New Canon R3 - how come?

[PeterAit]

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.

[Josh-H]

You are clearly not the target market for this camera.

Working Sports and Wildlife pros recognise that 24 mega pixels is more than enough. We dont want or need more. More is just a storage headache with no benefit. It decreases high ISO performance (which we need) and creates storage issues.

99.9% of people who own Sony A1's will never print anything large enough to warrant the mega pixels in that camera. In fact, 99.9% recurring of people out there dont even print anymore and just upload to the web - where frankly, 4 mega pixels is enough.

It is important to recognise that the R3 is not even trying to compete with the Sony A1.  Comparing them is is just silly.

[PeterAit]

You are clearly not the target market for this camera.

Working Sports and Wildlife pros recognise that 24 mega pixels is more than enough. We dont want or need more. More is just a storage headache with no benefit. It decreases high ISO performance (which we need) and creates storage issues.

99.9% of people who own Sony A1's will never print anything large enough to warrant the mega pixels in that camera. In fact, 99.9% recurring of people out there dont even print anymore and just upload to the web - where frankly, 4 mega pixels is enough.

It is important to recognize that the R3 is not even trying to compete with the Sony A1.  Comparing them is is just silly.

I'd like to see some low-light comparisons. But I disagree about the pixels. It's not about big prints but about photographing animals that are far away and being able to crop severely and still get a useful, sharp photo. When my wife, a skilled bird photographer, moved from a 24MP A9 to the 50mp A1 her ability to capture distant birds was much improved. Thanks in part, of course, to the astounding G-Master glass.

And with 4 TB disks available for a bit over $100, I really cannot buy complaints about storage woes.

And only 1 fast SD slot on the R3? Hmmm...

[Rajan Parrikar]

24MP is pathetic in this day and age. Canon knows well how to part someone from his/her money. As Peter has correctly pointed out, the more the pixels the more the headroom for cropping (an important consideration for those who shoot birds).

It is for the same reason I have stayed with my Canon EOS 5DS (50MP) instead of switching to the 45MP R5. Hopefully the next Canon upgrade to the R5 will be at least 80MP, hopefully 100+ MP. Regardless of my intended output I would like a very high MP body. No storage headaches here (I have got enough SSD storage to fill all the dark matter in the universe and then some).

[Josh-H]

Each to their own I guess... I can just tell you as a working pro wildlife photographer (and thats all I do for a living) 24 MPX is more than enough. Funnily enough, all the other pros i know agree with me - sport and wildlife.

[bobfriedman]

Each to their own I guess... I can just tell you as a working pro wildlife photographer (and thats all I do for a living) 24 MPX is more than enough. Funnily enough, all the other pros i know agree with me - sport and wildlife.

you have a web site??

[Rajan Parrikar]

Each to their own I guess... I can just tell you as a working pro wildlife photographer (and thats all I do for a living) 24 MPX is more than enough. Funnily enough, all the other pros i know agree with me - sport and wildlife.

I don't dispute that the R3 meets your needs and that one can do exceptional work with this body (as you obviously do). It is just that you were pooh-poohing those who want a higher MP count. Even though I don't do bird photography, I would very much want a 100+ MP mirrorless body for landscape and other work (for eg, downsampling a very high MP image may have the effect of reducing apparent noise).

PS: Not a "pro" (and I thank God every day for that)

[Josh-H]

you have a web site??

Of course - http://www.jholko.com

[Josh-H]

I don't dispute that the R3 meets your needs and that one can do exceptional work with this body (as you obviously do). It is just that you were pooh-poohing those who want a higher MP count. Even though I don't do bird photography, I would very much want a 100+ MP mirrorless body for landscape and other work (for eg, downsampling a very high MP image may have the effect of reducing apparent noise).

PS: Not a "pro" (and I thank God every day for that)

Didn't mean to poo poo high MPX.. just point out that most folks 'think' they need it, but actually dont.

There really are only two arguments for high MPX that make sense.
1. You need to print that size (and lets be honest, a fraction of a fraction of photographers with these cameras actually do)
2. You like to crop heavily - and this is a very valid argument. I prefer to use big, fast telephotos, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.

Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.

Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.

All of that said, there is a place for high MPX cameras. It just isn't in the R3. Thats a tool for people like me who want and need high speed, ultra sensitive high ISO clean files.

If I was shooting something other than wildlife, and my friends were shooting something other than F1 for a living we would be looking at very different tools.

All Im saying ultimately, is its important to recognise that the R3 was built for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to serve the needs to people like me. The Sony A1 was built for a different purpose and it suits those that want those features perfectly well.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Didn't mean to poo poo high MPX.. just point out that most folks 'think' they need it, but actually dont.

There really are only two arguments for high MPX that make sense.
1. You need to print that size (and lets be honest, a fraction of a fraction of photographers with these cameras actually do)
2. You like to crop heavily - and this is a very valid argument. I prefer to use big, fast telephotos, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.

Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.

Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.

All of that said, there is a place for high MPX cameras. It just isn't in the R3. Thats a tool for people like me who want and need high speed, ultra sensitive high ISO clean files.

