that the customer wanted a metal body in a top end camera despite the fact that the plastic used by Canon was just as good in reality. (Nikon had continued to use metal). So I wouldn’t read too much into the EOS 3 being plastic and the 1v being mag alloy, it was just how Canon were working at the time. ( And something I personally didn’t like).


----------



## AEWest (Sep 4, 2021)

Chig said:


> Which is why the R1 is probably 2 or 3 years away (think Paris 2024) and the R3 is the de facto flagship until then while Canon develop the R1 which I suggest might be
> 
> similar mp but freakish dynamic range and low light capability ?
> even faster fps say 40-50 ?
> ...


I think many of those features are possible but in a high mp camera. Except 40-50 fps. At that point you're just shooting video. Many of these features such as high flash sync, dynamic range speed are better suited to a high mp studio and landscape camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Every year when Sony does their financial report, they move the camera section to a different division. So it's impossible to infer how well it does year over year. The organizational musical chairs they are doing makes me think it is as profitable as their Vaio division was.
> 
> 
> Manny Ortiz said on his channel that Sony didn't give him free gear or money, but that they facilitated getting big jobs, like the work he did for Walmart. I strongly suspect that other influencer get both money and gear, but I haven't seen any one of them going on record about that, beyond generic "We all know how this works" statements.
> Another persistent rumour is that Sony gives resellers a better deal, which is likely why stores put Sony front and center.








Sony Brand Ambassador Salaries


Average salaries for Sony Brand Ambassador: $41,629. Sony salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by Sony employees.




www.glassdoor.com


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Genuine question: what is the evidence for paid Sony trolls claimed by various posters?








Sony Brand Ambassador Salaries


Average salaries for Sony Brand Ambassador: $41,629. Sony salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by Sony employees.




www.glassdoor.com





On a personal note: A couple of years ago I was a member of a FB forum having to do with amateur photography in the DFW area of Texas. A person asked: "Which brand should I choose?"

I simply remarked that one should choose whatever brand the output colors looked best to them personally. Not a big deal, and I mentioned no brands. Doesn't make any difference to me which brand one chooses. I was suddenly attacked by anyone and everyone on the forum that owned a Sony. The main mod for the group turned out to be a Sony ambassador in Texas. He was the head honcho in the attack. I came here and made a post about how crazy the Sony crowd is. That head honcho mod? He tracked me down here, created an account, and began attacking me here. So, he was a paid Sony Ambassador, moderated a photography forum open to everyone, and trolled.  That's the paid troll I am aware of. Are there more? There are nuts everywhere.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sony Brand Ambassador Salaries
> 
> 
> Average salaries for Sony Brand Ambassador: $41,629. Sony salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by Sony employees.
> ...


I remember the thread you set up about it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/the-sony-user-pile-on.37680/ as I asked you whether you used CanonFanBoy to join in the FB . The guy did track you down but he denied being paid by Sony. Do you have hard evidence he was a Sony Ambassador?




fjhphoto said:


> If anyone has any questions about my actions or what I do for a living, just ask. I'm the most transparent and open person because I like helping people and have nothing to hid. I'm NOT making 45k a year as an ambassador. I'm not making ANY money from Sony as an ambassador. Such baseless lies being spread here by someone bitter because not everyone agreed with his opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 5, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> The EOS 1 and 1n were both plastic like the 1998 EOS 3, but well finished. The 1v introduced in 2000 was mag alloy and was a result of Canon accepting that the customer wanted a metal body in a top end camera despite the fact that the plastic used by Canon was just as good in reality. (Nikon had continued to use metal). So I wouldn’t read too much into the EOS 3 being plastic and the 1v being mag alloy, it was just how Canon were working at the time. ( And something I personally didn’t like).


I am very impressed with the built quality and durability of the 'plastic' EF 100L Macro.. It seems to me well specified engineering plastic is capable of doing the job better and lighter than metal if the components are well designed. They are certainly more chip resistant!

There are a few 'destruction test' videos on YouTube of Rebels and they are astonishingly resistant to drops and careless handling, far more so than the 'brick' 1 series bodies which I have personally split open after comparatively modest drops.

Materials engineering is a science that has progressed immeasurably over the last 50 years.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I remember the thread you set up about it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/the-sony-user-pile-on.37680/ as I asked you whether you used CanonFanBoy to join in the FB . The guy did track you down but he denied being paid by Sony. Do you have hard evidence he was a Sony Ambassador?


