Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[Gogo7]

I find it sad this term has become so entrenched on here that even the site admin is using it

Who came up with that name ? Was it camera conspiracy?

 

[Emyr Evans]

How large a number of people? Do you know? Who is more likely to be able to estimate the real demand for a high MP, integrated grip body…you or Canon? That’s a rhetorical question, if you think the answer is you then you’re a fool.

Nikon knew.

 

[P-visie]

Nikon knew.

Yes, that’s why they came with the Z8 (May 2023) at such a short interval after the Z9 (October 2021)

 

[Emyr Evans]

Yes, that’s why the came with the Z8 at such a short interval after the Z9.

Indeed. So now Nikon customers have two options for a 45-50MP camera. A R1 style and an R5 style.

 

[scyrene]

Who came up with that name ? Was it camera conspiracy?

I don't recall who specifically; it was a term used by trolls for some years, before being more widely adopted on here. It's wrong on every level, but I'm clearly fighting a losing battle.

 

[Bob Howland]

> The EOS-3 came out in 1998 and sat in between the EOS-1N from 1994 and the EOS-1N's eventual replacement, the EOS-1V in 2000.

I owned all three bodies, and you're right, more or less, in terms of increasing feature technical level, but as far as the lineup went, there was no way the 3 was at the 1N's level. It was a clearly a second-rung-from-the-top camera.

Unlike any of the EOS-1 series, the body was plastic not magnesium. The shutter cycle count was I think half, and wasn't top-tier x-sync and blacked out a lot longer. The shutter was also a lot louder and clickier. The viewfinder was a big step down. If I remember correctly the 3 didn't have interchangeable finder screens. (I usually had the split prism in my 1's and it worked fine with metering even though the documentation suggested it didn't. Maybe it just wasn't perfect.) The 3 couldn't take the right-angle finder. I think it also had an IR film advance sensor so you couldn't use it with IR film.

On the other hand, your article didn't mention (that I saw) the EOS-3's eye-controlled focus point selection which for me worked very reliably and I was sad to see it missing from the 1V.

The EOS-3 also had an excellent multiple-spot spot meter system. You could meter the darkest and lightest parts of a scene and see all the metered spots on the exposure meter at once. I forget if it was automatic or something you had to do manually but you could then get an exposure that would expose your darkest areas and brightest areas correctly (assuming the film had the DR for it) whether the overall scene was dark or light.

In summary the 3 was not a flagship body or finder or shutter or accessory ecosystem, but on the other hand had the latest greatest technology and specs including several features that the 1N lacked or didn't quite measure up to. I often shot the 28-70 on one body and 70-200 on the other, for reportage/wedding/street type stuff. But when I left the house to shoot landscape etc. or otherwise was just taking one Canon, it was the 1N and later 1V. Never once did I leave the house with just the 3.

(In my backpack I always had the Yashica T4 with the Zeiss 35/3.5, which was fun but honestly wasn't great. I then switched to Contax G2 with 28/45/90 as my backpack camera and loved that except for the AF noise. I also had a Mamiya 7 + 43/80/150, and a Rollei SL66+80/2.8 in those days, both phenomenal cameras that I'd totally have loved digital versions of. I then got a couple Leica bodies, a .58x and .85x, with 35/1.4 and 75/1.4, but when I got my 1DsMkI, I basically couldn't stand the hassle of film and sold everything but the Canon system.)

I only owned the EOS 3. Until I bought the 5D3 DSLR, it was the best camera I ever owned. Its best feature was the focusing system. But, like you, I got sick of dealing with film and went digital, but with 10D and 5D DSLRs and their pathetic focusing systems.

 

[Bob Howland]

Just remember that everything Canon says is corporate PR. That means that it is self-serving and intended to manipulate everybody else.

 

[Richard CN]

By the line of reasoning people are using the R10 is just an R50 mark II.

Heck the R1 is just an R8 Mark IV.

 

[joewise]

More megapixels is a problem for the target market.
That is why it would make more sense to increase megapixels in the R3 line.

Actually probably the opposite. I don’t fully agree, but in today’s world it seems the flagship has to be the absolute king with lower models fitting more specific needs. Thus the R1 would definitely need higher MPs, while the R3 could stay at the 24 level to target a different audience and the R5 yet a different audience. The whole concept is just dumb to me but flagship now carries a certain stigma to be the highest end everything camera. I just think the whole flagship concept is dumb. Photographers should gravitate to cameras that fit their specific use scenarios

 

[PinholeR5]

The R1 in a nutshell; the sensor is faster, you can shoot longer, the viewfinder is better, the eye control AF is another generational leap forward, the autofocus is better, and the autofocus features are vastly improved and class-leading. It is easy to see how Canon believes this is more than just a step up from the EOS R3 and a true 1 series camera for the RF lineup.

