Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[koenkooi]

I do not think Canon can raise the R1 over 24 MP without causing problems for Getty.
Getty has no reason to want any higher since they are mostly delivering photos for web pages.
Canon can do whatever they want with the R3.

I get that people are set in their ways and object to change, but I don't understand why Canon doesn't state "Processing JPEGs happens instantaneously, set your JPEG to M and you'll get the fastest and best 24MP pictures!" for higher-than-24MP cameras.

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?

 

[P-visie]

Conclusion:

There is a clear need for a dedicated camera that emphasizes high megapixels and superior image quality while excluding unnecessary features such as 8K Raw video, 30 FPS, and advanced auto focus systems like subject tracking, subject recognition, and predictive focus. By developing such a camera, manufacturers can meet the specific demands of landscape, food, still life, astrophotography, and high-end studio portraiture photographers, providing a cost-effective and highly specialized tool for capturing the beauty and detail of their subjects.

“There is a clear need” probably translates to “I need”.

Even Fujifilm does not agree with your conclusion: the GFX 100 II has (what Fujifilm calls) advanced AF with subject detection, a maximum frame rate of 8 fps, in video it does 8k and they call it a “hybrid powerhouse”.

Do you think that they have added these options if there is no demand from their customers for these features?

Source for the specifications: https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/cameras/gfx100-ii/

 

[scyrene]

The Need for Affordable ‘Stills First’ Landscape Photography-Based Full Frame Cameras with High Megapixels

tl;dr - sounds like you want a medium format camera

 

[neuroanatomist]

Conclusion:

There is a clear need for a dedicated camera that emphasizes high megapixels and superior image quality while excluding unnecessary features such as 8K Raw video, 30 FPS, and advanced auto focus systems like subject tracking, subject recognition, and predictive focus. By developing such a camera…

LOL. Just LOL. Buy the R5, Z8, a1 or a Fuji GFX, set it to single shot and manual focus.

There is a clear need for that among you. Get over yourself.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Less popular(?) thought but it would be cool if, given that they’ve clearly chosen to target the R5 series at hybrid shooters, the R3 was engineered to be the purely still photographer’s camera (with less video features) and sold around the same price point. It’s been awhile since Canon really catered to stills shooters - the last time they did this was the introduction of the 5DS/R models…a camera I still use to this day. Despite its obvious drawbacks in low light I still think it’s one of, if not the, best stills DSLR Canon has ever put out and with select lenses, never leaves you wanting for detail.

It would be great if the next R3 went back to catering to stills shooters, perhaps a MILC adaptation of what the 5DS was. Remove the OLPF (they put very strong ones in the 5D4 and R), either raise the resolution or perhaps even lower it to the ~30MP sweet spot, add cross-type AF, then get rid of most of the 8k/6k video hybrid features to balance things. That would be cool, although I think practically I agree with the posters who say that ( assuming it actually stays around and is not just marketing speak) the R3 will be used for more “experimental” features like a global shutter.

 

[Richard CN]

The Need for Affordable ‘Stills First’ Landscape Photography-Based Full Frame Cameras with High Megapixels

Introduction:

The landscape photography community, alongside architecture, interior, real estate, hospitality, food, still life, astro-photography, advertising, and high-end studio portraiture photographers, has long sought a camera tailored to its specific needs—one that prioritizes high megapixel counts and superior image quality over features such as video recording, high frame rates (FPS), and advanced auto-focus systems.

Oh good grief.

Harry is that you?

Get a 907X & CFV 100C



it's already out there, and Sony, NIkon, Canon et all aren't going to do that.

I'd say the GFX system is "too advanced" for you.

even a 120MP Canon Mirrorless will have some video features - why? because you need video infrastructure anyway for the EVF and back LCD. Not to mention the auto-focus systems.

So if they have to do the pipeline, they are going to do video as well. also 16 bit raw AND high MP sensor on full frame won't happen - get a medium format sensor.

PS .. there's absolutely no way astrophotography needs or wants a high MP sensor like this. That would be .. well stupid. the sky traversal before a star would travel a line pair would be measured in the seconds.

PPS.. i want that camera.

 

[Sporgon]

I wonder if the R1 will have AF point-linked spot metering?

It seems to be a 1 series specific feature, so probably.
My G1Xiii has it !

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh good grief.

Harry is that you?

Lol, no. This is the person who suggested that Canon doesn’t dominate the ILC market and that the demand for high MP cameras is huge, based on the single-store (MAP Camera) best-seller list for June, 2024.

I suppose this is a tacit acknowledgement that was BS, so this new post is an attempt to frame his/her personal desire as a ‘white paper’.

Should have been titled, "My need for..." and like many people who express their personal opinions here, that personal want is expressed as 'the needs of the many'.

Twice nothing is still nothing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It seems to be a 1 series specific feature, so probably.
My G1Xiii has it !

Really, there's no reason any mirrorless camera cannot have it, since the metering is done with the image sensor.

 

[mightormagic]

Agreed. it will continue to be ignored in the future.

 

[rbr]

I was ecstatic when I discovered live-view when using the mp-e65. Having the camera low to the ground and then trying to look through the angle finder turns out to be real skill that to need to work on

It is an easily acquired skill. Angle finders have two major advantages over the flippy screens :

1 - They have diopter adjustments.

