Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[P-visie]

I guess Sony doesn’t make any professional cameras, then. Nikon makes one, Canon now has two. That’s why they’re the most professionalist.

Yes, that is why Fujifilm have removed the grip on the Fujifilm GFX 100-II. It was too professional .

Edit: This is probably an indication that the market for gripped high mp bodies is not very large.

 

[John Wilde]

I remember Canon saying "EOS M will continue as long as there is demand" haha. The R3 will be a one-and-done.

I wonder if Canon Japan HQ even bothers to honestly tell Canon USA what their long-term plans are.

 

[P-visie]

I wonder if Canon Japan HQ even bothers to honestly tell Canon USA what their long-term plans are.

They will tell their subsidiaries just in time to reduce stock.

 

[josephandrews222]

As one who spent 30 years helping to create HDTV, I struggle to see the relevance of 8k for a wide market. Even if screens large enough to do it justice are made, very few homes have a blank wall big enough with seating close enough. optimal viewing distance for 2k is around 3 picture heights. That puts 4k at 1.5 picture heights and 8k at .75 picture heights. That produces a viewing angle that basically allows for only 1 or 2 viewers even with very large screen, so it just doesn't work ergonomically in the home. 8k will have many useful applications, but hard to see general entertainment being one of them, and that likely will limit the need for 8k by professional photographers. 8k doesn't have the impossible problem that 3D/VR has of giving the viewer a headache and disorientation thanks to the appearance of depth without the screen changing actual position, but it is ergonomically impractical to get any significant improvement in perceived resolution over 4k, so hard to see large numbers of folks spending the extra money just for phallic envy.

This is so good. I don't know where to begin. Great post.

 

[Dragon]

With 8k recording it is much easier to hold an erratically moving subject in frame then stabilize and crop in post down to 4k, of course you'll have to plan for that and use a lens of appropriate focal length so there is always a buffer of pixels around the subject.

Yes, 8k definitely has application as a capture medium, but I was speaking to it being used as a widespread distribution medium.

 

[DSB]

As one who spent 30 years helping to create HDTV, I struggle to see the relevance of 8k for a wide market. Even if screens large enough to do it justice are made, very few homes have a blank wall big enough with seating close enough. optimal viewing distance for 2k is around 3 picture heights. That puts 4k at 1.5 picture heights and 8k at .75 picture heights. That produces a viewing angle that basically allows for only 1 or 2 viewers even with very large screen, so it just doesn't work ergonomically in the home. 8k will have many useful applications, but hard to see general entertainment being one of them, and that likely will limit the need for 8k by professional photographers. 8k doesn't have the impossible problem that 3D/VR has of giving the viewer a headache and disorientation thanks to the appearance of depth without the screen changing actual position, but it is ergonomically impractical to get any significant improvement in perceived resolution over 4k, so hard to see large numbers of folks spending the extra money just for phallic envy.

I see zero practical application for 8K on the consumer end of market. Even with the 80-100" tv's, it's very hard to see the cost-to-performance ratio making much sense. It's barely justifiable for full HD vs 4K when the viewing distance is above 12 ft, and no one is going to sit so close to a huge screen for 8K to make sense.

Until we get to a point where we can just cover the whole wall with some magic TV paint, we won't need 8K.

 

[Dragon]

I see zero practical application for 8K on the consumer end of market. Even with the 80-100" tv's, it's very hard to see the cost-to-performance ratio making much sense. It's barely justifiable for full HD vs 4K when the viewing distance is above 12 ft, and no one is going to sit so close to a huge screen for 8K to make sense.

Until we get to a point where we can just cover the whole wall with some magic TV paint, we won't need 8K.

Even the magic wall is questionable since most people are not ready to turn their living room into an Imax theater. The real catch is that the angle of view necessary to take reasonable advantage of 8k resolution is uncomfortable for the average viewing experience. It only works when the scene is immersive (meaning a very wide angle lens on the camera) and the viewer is prepared to treat viewing as the only task. Watching a talking head that fills the whole wall is not comfortable for the viewer. Go to an Imax theater and watch a show and then try to translate that to your living room (or kitchen). It just doesn't work and programmers are not about to spend the extra $ to put all their programming into an immersive format.

OTOH, I would love to see a 40-42 in 8k monitor for computers with good uniformity and color gamut, but even there, the market is limited to folks who have the room for such a monitor and the need (like us photogs) for the resolution. Lightroom almost demands a big monitor and 32 in is marginally big enough. It is notable that said 42 in monitor would need to have a very wide angle of view, so likely would need to be OLED or similar active light source technology. Even currently, there are only a very few 4k monitors that are really suitable for photography work, so clearly the demand is not that large.

