Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[neuroanatomist]

I don't see any need for a global shutter. 50 year old technology introduced when readout speeds were in whole seconds and sacrificing whole stops of DR. The next R3 or R1 will break the 1ms level basically instantaneous readout. The R1 is already reading out faster than a mechanical shutter.

At 1 ms, the rolling shutter would allow a 1/1000 s flash sync. Leaf shutters have been around a lot longer than global shutters, and aren't limited to 1/1000 s. With a global shutter as with a leaf shutter, the camera is no longer a limitation (the flash power/duration becomes the limiting factor, but that still allows a lot more flexibility than a rolling shutter, even blazing fast one).

Not saying everyone needs that, but it will benefit some. Personally, I'll benefit from the bump of the R3's 1/180 s X-sync to the 1/400 s (in sync priority mode) on the R1.

 

[kaihp]

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.

I've overheard a fashion photographer pushing the idea of a high-resolution to a Canon rep. He (the photographer) was unhappy about the instability caused by the battery grip. He wanted an integrated vertical grip, for when he was shooting a full day. I got the impression that he was shooting full catalogues of fashion in a day.
But still, that was just one person.

 

[Dragon]

At 1 ms, the rolling shutter would allow a 1/1000 s flash sync. Leaf shutters have been around a lot longer than global shutters, and aren't limited to 1/1000 s. With a global shutter as with a leaf shutter, the camera is no longer a limitation (the flash power/duration becomes the limiting factor, but that still allows a lot more flexibility than a rolling shutter, even blazing fast one).

Not saying everyone needs that, but it will benefit some. Personally, I'll benefit from the bump of the R3's 1/180 s X-sync to the 1/400 s (in sync priority mode) on the R1.

And there you have it. An R3 MII with a focal plane leaf shutter . Seriously, if the R3 line does continue, it could go in just about any direction, including dropping down to a standard body size and going very high res. The only "tradition" established for the "3" over a grand total of 2 releases in 25 years is that it is innovative and experimental (both in the sense of technology and customer acceptance). How about pixel level dichroic separators resulting in a Foveon-like sensor and a full stop of sensitivity gain? I see very few limits. Of course we could have to wait another 21 years.

 

[john1970]

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.

Very well could be the case. I would like to know what the direct verbatim quote was from Canon US.

 

[Ph0t0]

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 would love to see a high MP camera like that, but I can't help but feel that you are probably right.

I find it hard to beleive that they would release another sports camera just below the R1 line, when the R3 is allready pretty close to R1 in specs and performance.
And it also seems unlikely that the R3 line would suddenly go from fast sports line to high megapixel one.
I'm guessing it would be better to just release a high MP camera like branded as 1Rs or if it is without lower grip R5s. Or maybe a completely new name.

 

[Ph0t0]

I guess if 4 years down the line Canon releases a R1 mkII with 45MP (or smthng similar), faster sensor readout or global shutter, and more fps I would see more logic in Canon releasing a slightly less expensive R3 mkII camera with lower MP count than R1 for sports and reportage photographers, but with other novelties...

 

[Toamelicious]

Barely anyone has been able to hold an R1 or R5 Mark 2 up until now, but everybody's talking about what they want for an R1 mark 2, or R3s or whatever.
This is partly, why there will always be disappointment in new launches. Excitement for new tech is fun and absolutely legit, but we should learn to calm our horses and not get too high on our imagination.

 

[Richard CN]

While I agree with this point, there might also be a cultural aspect. Having both studied in Japan (albeit for a short time) and having worked with Japanese companies I always noticed the power of seniority. Especially at university the professor was basically god. If he said that 1+1=3, then the students would have never argued against it.

It could be that whoever was in charge of the project decided to be conservative and stay in the tradition of the 1 series to keep a lower resolution - because why not, it worked well so far. Maybe the feedback of the professionals was more heterogeneous then we might think?

We will never know, but the point I am trying to make, is that while data definitely played a role in the development, there might also have been cultural and corporational aspects affecting the final design choices.

they increased the 1 series resolution with the R1/R3.

They have been pretty consistent and very slowly raising the resolution over time, but nothing dramatic.

 

[Richard CN]

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.

Yes, and I'm guilty of writing for page views as well, but with all the hand-wringing about the R3 and R1, this article was going to come anyways. the PetaPixel article was just a convenient excuse.

 

[Richard CN]

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

it's right up there with Canon is Doomed.

The Canon Cripple Hammer is a thing of legend whispered quietly around campfires.

 

[Richard CN]

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.

The only reason for this is that there isn't a high-resolution crop camera that they like.

I doubt many of them are clamoring for a slow 80MP full frame camera, but would rather a crop 32MP camera aka like the 1D series before the 1DX.

 

[Dragon]

The only reason for this is that there isn't a high-resolution crop camera that they like.

I doubt many of them are clamoring for a slow 80MP full frame camera, but would rather a crop 32MP camera aka like the 1D series before the 1DX.

You are on to something there. A lot of folks wanted the R7 to be a mini R1 (before the release of the R1 ). Such a camera would likely be $3k+ in today's currency and would have a limited market. Even the wishers would scream about it being too expensive. Canon decided to make the R7 a much wider market device by keeping the price down and it is an all around excellent camera, but not the the unicorn of dreams (i.e. a crop R1 for the price of a 7D II with inflation ignored). I was genuinely surprised at how inexpensive the R7 was and ordered immediately with no regrets. Will Canon make an R7 II as a follow on similarly to 7D2 after the R1 is fully established? Possibly, but it likely won't be cheap. There is another contingent (landscape folks) that would actually be happy with a "slow" high res FF body, but hard to tell if the market size is large enough to make such a body worthwhile and only a very few, very expensive lenses would truly support it. Roger Cicala's testing of lenses at high resolution fully confirm that last bit.

