His opinion is free for him to give, albeit not overly tactfully stated, but is one that I agree with given the 12+ year old resolution it offers. If we do not value others’ opinions, what does that say about us?
Upvote
0
Canon USA: The R3 line will continue
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Objectively, it’s called the R1…and it does actually exist. You may hold the opinion, and state that in your opinion, it should have been called the R3II. That’s fine.
There are a large number of people in the US who refuse to accept the existence of a wide range of facts. I place zero value on the opinions of someone who refuses to accept reality.
Upvote
0
Developing these cameras can't be cheap though. Sony has a big sensor division to subsidize sensor development for the A9III since they can use the same tech in their other sensors and for other manufacturers. Canon doesn't have that luxury.
Upvote
0
If they put an R5ii type sensor in the R3 body and called that the R3ii I think it would sell reasonably well. I'm my experience digital teching a lot of pro R5 shooters begrudgingly accept the limitations of the R5 in order to have the large files for print. The main issue being AF, slow readout speed (which is fixed in the new mark ii), battery life, and build quality. The R5 seems to have the same issue in with poorly reinforced USB ports as the 5D series resulting in issues with tethering and having to send bodies in to Canon for repair when used in studio settings. And power management wise those LPE19 batteries last all day despite only being 570 more mAh than the LPE6.
A lot of studios that were using Hasselblad or Phase One backs have switched to Fuji GFX because the AF is more reliable (pretty low bar there) and the cost of ownership is so much lower. In the field I would say I see R5 and A7Riv in 50/50 use, besides myself and one other sports shooter using the R3.
A lot of studios that were using Hasselblad or Phase One backs have switched to Fuji GFX because the AF is more reliable (pretty low bar there) and the cost of ownership is so much lower. In the field I would say I see R5 and A7Riv in 50/50 use, besides myself and one other sports shooter using the R3.
Upvote
0
I live in an area where the cost of living is one of the lowest in the US and therefore wages are lower. I am the only one that is shooting mirrorless anything, most are using 1Ds or a Nikon variant. I have to travel 2 hours away to find someone using a Sony a series, I've never caught the exact model.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
And no one cares what you acknowledge or don't acknowledge.
And since the R1 is essentially the successor to the R3 in terms of the target market of sports shooters, this is exactly what one would expect as it is only 3 years since the R3 was released. Major improvements (based on those who have actually used it) in the Autofocus system, with some brand new AF features. Higher FPS and greater speed. Other improvements as well. Considering the maturity of the features of the R3, what exactly did you expect to advance more significantly in 3 years?
Of course, like so many others, what you probably mean to say is, "I wanted more MPs." That is obviously not what Canon's market research indicated what sports shooters want. Deal with it.
Upvote
0
How does a megapixel count have an age? Do you expect the maximum speed a car can go will increase every year?
Upvote
0
This is the point that I've been trying to highlight. It is my opinion that the market is moving toward video content creators that most people here wouldn't consider "pros". Let's take a look at Manny Ortiz as an example. Manny has been on YouTube for 6 years where he started off using the A7RII. In the past six years he has purchased:
Sony A7RII $3,200
Sony A7RIII $3,200
Sony A7III $2,000
Sony A7RIV $3,500
Canon R5 $3,899
Sony A7IV $2,500
Sony ZV-E1 $2,200
Sony FX30 $1,800
Sony A7RV $3,900
Nikon Z8 $3,800
Sony A1 $6,500
Hasselbad X2D $8,200
Fuji X100Vi $1,600
Total: $44,100
So ONE GUY has puchased over $44,100 in camera bodies alone over a 6 year period. On top of that he has essentially shot for weeks on end on pretty much every Sony, Canon and Nikon camera to come out over that same period. And while he may shoot sports on occasion the vast majority of his shoots are portrait.
The specs aren't just about how well the camera performs at a specific task. Its about how well the camera performs relative to the competition. So even though Manny is a portrait photographer, most of his income is coming from YouTube. People aren't going to continue watching his content if he constantly shooting with the same camera. He has to have the best gear and be able to demostrate the difference between that gear to get the view.