I remember when NHK first demonstrated 8k at the NAB show with a projection system. The screen was at least 30 ft and you could stand in one corner and see good detail. There were only a few seats in the booth (built like a theater) where you could sit and truly take in the whole scene while at the same time being able to see a reasonable percentage of the resolution offered. That was about 20 years ago and the technology was nowhere close to what comes out of an R5 today, so the viewing gap is even wider now.

In theory, VR is one place where 8k could work, but VR is still hung up on offering 3D and until and unless that hang up goes away, VR is going nowhere because phase shift 3D is uncomfortable to watch to the point of making people sick and the higher the resolution, the bigger the problem.

All you have to do to understand the fallacy of 3D is look at the number of times it has been tried and failed. By my count, VR is about attempt number 6. 3D will work when and only when the focal distance of the viewed object is the same as the perceived distance (i.e. the "screen" has to have actual depth) because our eyes focus the same way a camera does. We focus on phase shift and when the screen is not where the phase shift says it is, our head hurts. I do question the whole VR concept in that it totally isolates the viewer from his/her surroundings and that is anti-social to the nth degree, so only time will tell if it really goes anywhere, 3D or no 3D.

 

[Richard CN]

45mp on the R5 is great for Astro
Make sure you use a tracker of course.
16 bit would be sweet.
Stitching many panels of high resolution shots does mean some big files to edit though

yes, I presume when he meant astro he was talking more "astro landscape" without a tracker.

 

[Richard CN]

It has the same weather sealing as a camera that came out 22 years ago... and that's somehow suppose to prove Canon is taking care of that market segment?

I have shoots in deserts, mountains, swamps, snow, rain, low temps and extreme temps etc. Yet somehow I should be ok with a prosumer body, while the guy shooting baseball or press conferences get's the real deal. Why?

have you checked the seals on the R5 Mark II or are you just quibbling that it's a 5 series and not a 1 series?

also those cameras from 22 years ago (using your own words) were used in all sorts of environments - it's not as if that changed in the last 20 some odd years.

Also if you are using your camera in all those environments that you suggest, a smaller lighter camera is better anyways.

The 5D is not a prosumer body and it hasn't been for decades. it's a full mag alloy chassis with full weather sealing.



That's as extensive as a professional camera, and probably far better than you'd get from say... a sony.

of course, you don't have to take my word for it, even Canon says this:

MELVILLE, N.Y., July 17, 2024 — Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today launched two new professional full-frame mirrorless cameras, the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II.

 

[frankchn]

That's as extensive as a professional camera, and probably far better than you'd get from say... a sony.

of course, you don't have to take my word for it, even Canon says this:

MELVILLE, N.Y., July 17, 2024 — Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today launched two new professional full-frame mirrorless cameras, the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II.

All the manufacturers claim magnesium alloy construction with weather sealing nowadays, whether it is the Canon R1, R3, R5, or the Nikon Z8, Z9, or the Sony A7RV, A1, or A9III.

However, none of the three major manufacturers puts an IP rating on any camera (afaik the only ones to do it are Olympus and Leica) so I consider it to be at least a bit of marketing fluff on everyone's part.

In that same press release you quoted, Canon only mentions the weather-sealing (and reliability etc) on the R1 though, so it suggests that there is still some difference in construction between the R1 and the R5II.

 

[Richard CN]

All the manufacturers claim magnesium alloy construction with weather sealing nowadays, whether it is the Canon R1, R3, R5, or the Nikon Z8, Z9, or the Sony A7RV, A1, or A9III.

However, none of the three major manufacturers puts an IP rating on any camera (afaik the only ones to do it are Olympus and Leica) so I consider it to be at least a bit of marketing fluff on everyone's part.

In that same press release you quoted, Canon only mentions the weather-sealing (and reliability etc) on the R1 though, so it suggests that there is still some difference in construction between the R1 and the R5II.

it's a nonsense rating for an ILC because it depends on the lens.

Also "prosumer" cameras tend to have body construction other than mag alloy.

Canon has always stated the 5D (after I think Mark II) was up to professional standards with seals.

Craig was in Mongolia with an R3 against said Sony's .. which all died.

the point was - the R5 is a professional camera, just like the 5D series before it. If the person I was replying to doesn't think so, then that's his own viewpoint and not that of canon and countless professionals that used the 5 series for just that.

 

[frankchn]

none of them do except Olympus. it's a nonsense rating for an ILC because it depends on the lens.

Also "prosumer" cameras tend to have body construction other than mag alloy.

Canon has always stated the 5D (after I think Mark II) was up to professional standards with seals.

Can't they test and give a rating with a weather-sealed lens (even if they have to state what lens they tested it with)? FWIW, Leica also states a IP rating on some of their cameras (the Q3 is IP52, and the SL3 is IP54 -- not sure if it is with a SL lens or not).