2 - They don't reflect sunlight.

Flippy screens aren't very useful if you can't see what is on them them very well.

 

[SwissFrank]

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

You're not wrong, but one thing that serves a company well is serving its customers well, keeping them fairly well-informed and so on.

 

[PinholeR5]

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."

Ok, I reread the article and indeed I think I indeed missed the main point. Just the tine detail about reflecting on the statement that the R3 line is not going away.

I agree that the 1DX III -> R1 is a massive upgrade. The R3 can be considered a technology stepping stone (beta release, tech trial) for the 1DX III to R1 transition in the same way the EOS 3 can be considered a technology stepping stone for the EOS 1N -> EOS 1V transition. Consequently, the technical differences between the R3 and R1 will be relatively small in the same way that the technology differences between the EOS 3 and the EOS 1V were relatively small when compared with a generational leap within a product line, and my R3 -> R1 vs R5 -> R5 II comparisons actually underscore that point

I don't think I was necessarily downplaying the difference between the R1 and R3, just commenting on how I thought that the difference is smaller than that between the R5 and R5 II (which, as I admitted above, is completely beside the point). In fact, I commented in a subsequent post how the AF system of the R1 will be substantially superior. The Cross-type AF points will allow for superior AF in many situations where the R3 fundamentally struggles and the DIGIC Acceleratior will allow for substantially improved AI AF algorithms that the R3 will never be able to accomodate.

IMHO, the AF system is the most critical differentiating factor for action/sports photography today. I think rolling shutter improvements are not as significant anymore, DR improvements are incremental, etc. I personally will make the move R3 -> R1, just because of the AF system. I am moving R5 -> R5 II and I know I will not like the R3 AF system after I start using the R5 II.

As for the R3, well, if it does hang around I can see it being the place for testing new technologies before adoption in the 1 series when needed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As for the R3, well, if it does hang around I can see it being the place for testing new technologies before adoption in the 1 series when needed.

Well, it seems that even though the R1 was supposed to be the 'Jack of all trades, master of all', some people are now transferring that hope to the R3 II.

 

[degos]

People buying the R1 are not looking for 45 MP.

They might be, we don't know. Perhaps they have to settle for 24MP because they need the AF, ruggedised body or frame-rate. Some 1 Series market segments such as wildlife photographers, certainly love pixels.

Now if there was an R1s and it was ignored by the market, then perhaps we could make that assumption.

For an anecdotal sample size of 1 ( one ), I've been using 1 Series cameras since the 1D3 came out and I'd love 45MP. Canon aren't giving me that, yet, and so I haven't made a decision on which system to adopt for mirrorless.

 

[ShowMeTheEagles]

Would be cool if Canon turned the R3 into a "professional" wildlife body in the way the R1 is a pro sports body. Put in the best damn crop sensor ever in the existing body, add in all the R5 II's features (functional. Obviously not 8K video). Sell it for $2500-2800. I think it would be a good seller and would not conflict with any other body Canon offers. More over I think a lot of wildlife shooters would still keep buying FF bodies too. I know I'd still keep a R5 II.

 

[Lt Colonel]

Would that actually be enough to entice people from the R5 II?
I guess maybe if it were to be much faster.
Place the R3 II between the R5 II and R1 in both speed and resolution.

I doubt it. However, I have enjoyed shooting the R3 as compared to the 1DX or R5 with and without a grip or any other Canon camera dating back to the AE1. The ergonomics just seem right for me. I think there is a convergence point between $ vs megapixels that lurks in the subconscious realm that if ever identified would be a marketing dam buster. Features like pre-capture and eye controlled focus, and all the video options that I have no clue about certainly add value to some customers and cost to the manufacturing process. So, I think obviously the bottom line will be cost. It would be interesting to see how many buyers of the R5/R5II also purchase a $350 battery grip, and just for slaps and giggles how many actually use the advanced video features. Kinda like going from 30 fps to 40 fps. Obviously, Canon's marketing research determined that is a worthy update.

In some cases it would be interesting to see how the sausage is made and the flavoring is decided. I know the end result is sales and financial gain, but the journey is interesting.

Sorry for the rambling. In the end I think you are right. The R5II will likely be "the" camera for the near future for wildlife enthusiast like myself. I will likely sell my R5 and R7 and try the get the R5II if I out live the supply chain shortage.

 

[john1970]

Cropping in camera also has its drawbacks as well as illustrated below:

 

[Bob Howland]

You're not wrong, but one thing that serves a company well is serving its customers well, keeping them fairly well-informed and so on.

It's more important that the customers think they are being well served than that they are being well served. Of course, manipulative BS only goes so far.

 

[Bob Howland]

I get that people are set in their ways and object to change, but I don't understand why Canon doesn't state "Processing JPEGs happens instantaneously, set your JPEG to M and you'll get the fastest and best 24MP pictures!" for higher-than-24MP cameras.

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?

According to B&H, the R5-2 can output can output 24MP and 17.3MP HEIF, JPG and raw images. The Z8 and Z9 can output 25.5/25.6 MP images, type unknown. My 5DS can output 22MP JPGs, same resolution as the my 5D3.

Update: For the R5-2, the 24MP resolution is HEIF & JPG only. The 17.3MP resolution involves a 1.6X sensor crop and is available in raw and some HEIF & JPG sizes.