Yup. Just search for his business photography website. He lists that he's a Sony Ambassador. He was a couple of years ago.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I remember the thread you set up about it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/the-sony-user-pile-on.37680/ as I asked you whether you used CanonFanBoy to join in the FB . The guy did track you down but he denied being paid by Sony. Do you have hard evidence he was a Sony Ambassador?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> View attachment 200008


The YouTube link gives his name as Francisco Joel Hernandez and says he is a Sony Ambassador, but there is no one of that name listed as a Sony Ambassador on their website - see: https://alphauniverse.com/ambassadors/ Perhaps he was one once but was no longer when he declared he wasn't? It's a bit of a mystery.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2021)

@CanonFanBoy Dude, why are you letting some random Sony person live inside your head rent free for years and years? Just move on.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> @CanonFanBoy Dude, why are you letting some random Sony person live inside your head rent free for years and years? Just move on.


Um... I'm not. Alan asked a question. I provided an answer. Got a prob with that? Maybe you should scroll on. Sounds like this bothers you far more than I. lol


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The YouTube link gives his name as Francisco Joel Hernandez and says he is a Sony Ambassador, but there is no one of that name listed as a Sony Ambassador on their website - see: https://alphauniverse.com/ambassadors/ Perhaps he was one once but was no longer when he declared he wasn't? It's a bit of a mystery.


I wouldn't know. He used to be listed. maybe Sony dumped him for attitude? lol


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> @CanonFanBoy Dude, why are you letting some random Sony person live inside your head rent free for years and years? Just move on.


He's just answering a couple of questions I asked.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I am very impressed with the built quality and durability of the 'plastic' EF 100L Macro.. It seems to me well specified engineering plastic is capable of doing the job better and lighter than metal if the components are well designed. They are certainly more chip resistant!
> 
> There are a few 'destruction test' videos on YouTube of Rebels and they are astonishingly resistant to drops and careless handling, far more so than the 'brick' 1 series bodies which I have personally split open after comparatively modest drops.
> 
> Materials engineering is a science that has progressed immeasurably over the last 50 years.


Could be that flexibility is better for drops than rigidity.


----------



## RevolutionarySabo (Sep 5, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Another persistent rumour is that Sony gives resellers a better deal, which is likely why stores put Sony front and center.


It's not just Sony. I work for a well-known camera retailer and the companies are constantly trying to outbid the other for spaces in retail. However, Sony and others like Nikon & Fuji do give us crazy incentives to buy their gear. The only one that doesn't do it is Canon.

Unrelated to my reply now, The R3 is going to sell well. Based on my experience to talking to all types of Photographers all day, there are a surprisingly wild amount of people that don't want a R1 level camera. (Which I can understand.) Professionals want something reliable, fast/accurate and built to last and if the R1 can at least meet those expectations then it's a win for them imo. Everyone wants an R1 because it competes in the spec war game people love to engage in, but the R3 is going to give Canon owners a taste of what a stacked sensor is capable of in today's age.


----------



## blackcat (Sep 8, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> An announcement is one thing but! When will buyers actually get their hands on one of these bodies for example the not so recent now but, lens such as the Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS USM are still pre-order in the UK


In regards to availability of stock, I wrote to Canon Australia and to simply ask when will their Canon RF600 F4 tele will be available. I got this rather moronic response: 
"Thank you for contacting Canon Australia. 

To better assist you, please provide us the following information below.

Exact lens model:
Retailer:
Branch of retailer:
Order number:

You may also attached the copy of proof of purchase. 

If you require further information or assistance please reply to this email or contact Canon on 13 13 83, select option 2 then option 3 and quote reference 03338791.


Regards,

(Signed)"

It was a rather pointless exercise.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The R1 ain't gonna' be a wildlife camera.


Nonsense. The R1 will be a multi-purpose professional camera, and IMO will appeal strongly to wildlife photographers who currently use either 1Dx series or R5. The requirements of wildlife photographers include very high durability and weather-sealing, strong performance at high ISO, fast burst speeds with a huge buffer, and fast and consistent AF performance. Until now we have had to accept the cropping limitations of 20MP, but the R1 is likely to have 40+MP, so will tick just about every box for wildlife photographers.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> 33MP only works for 8K if the sensor is 16:9 instead of 3:2. You need 39MP in a 3:2 sensor to do DCP 8K after cropping the aspect ratio to 16:9 at full width.


Yes that is correct.


----------



## dba101 (Sep 29, 2021)

Angelbird


----------