 

[Richard CN]

You are on to something there. A lot of folks wanted the R7 to be a mini R1 (before the release of the R1 ). Such a camera would likely be $3k+ in today's currency and would have a limited market. Even the wishers would scream about it being too expensive. Canon decided to make the R7 a much wider market device by keeping the price down and it is an all around excellent camera, but not the the unicorn of dreams (i.e. a crop R1 for the price of a 7D II with inflation ignored). I was genuinely surprised at how inexpensive the R7 was and ordered immediately with no regrets. Will Canon make an R7 II as a follow on similarly to 7D2 after the R1 is fully established? Possibly, but it likely won't be cheap. There is another contingent (landscape folks) that would actually be happy with a "slow" high res FF body, but hard to tell if the market size is large enough to make such a body worthwhile and only a very few, very expensive lenses would truly support it. Roger Cicala's testing of lenses at high resolution fully confirm that last bit.

ever since the 1D APS-H line died they have wanted that.

the cost of the sensor wouldn't make a big change in Canon's pricing - so yes, it would be easily 3-4K anyways.

a better option would be a 5D cloned body with a 40MP APS-C sensor as a happy medium.

Hopefully a R7 Mark II will satisfy people more than the R7 does.

 

[Richard CN]

Barely anyone has been able to hold an R1 or R5 Mark 2 up until now, but everybody's talking about what they want for an R1 mark 2, or R3s or whatever.
This is partly, why there will always be disappointment in new launches. Excitement for new tech is fun and absolutely legit, but we should learn to calm our horses and not get too high on our imagination.

Don't get me started on what some channels / websites have been saying / doing.

I think Craig and I both have higher standards for what we write and post and try to provide credible information and posts/opinions without diving into blatant clickbait.

 

[rbr]

> The 3 couldn't take the right-angle finder.

The EOS 3 definitely can take an angle finder. (I still have one but I haven't put a roll of film in it in over 20 years.) The Angle Finder C still slips right on perfectly. I definitely miss not being able to use it on the current mirrorless cameras.

 

[Richard CN]

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.

not really.

again, what does the name actually mean? this isn't a status symbol it's a tool. you are downplaying a lot of the R3 -> R1 benefits, but good on you for that. The R3 came out in 2021, the R1 is not an upgrade from the R3. Canon never advertised it as such. R5 to R5 Mark II is (checks notes) 4 years and the actual upgrade that replaces the R5. R3 is less than 3 years old, and the R1 isn't an upgraded replacement to the R3.

the R1 - it's a new camera $300 more than the initial price of the R3, and some really important improvements that the R3 simply does not have. It's not an R3 Mark II because that means that Canon would stop selling the R3.

Also, my writing style must be bad for you or something because the entire article was about the 3 coexisting with the 1 series and neither supplanting the other and to your point exactly;

"Just like the EOS-1V and EOS-3, there were a lot of professionals who were more than happy to use the EOS-3, just like there will be some professionals who are more than happy to use the R3. Having a choice is never a bad thing."

 

[Richard CN]

The EOS 3 definitely can take an angle finder. (I still have one but I haven't put a roll of film in it in over 20 years.) The Angle Finder C still slips right on perfectly. I definitely miss not being able to use it on the current mirrorless cameras.

that was a useful accessory! I used it a ton.

 

[john1970]

I guess if 4 years down the line Canon releases a R1 mkII with 45MP (or smthng similar), faster sensor readout or global shutter, and more fps I would see more logic in Canon releasing a slightly less expensive R3 mkII camera with lower MP count than R1 for sports and reportage photographers, but with other novelties...

That is logical, and we shall see what happens in 2028.

 

[Richard CN]

I guess if 4 years down the line Canon releases a R1 mkII with 45MP (or smthng similar), faster sensor readout or global shutter, and more fps I would see more logic in Canon releasing a slightly less expensive R3 mkII camera with lower MP count than R1 for sports and reportage photographers, but with other novelties...

If I had to guess on the R1 Mark II.

30MP, faster, fps, full QDAF, stacked but better DR.

People want the 1 series to be about MP - and canon has shown since the 1DX first came out that it's not that. Unless suddenly the people that Canon caters to tells them they need more MP, it probably won't be.

1DX came out in 2011 and was 18MP. Fast forward 3 cameras and 14 years later and we're up to 24MP.

To be honest, I struggle to find a place for the R3 Mark II, except that I would expect to to have the R1 featureset, while the R1 Mark II would have a more advanced feature set.

This would allow canon to drag the price of the R3 down a bit.

or they could go R3, 60MP, 12fps, etc. an differentiate the line that way. if they decide to keep it as a more experimental camera they may go global shutter.

 

[john1970]

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.

I for one am glad that Canon makes a 24 MP full body camera because I mainly shoot wildlife at dusk and dawn and for me high ISO performance is critical. I also don't make large prinst and mainly photograph large mammals. Don't get me wrong I also wish Canon would resurrect the 1Ds series and make a higher resolution R1 for smaller subjects. Currently Canon designs its 1-series cameras for photojournalism and that means lower, but not low resolution.