In any case, Canon states that the original R5 had: "Weather, drip and dust sealing on par with the EOS 5D series", and that the R3 had "Weather and dust resistance equivalent to EOS-1D camera models." so while both might be "professional", I think there is still a difference in construction.

 

[Dragon]

Can't they test and give a rating with a weather-sealed lens (even if they have to state what lens they tested it with)? FWIW, Leica also states a IP rating on some of their cameras (the Q3 is IP52, and the SL3 is IP54 -- not sure if it is with a SL lens or not).

In any case, Canon states that the original R5 had: "Weather, drip and dust sealing on par with the EOS 5D series", and that the R3 had "Weather and dust resistance equivalent to EOS-1D camera models." so while both might be "professional", I think there is still a difference in construction.

Beware of looking at an IP rating and assuming it means what you think. There are dozens of IP ratings for dust, drip. splash, submersion, pressure, etc. and they are all different numbers. make sure an IP rating covers the protection you are looking for. I have industrial devices (other than cameras) with fancy sounding IP ratings and the devices leak like a sieve in a windy rainstorm. When you look closely at the IP rating it is "drip proof", but does not cover sideways rain.

 

[Richard CN]

Can't they test and give a rating with a weather-sealed lens (even if they have to state what lens they tested it with)? FWIW, Leica also states a IP rating on some of their cameras (the Q3 is IP52, and the SL3 is IP54 -- not sure if it is with a SL lens or not).

In any case, Canon states that the original R5 had: "Weather, drip and dust sealing on par with the EOS 5D series", and that the R3 had "Weather and dust resistance equivalent to EOS-1D camera models." so while both might be "professional", I think there is still a difference in construction.

IP52 is Protected from limited dust ingress.

hard to say that any of canon's cameras are not up to that.

but with an ILC, it's pretty pointless, unless you wanted a complete chart of IP rating versus lens. and even then, the seals on the lenses wear over time.

if you are in an environment that requires a serious IP rating. take better care of your cameras - even a 1 series.

it STILL doesn't get around the fact that the R5 is considered a professional camera.

 

[David - Sydney]

yes, I presume when he meant astro he was talking more "astro landscape" without a tracker.

Yes, higher MP needs shorter times to avoid unacceptable trailing although this depends on viewing distance of the image.
500 rule is not really relevant these days with high mp sensors
@14mm/f2.8 NPF = 15s (Samsung 14/2.8)
@20mm/f1.4 NPF = 8s (sigma 20/1.4)
Higher ISO quality helps a bunch though.

A basic tracker is pretty inexpensive these days and simple to align in the northern hemisphere. A single image for foreground and sky is easy to blend. Under 30s doesn't need exact alignment.
Using StarXterminator removes them anyway if the milky way is the target (not deep sky).

 

[Richard CN]

Using StarExterminator removes them anyway if the milky way is the target (not deep sky).

oh! thanks for the tip. i'll have to look at that.

 

[David - Sydney]

oh! thanks for the tip. i'll have to look at that.

Spelling error.... program at https://www.rc-astro.com/software/sxt/
You can see some of my examples on my flickr page.
Dan zafra has examples
https://capturetheatlas.com/astro-gallery/ and https://www.instagram.com/capturetheatlas/
Geoff Sharpe https://www.instagram.com/astro.geoff/
John Rutter has youtube videos on his process at @johnrutterphotography on youtube

I hear good things abut NoiseXterminator but haven't used it yet.

 

[Richard CN]

Spelling error.... program at https://www.rc-astro.com/software/sxt/
You can see some of my examples on my flickr page.
Dan zafra has examples
https://capturetheatlas.com/astro-gallery/ and https://www.instagram.com/capturetheatlas/
Geoff Sharpe https://www.instagram.com/astro.geoff/
John Rutter has youtube videos on his process at @johnrutterphotography on youtube

I hear good things abut NoiseXterminator but haven't used it yet.

amazing images! thanks for sharing!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If 24MP JPEG is what they require, why not ensure all cameras have a 24MP JPEG mode and go wild with the resolution, as long as it hits the performance targets?

That would make it a heck of a lot harder to hit performance targets.
People focus on the 120 FPS on the a9 III.
It is a useful feature but the camera can only do it for 1.5 seconds.
The R1 can do 40 FPS until the batter runs out.
My only gripe would be that the battery runs out a lot sooner than the 1DX III.
However, it lasts a lot longer than the R3 which I have gotten used to.
Part of me thinks the purpose of the R3 was to change expectations.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

the R3 was engineered to be the purely still photographer’s camera (with less video features)

The R3 had Canon's best video in any hybrid camera at the time of its release.
It was one of the reasons that I bought one.