Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

[dba101]

I’ve read a few people mentioning ‘some drawbacks‘ with the R5.
Could someone briefly mention what these are, please, as I plan my next camera move.
Eagerly awaiting the R3, as my 1DC has started to chug a bit, but don‘t have time to wait for a potential Nov/Dec release of the R3.

 

[sanj]

I’ve read a few people mentioning ‘some drawbacks‘ with the R5.
Could someone briefly mention what these are, please, as I plan my next camera move.
Eagerly awaiting the R3, as my 1DC has started to chug a bit, but don‘t have time to wait for a potential Nov/Dec release of the R3.

If you use 1dc, you are a filmmaker. The ONLY issue with R5 is the overheating - which has not been an issue with me in the three corporates, four music videos and one commercial I have shot with it. Just be careful about the heating issues by powering off between takes and all is ok. If you will use R5 for the same as 1DC (4k), there are no issues at all. R5 is FANTASTIC. BTW I am an ex 1dc user. Here is the commercial:

 

[Skyscraperfan]

What's worse? Using a high resolution body and requiring the right conditions (shutter speed, aperture, light) to capture high detail images? Or using a low resolution body and being limited by the camera even if the other conditions are perfect?

The problem is that a high resolution mody will make you always want to achieve an image that is sharp enough for that high resolution. That takes some of the fun away from photography. For example I might carry a heavy tripod with me more often, if I had a high resolution body, because a high resolution body limits the amount of camera shake that still allows a sharp photo. It also forces me to make the exposure shorter and the depth of field larger. The other extreme are very low resolution photos that will almost always get sharp. Those are the most fun to take. So a moderate resolution between 20 and 30 megapixels is a good compromise between fun and quality. And if I need a higher resolultion, I can take multiple photos and then stitch them, as long as the subject is not moving. I sometimes do that with architecture shots. The result can have 100 megapixels or more and effectively is a photo from a medium or even large format sensor with all the benefits from that.

 

[Joules]

The problem is that a high resolution mody will make you always want to achieve an image that is sharp enough for that high resolution. That takes some of the fun away from photography. For example I might carry a heavy tripod with me more often, if I had a high resolution body, because a high resolution body limits the amount of camera shake that still allows a sharp photo. It also forces me to make the exposure shorter and the depth of field larger. The other extreme are very low resolution photos that will almost always get sharp. Those are the most fun to take. So a moderate resolution between 20 and 30 megapixels is a good compromise between fun and quality. And if I need a higher resolultion, I can take multiple photos and then stitch them, as long as the subject is not moving. I sometimes do that with architecture shots. The result can have 100 megapixels or more and effectively is a photo from a medium or even large format sensor with all the benefits from that.

If you have two images of the same scene with differing resolutions and view them at the same physical size (so NOT 100 % magnification, for example), either

* they will look virtually identical
* or the higher resolution one will look more detailed, if the magnification is great enough to start showing the pixels of the lower resolution one

There is no scenario in which a lower resolution body produces more detailed images than a higher res one. If you personally can't tolerate any blur at 100 % magnification, meaning your definition of a sharp image is one that is sharp on the pixel level, that would of course result in a high res body being a disadvantage FOR YOU - but you could still just downscale the image and get what you would have if a lower resolution body was used. So still no IQ disadvantage, just wasted file space and digital processing time.

 

[dba101]

If you use 1dc, you are a filmmaker. The ONLY issue with R5 is the overheating - which has not been an issue with me in the three corporates, four music videos and one commercial I have shot with it. Just be careful about the heating issues by powering off between takes and all is ok. If you will use R5 for the same as 1DC (4k), there are no issues at all. R5 is FANTASTIC. BTW I am an ex 1dc user. Here is the commercial:

Thanks Sanj for your straightforward reply. I have been using the 1Dc for weddings/corporate videos/footage, and also blasting out stills with it. I saved for two years to get it and paid cash £6k. I have to say it still offers me more every time I use it, and the value Canon gave me at that price point was immeasurable.
I was aware of the R5 overheating situation and not worried one bit. I just heard somewhere about the auto-focus being slightly suspect, when most of what I heard was that the auto-focus is absolutely superb.
Your commercial is beautiful. I loved every bit of it. Thanks for posting.
I will wait for the approx 14th R3 announcement, and see how the land lies, but I have 99% made up my mind to get that awesome R5 in my hands and enjoy what I now know is another beaut from Canon.
I have been filming boats coming back from sea and entering the harbour, and the 8k will be very handy In short clips.
So thanks again in helping me decide those burning questions one considers when going for another camera purchase.