The main issue with this argument is that one can argue that the improvements from R5 to R5 II are much larger than from R3 to R1. Just to mention a few (The R5 II packs even more delta, but I'm just listing a few to make the point)

R3 -> R1
Sensor : 24MP Stacked -> 24MP Stacked + CrossType
Readout: 4.8ms -> 2.8ms (less than 2x)
AF: 1 Gen improvement + DIGIC Accelerator
Eye Control: 1 Gen improvement
Video: Not much change

R5 -> R5 II
Sensor: 45MP FSI CMOS -> 45MP BSI CMOS Stacked
Readout: 16.3ms -> 6ms (almost 3x)
AF: 2 Gen improvement + DIGIC Accelerator
Eye Control: 2 Gen improvement
Video: 8K 30P -> 8K 60P (plus C-Log2, etc, etc)
Plus: Next-gen multi-function hotshoe, Flash support with ES, etc, etc.

You can see where folks would be desappointed even if you had called the R1 a R3 II... The R3 -> R1 is just, IMHO, a much smaller improvement than the R5 -> R5 II.

 

[Richard CN]

I wonder what the Canon reps actually said and/or meant…the R3 will have a successor, or the R3 ‘line’ will continue (to be sold)? Could be the telephone game, misrepresentation (seeing a lot of that in this domain to drive views lately), could have been speculation/hope on the part of the reps.

I’m also reminded of Canon’s official statements regarding the M line. “It will continue.” What they didn’t say was there would be no new releases in the line, and it would continue…until it didn’t.

If it was Canon Russia - those people were just unhinged.

I think usually Canon USA is pretty on point with PR, but to be honest, they can say anything now and change their minds 2 years down the road.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon knew.

How well is the Z9 selling? Do you know? Canon does.

The company in third place has different drivers than the market leader. Perhaps Nikon felt they couldn’t compete effectively with Canon’s pro 20-24 MP offerings, so they made a high MP body.

Consider this – Canon would have had a very good idea of how well the Z9 was selling compared to the R3 in 2022. They settled on 24 MP for the R1. So either the company that has led the camera market for two decades is dumb and chose to make a camera that doesn’t appeal to their customers and the broader market…or they know more about their customers and the broader market than we do. You can choose to believe the former if you like.

 

[mpmark]

How large a number of people? Do you know? Who is more likely to be able to estimate the real demand for a high MP, integrated grip body…you or Canon? That’s a rhetorical question, if you think the answer is you then you’re a fool.

and yours is a rhetorical answer, is the A1 flying off the shelves? is the Z9 flying off the shelves? Did those sell well? That many people. Don't make it sound like there is one or two. There IS a market. I do wildlife and practically every single person I know that shoots canon and spends the cash wishes for a full body high mp camera.

Claiming I have no data to support it and responding with no data to support your argument doesn't make me the fool.

 

[joewise]

Exactly! I just don't understand why they don't make two separate models again, yes there is a market for sports shooters and their demand of no more than 24mp. But there also is a large number of people who want that canon full body and high MP.

They would sell so many with a high MP, same new AF and that gorgeous full body, fly off the shelves like hotcakes. Just make two! Geez is it that hard for them to see?

Canon had an opportunity, make the R1 a high MP camera and continue the R3 line for sports photographers with 24mp. I think they blew it.

It’s not just sports shooters per se, but sports photojournalists. People on site that need quick turnaround of images that do not require higher mps for the viewing audience. There are other sports shooters who may actually want the higher res as they do not have the urgency for output. I agree with the concept of a full top of the line R1 and a more target focused R3. And for the pros pro, let the R1 shoot in lower res options

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think usually Canon USA is pretty on point with PR, but to be honest, they can say anything now and change their minds 2 years down the road.

True, but part of my point is that we don’t actually know what Canon said. It wasn’t a PR, it’s hearsay. A couple days ago, several sites ‘reported’ on Canon’s plummeting market share. What a joke.

I’m not saying PetaPixel is lying, but for example:

PP: “Will the R3 line continue?”​

​

Canon rep: “Yes. We’ll continue the R3 as long as there’s customer demand.”​

Two ways to interpret that answer, one of which leads to a lot more page views.

 

[neuroanatomist]

and yours is a rhetorical answer, is the A1 flying off the shelves? is the Z9 flying off the shelves? Did those sell well? That many people. Don't make it sound like there is one or two. There IS a market.

I’m not saying there’s no market. Again…how many? You have no idea. I have no idea. Canon knows.

I do wildlife and practically every single person I know that shoots canon and spends the cash wishes for a full body high mp camera.

Yes, there’s the expected ‘not just me, me and everyone I know’. Has everyone you know bought the Z9, then? Maybe they have. I’m sure you know tens of thousands of people who buy high end cameras, right?

Claiming I have no data to support it and responding with no data to support your argument doesn't make me the fool.