Do most people need a 3 ms read out speed senson? Of course not. But the people on YouTube are going to do a video filming propreller blades with the Sony A9III and the R1 and the A9III is going to look better. Well if your goal is to also be a YouTuber you are going to want to have the best gear to compete in the same way.
So here you have people talking about Jeff Cable. I'm sure the guy is outstanding at what he does. But he has a YouTube channel with 7k subscribers and gets practically no views. Meanwhile there are thousands of YouTubers whow aren't "pros" at anything and they have millions of subscribers between them with thousands of more young people that want to be like them every day.
Upvote
0
Usually, people who buy "the best" when it is neither necessary or maybe even optimum typically have a problem with self-esteem and feel that the perceived quality of the trinkets they buy will will somehow enhance the public perception of their phallic dimensions. I always found it amusing that if you walk into a Porsche dealer without being dressed to the nines, the sales folk will ignore you and try to shoo you out of the store. In contrast, you can go into a Ferrari dealer dressed in old jeans and get immediate attention. The difference being that the typical Porsche customer is trying to reach beyond his means and feels the need to display wealth, whereas the typical Ferrari customer can fully afford to dress any damn way he pleases. I suspect the same would be true for buying (or leasing) a phase one camera body. You just wouldn't be there if you couldn't afford it. Sony, Leica, Hasselblad, more like Porsche. Canon, OTOH is the Toyota of the camera business. They will sell you a Lexus ( R1) if you want it, but the majority of their business is mainstream with good functionality and reliability. You do have to pay attention, though because every now and then, they will pop up with a Supra or Corolla GR.
Upvote
0
Great example. Certainly representative of the camera market as a whole. You should share this critical information with Canon to save them from themselves.
Upvote
0
Because the resolution came out around that many years ago. We know how old the mustang body style is because we know when it was first introduced. Typically new equipment takes advantage of new and often faster technology. How many new computers come out using processors from a decade ago? How many phone, tablets, etc. do the same? Why should we not expect new cameras to follow these same technological patterns?
Upvote
0
Of course we should. I mean, how can the Sony get away with selling the a7S III that they launched in 2020 with a pathetically low 12 MP? That was sooooo 2005 when Canon launched the 5D. Best head to sonyalpharumors and complain about that!
Upvote
0
To be fair, Sony does have a lot more choices in the resolution aspect compared to any other manufacturer.
All you care about is video? They'll sell you two 12 MP cameras (A7SIII, FX3). You want the highest resolution camera right now without going to Fuji GFX or Hasselblad? Here are two 61 MP cameras (A7RV, A7CR).
I think right now in their full-frame line up they have 12, 24 (with GS in the A9III, without in the A7III), 33, 50, and 61 megapixels. I think Canon and Nikon both only have 24 and 45 MP cameras right now.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Unless the a7S III is their flagship camera and not a lower model, which makes sense to have lower resolution and fewer features, then your comment is irrelevant. I am not going to get into a peeing contest, I have my opinion, you have yours, feel free to think you are always right and everyone that disagrees with you is not.
Upvote
0
Yes, but the point is that if one is going to lambaste Canon for a ‘12+ year old resolution’ as @OldDudePhotog is doing, one should even more harshly lambaste Sony for a nearly 20-year old resolution.
Or, one could acknowledge that different market segments have different needs as far as resolution is concerned, and that the higher/highest resolutions are not preferred by everyone.
Upvote
0
I’m not claiming my opinion is any more valid than yours. I get that a 24 MP R1 doesn’t make sense to you. It clearly made sense to Canon. They get to make that choice, not us.
The point I’m making (repeatedly) is that Canon is far more likely to know what their target market wants/needs than you, me, or anyone on this forum. Of course you know what you want. Are you claiming you know what the majority of R1 buyers would want? I hope not, but you would be far from the first to claim that and look foolish.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