 

[sanj]

Thanks Sanj for your straightforward reply. I have been using the 1Dc for weddings/corporate videos/footage, and also blasting out stills with it. I saved for two years to get it and paid cash £6k. I have to say it still offers me more every time I use it, and the value Canon gave me at that price point was immeasurable.
I was aware of the R5 overheating situation and not worried one bit. I just heard somewhere about the auto-focus being slightly suspect, when most of what I heard was that the auto-focus is absolutely superb.
Your commercial is beautiful. I loved every bit of it. Thanks for posting.
I will wait for the approx 14th R3 announcement, and see how the land lies, but I have 99% made up my mind to get that awesome R5 in my hands and enjoy what I now know is another beaut from Canon.
I have been filming boats coming back from sea and entering the harbour, and the 8k will be very handy In short clips.
So thanks again in helping me decide those burning questions one considers when going for another camera purchase.

Thank you. It was shot at 8k. One day I will upload it at 4k. 4k looks way better than 2k. Time will come when 8k will be posted more often and then 2k will look dated. I, personally, prefer higher mpx for stills and 8k. But I do understand people who prefer speed and lower mpx.

 

[rbielefeld]

y

Nice video and very helpful, thanks!

Glad you found it useful.

 

[AEWest]

Y'all have a really low threshold for 'bullying'

Perhaps. But I have seen forums devolve into nothing but insult flinging, and thus become unreadable. I would hate to see CR go that route. Better to keep things civil.

 

[dba101]

Thank you. It was shot at 8k. One day I will upload it at 4k. 4k looks way better than 2k. Time will come when 8k will be posted more often and then 2k will look dated. I, personally, prefer higher mpx for stills and 8k. But I do understand people who prefer speed and lower mpx.

Was the question I omitted from my previous post. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[privatebydesign]

I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.

I'm not.

 

[slclick]

Perhaps. But I have seen forums devolve into nothing but insult flinging, and thus become unreadable. I would hate to see CR go that route. Better to keep things civil.

It does go there on occasion and that's when some of us long timers have learned to step away for a bit and let the dust settle, wait for the blood to be mopped and the thin skin to be thickened.

 

[entoman]

Can't wait to get beyond this gimped camera. Unless it is the same price as an R5, such a disappointment.

$6000 for a photo centric 24mp camera in 2021. Imagine.

Sarcasm? I hope so!

The R3 will almost certainly become the go to workhorse for thousands of professionals, a versatile machine that can cover anything from wildlife and sports, to wedding, event, reportage and landscape. Well heeled amateurs will scramble to get orders in too.

I fully expect it to be extremely reliable, very well sealed against the elements, and durable enough to take a professional bashing.

I also expect it to be able to handle everything that the $7000 1Dxiii can do, but with much faster burst speeds, no EVF blackout, much less bulk and weight, silent shutter, higher resolution, more dynamic range, less noise, access to all the stunning RF glass and a whole lot more.

If it costs $6000 it will be a bargain, and professionals in almost all genres of photography will be all over it.

 

[john1970]

Sarcasm? I hope so!

The R3 will almost certainly become the go to workhorse for thousands of professionals, a versatile machine that can cover anything from wildlife and sports, to wedding, event, reportage and landscape. Well heeled amateurs will scramble to get orders in too.

I fully expect it to be extremely reliable, very well sealed against the elements, and durable enough to take a professional bashing.