I’m not making any claims, except one…that Canon has detailed sales data for themselves and the other major brands. That’s a very reasonable claim, and while I don’t have evidence to support it for Canon, I’ve worked for several large corporations and always had equivalent data.

What I’m saying is that Canon has the data, and they launched a 24 MP R1. What do you infer from that? Logic says they believe it is what their customers want. My only claim is that they are most likely making data-driven decisions.

Here’s a non-rhetorical question for you: why did Canon put a 24 MP sensor in the R1?

Still, at the end of the day it’s irrelevant. Canon gave us a 24 MP R1. The only real choice you have is to buy it or not. Whining on the internet is meaningless.

 

[yankiefrankie]

Does Canon honestly need two sports focused highly niche cameras both priced around the $6,000 mark? The two are already extremely close in specs… what would an R3Mk2 spec sheet look like? It would still need to be under the R1… but then what would be the point of upgrading? Worst still, why upgrade to an R3Mk2 when the R1 can be had for more or less the same price? IMO, Canon decided the fate of the R3 lineup when they aligned the R1 so close in performance, specs and price. There’s zero need for another $6000 sports camera. However, an R1C might have a place?

I agree with all of this. There will not be an R3 Mark ii. Canon is just saying this to keep people buying R3's to clear the inventory. Unfortunately, I do not think there will be any R3 firmware updates (unless bug fixes). The R3 has been completely replaced.

Even with what I just said, the R1 feature set it too close to the R3. I was really expecting there to be higher framerates than 40fps. I shoot a lot of kid's baseball, and 40fps is not enough to get the ball where you want it in relation to the bat. Something like 120fps with a well implemented pre-capture + easy cull would really improve a lot of sports shooting scenarios.

This makes the R1 much worse than the A9III. Canon knows this. My thoughts are the camera was RUSHED. Marketing forced them to announce it without all the features implemented. I'm hoping that more features are announced as we get closer to launch date (Even if they are announced as future firmware updates and not included out of the box).

This R1 SHOULD be the camera for me, but it really isn't much of an improvement over my R3/R8 combo. I'm sure focus is improved, but I was not really struggling with focus on my current cameras.

Of course, I preordered as soon as it was available, but I may cancel if the feature set does not change as we get closer to launch date.

 

[Emyr Evans]

I agree with all of this. There will not be an R3 Mark ii. Canon is just saying this to keep people buying R3's to clear the inventory. Unfortunately, I do not think there will be any R3 firmware updates (unless bug fixes). The R3 has been completely replaced.

Even with what I just said, the R1 feature set it too close to the R3. I was really expecting there to be higher framerates than 40fps. I shoot a lot of kid's baseball, and 40fps is not enough to get the ball where you want it in relation to the bat. Something like 120fps with a well implemented pre-capture + easy cull would really improve a lot of sports shooting scenarios.

This makes the R1 much worse than the A9III. Canon knows this. My thoughts are the camera was RUSHED. Marketing forced them to announce it without all the features implemented. I'm hoping that more features are announced as we get closer to launch date (Even if they are announced as future firmware updates and not included out of the box).

This R1 SHOULD be the camera for me, but it really isn't much of an improvement over my R3/R8 combo. I'm sure focus is improved, but I was not really struggling with focus on my current cameras.

Of course, I preordered as soon as it was available, but I may cancel if the feature set does not change as we get closer to launch date.

+1. Agreed.

 

[koenkooi]

True, but part of my point is that we don’t actually know what Canon said. It wasn’t a PR, it’s hearsay. A couple days ago, several sites ‘reported’ on Canon’s plummeting market share. What a joke.

I’m not saying PetaPixel is lying, but for example:

PP: “Will the R3 line continue?”​

​

Canon rep: “Yes. We’ll continue the R3 as long as there’s customer demand.”​

Two ways to interpret that answer, one of which leads to a lot more page views.

The "as long as there's customer demand" line is what Canon kept using for EOS-M, the M6III will get announced any day now!

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Given price points and very close feature sets, the R1 does seem like an R3 Mark II. That's fine if they want to keep the R3 around but they've put themselves in a weird position. They will have to drop the price, change the body style, feature set, or some combination of these things. I don't think the R3 should be a high megapixel camera, mostly because it would be a very strange transition for this model, and I also think many shooters in the market for high megapixels would prefer a smaller body with the option to add a grip (i.e. for portraits). The R3 would seem the best testbed for a global shutter, in the same double-grip body it has. Keep the sports/PJ focus, price it $1000 lower than the R1, give it some minor AF algo improvements, and boom you have a new camera.

Now an R5S/R with an 80Mp sensor with all the software improvements of the R5 Mark II just makes sense. I would hope they focus on that, with a release in the next 12 months or so, and keep expectations low and on the back burner for the R3 Mark II. There is basically no reason to be talking about it right now other than address the elephant in the room (which is "is the R3 even relevant anymore").