Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: New Canon R3 - how come?  (Read 3256 times)

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2259
Re: New Canon R3 - how come?
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2021, 09:21:33 am »

Since the D3x neither Canon nor Nikon have produced a non action focused full spec body.
Are you saying the R1 is going to be a high res slow body?
(...)
Because it's AF is pretty poor? :-)

I'm not saying or speculating what the R1 will or will not be.  Just noting that there are several companies that have two models within the same series. In Leica's case the SL2s is biased towards motion but is proving to be an in-demand product.

Certainly the R3 seems to be more than 'motion' capable and its eye AF has had some rave reviews all of which would be a plus for many togs.

(https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/8527058472/three-moments-with-the-canon-eos-r3-that-changed-my-opinion-of-eye-control)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13948
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: New Canon R3 - how come?
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2021, 02:51:12 pm »

I think it is about the photo and it contents, that people want it,
not about the amount of pixels...
So being able to make the photo is what counts... in many cases it is a phone.

Well, these cameras will mostly be used by pro shooters shooting the same action side to side in sports venues. Same positioning as the D6 and 1DxIII.

The pictures will therefore be mostly the same.

The only difference will be their technical qualities, in particular resolution.

Why would a client presented with 2 identical images buy the lower res one?

This is a very real and simple question that should worry agencies and their photographers. If not now in 5 years for the images captured in the meantime. Because as much as 24 already feels low in 2021 how low will it feel in 2026 when everyone in the stadium will do shooting higher res images from their phones?

Sure, if nobody else got the shot 24mp won’t kill a sale. But this is not the kind of situations these cameras are designed to handle.

Josh is looking at this question as a brand topic, but this is simply common sense. Just think of the press Nikon would be getting if they were the one stuck at 24mp with the R3 at 50mp. It would be seen by most reviewer as an obvious sign that Nikon cannot keep up with the pace of technology and is a dying company.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2021, 02:59:42 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Some reflections
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2021, 04:37:18 am »

I saw the announcement of the Canon R3, their new $6k flagship camera and was prepared to be awed. But on reviewing specs it is very disappointing. It clearly loses out to the Sony A-1 in every important aspect. So what gives? Unless someone has a closet full of Canon lenses I cannot see a reason to buy this camera.
The way I would see it, 24 MP is good enough for many purposes.

Also, getting 24 MP resolution in the real world may not be easy. It is also about having clean air, with little thermal turbulence but also about getting accurate AF.

Just as an example, I was testing my Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3G at 600 mm on my A7rIV under 'studio conditions' and had huge variation in resolution depending on AF. The lens could reach say 40 MP, but most exposures were around 20-24 MP in resolution.

On the other hand, large pixel advantages and diffraction may a bit of bad information (AKA BS or FUD) from vendors.

Light collection is dependent on sensor area. If you collect N photons, it doesn't really matter if collect them in 25 million or 100 million bins. But those 100 million bins give you twice the spatial resolution.

Diffraction is an aspect of light and a function of aperture. With most lenses, diffraction will not cause a serious degradation below f/11. But, that degradation may be more noticeable on a higher resolution sensor. Simply because the more you have the more you have to loose.

Comparing two different sensors at actual pixels are misleading, as the images are viewed at different sizes. The proper way to compare is at the same size and that is tricky, too.

Sony used to make sensors that combined high DR at base ISO with high resolution. Nikon also uses Sony's technology.

Canon had the5Ds models with 50MP but it seems that most photographers prefer the 5DIV with 30 MP, that may be with or without good reason.

Here is a small write up on 'Elements of Image Quaöity': https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64406737

And here is a comparison of four cameras at A2 size prints: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65520799

As a side note, 'Flagship camera' may be misleading. Just because a camera is most expensive it is not clear that it is best for a given purpose. I would guess that landscape photographers may be better served by the Canon R5 than by the Canon R3, just as an example.

Being mostly a landscape shooter, I wouldn't regard the Sony A1 a worthy upgrade over my Sony A7rIV, as I don't use AF mostly and almost always use single frame with delay.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up