I also expect it to be able to handle everything that the $7000 1Dxiii can do, but with much faster burst speeds, no EVF blackout, much less bulk and weight, silent shutter, higher resolution, more dynamic range, less noise, access to all the stunning RF glass and a whole lot more.

If it costs $6000 it will be a bargain, and professionals in almost all genres of photography will be all over it.

I agree with your statement. I rarely print larger than 16x20 and for prints that size 24 MP is just fine. Back in the day, I used to make 16x20 prints from a 10 MP Nikon D200 and they were sharp as well. I look forward to the formal announcement to learn more specifics; I still hope that the electronic shutter is not fixed at 30 fps, but also functions at 5, 10, 20 fps as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree with your statement. I rarely print larger than 16x20 and for prints that size 24 MP is just fine. Back in the day, I used to make 16x20 prints from a 10 MP Nikon D200 and they were sharp as well. I look forward to the formal announcement to learn more specifics; I still hope that the electronic shutter is not fixed at 30 fps, but also functions at 5, 10, 20 fps as well.

Yeah, but what about when you spot a flying unicorn in the far, far distance and you only have your 50mm lens. I bet then you’ll be kicking yourself for buying a camera with a paltry 24 MP when if only Canon had provided 80 MP in the R3 you could have cropped away 98% of the image and still had a sharp, 16x20” print of a flying unicorn.

 

[slclick]

Yeah, but what about when you spot a flying unicorn in the far, far distance and you only have your 50mm lens. I bet then you’ll be kicking yourself for buying a camera with a paltry 24 MP when if only Canon had provided 80 MP in the R3 you could have cropped away 98% of the image and still had a sharp, 16x20” print of a flying unicorn.

It's pretty common to get Pegasus mixed up with unicorns. Pass given.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's pretty common to get Pegasus mixed up with unicorns. Pass given.

It’s pretty common to not know what an alicorn is, which is why I used ‘flying unicorn’ instead. A Pegasus’ head lacks the single horn characteristic of unicorns (which are wingless) and alicorns (which have wings). Mythical taxonomy lesson over.

 

[SereneSpeed]

I agree 100% that 24mp is more than enough for the vast majority of professionals who earn a living at photography.

This is a bit off (thread) topic, However:

For those saying 10-12, or even 20mp is enough for printing large prints... Please, pause, take a breath and ask yourself; Have I every printed an image by doing more than pressing the print button (or sending a file to a printer)?

I'm not saying you need uberpixels, but they most certainly can be a limiting factor.

For those who map colour profiles between screens and paper types, understand paper types, labour over sharpening (not a slider bar in Lightroom, by the way), know the difference between dpi and ppi, make and use swatches, set black and white points, and understand the value of ink, it's not hard to tell when a print lacks in megapixels.

For those saying you stand XX feet back from a large print anyway, so you'll never see the difference... No, not in a lot of cases. If you see a beautifully detailed image, with the file quality (megapixels are part of this), processing skill, and printing knowledge all coming together in one large print, hung on a properly lit wall, you'll most certainly see people who walk right up close and lose themselves completely in the details. This is one of the differences between motion and still images. I've never seen anyone walk right up to an 8K television screen, but I've most certainly seen people walk up to the equivalent resolution photographic print.

 

[masterpix]

Only one thing? GPS? how fast does it focus? sensor size? ... battery life..

 

[rick1]

Sarcasm? I hope so!

The R3 will almost certainly become the go to workhorse for thousands of professionals, a versatile machine that can cover anything from wildlife and sports, to wedding, event, reportage and landscape. Well heeled amateurs will scramble to get orders in too.

I fully expect it to be extremely reliable, very well sealed against the elements, and durable enough to take a professional bashing.

I also expect it to be able to handle everything that the $7000 1Dxiii can do, but with much faster burst speeds, no EVF blackout, much less bulk and weight, silent shutter, higher resolution, more dynamic range, less noise, access to all the stunning RF glass and a whole lot more.

If it costs $6000 it will be a bargain, and professionals in almost all genres of photography will be all over it.

The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only people that will buy this camera are canon users.

That's the majority of the ILC market.