If I was shooting something other than wildlife, and my friends were shooting something other than F1 for a living we would be looking at very different tools.

All Im saying ultimately, is its important to recognise that the R3 was built for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to serve the needs to people like me. The Sony A1 was built for a different purpose and it suits those that want those features perfectly well.

Thanks. I concur.

[bobfriedman]

Didn't mean to poo poo high MPX.. just point out that most folks 'think' they need it, but actually dont.

There really are only two arguments for high MPX that make sense.
1. You need to print that size (and lets be honest, a fraction of a fraction of photographers with these cameras actually do)
2. You like to crop heavily - and this is a very valid argument. I prefer to use big, fast telephotos, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.

Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.

Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.

All of that said, there is a place for high MPX cameras. It just isn't in the R3. Thats a tool for people like me who want and need high speed, ultra sensitive high ISO clean files.

If I was shooting something other than wildlife, and my friends were shooting something other than F1 for a living we would be looking at very different tools.

All Im saying ultimately, is its important to recognise that the R3 was built for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to serve the needs to people like me. The Sony A1 was built for a different purpose and it suits those that want those features perfectly well.

I think you could add increased ISO performance with larger photosites that come with lower pixel counts. One of the principle advantages along with higher frame rate that cameras like this provide. I routinely use high ISO to maintain high shutter speeds for BIF or shoot in low light without flash.

Nice work on your web site!  Nice to be able to travel like that!

[Josh-H]

100% - larger photo sites , better high iso performance and lower noise are the key factors for me personally. Always battling low light and getting sufficient shutter speed in my work.

The big unknown for me is how does the R3 perform in extreme cold for extended periods. The 1DX MK3 has been amazing in this regard and I have shot with it in -40ºC all day without problems. Ive had those cameras so cold and frozen that literally buttons were frozen in place and they still keep working. The mirrorless cameras I have tried from Canon and Sony all fell over after a short period of time from temps of -20 and below. The Sony in particular was woeful because of its small battery.

I suspect the R3 might be ok because it has a bigger battery and more mass.. but I have my doubts around the EVF - those a re a real problem in extreme cold. Need to test it and see.... I plan to take one to Ellesmere Island in Winter in March next year on an expedition to search for White Wolves. That should be a real torture test for it with temps between -30 and -50 every day.

[bobfriedman]

I suspect the R3 might be ok because it has a bigger battery and more mass.. but I have my doubts around the EVF - those a re a real problem in extreme cold. Need to test it and see.... I plan to take one to Ellesmere Island in Winter in March next year on an expedition to search for White Wolves. That should be a real torture test for it with temps between -30 and -50 every day.

Good point on cold weather. I don't think I could adjust to blackout or sticky motion in warm weather either. For wildlife I am sticking to a DSLR (Nikon D5 in my case) until mirrorless is perfected a bit more. By the way.. for scenery, macros etc.. I have no problem using my Fuji GFX 100s.. so I have no issues with mirrorless cams for the right application.

[BernardLanguillier]

The argument that 24mp is enough is just silly. The R3 sounds like a great camera and is among the best in most areas. But it’s imaging sensor is 4 years behind.

It’s only enough because Canon isn’t able to compete with Sony and Nikon in terms of speed and resolution. Josh is a great photographer but also one with a working relationship with Canon.

The moment a 50mp R1 will be released all those praising the R3 will abandon it instantly and never look back.

It’s all too obvious that if presented with a 24mp vs 50mp file all the clients will pick the higher res one. And there are going to be 50mp files available. And more so every day that passes by. We’ve been there before.

There were times where people were willing to buy P1 backs doing 1.2 fps, terrible usability, heavy,.. mostly to get 39mp vs 24mp. These days you can get 30fps at 50mp with an a1 or Z9 with incredible AF performance (probably for the Z9). Why settle with 24mp?

The last time such a huge competitive gap happened in 35mm equipment was the 1Ds release. Those equipped with canon lenses will strive to find ways to rationalize that 24mp is great, just like APS-C pro body owners were trying to rationalize that Nikon was still the right horse to bet on. I know, I was one of them. And yes, it will be possible to capture amazing images with the R3, no doubt. These images will just not have the same level of future proofness as those shot by competitors equipped with Sony or Nikon. Why is likely to have a very concrete impact on mid term revenue.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.

An A1 downsampled file has both exactly the same high ISO SNR and Dynamic range as the huge 20M pixels of the 1DX III's sensor:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-III-versus-Sony-A1___1352_1365

These days you can get 30fps at 50mp with an a1 or Z9

I doubt these days you can even take pictures with a camera you cannot yet buy Bernard.


Couldn't it be that you both are respectively a bit biased towards Canon/Nikon?

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

An A1 downsampled file has both exactly the same high ISO SNR and Dynamic range as the huge 20M pixels of the 1DX III's sensor:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-III-versus-Sony-A1___1352_1365
I doubt these days you can even take pictures with a camera you cannot yet buy Bernard.


Couldn't it be that you both are respectively a bit biased towards Canon/Nikon?

Regards

Could you please at least quote me entirely? I included “probably for the Z9”.

But considering that the R3 has 2 months until availability the actual ship time of both cameras may not be that different. Not to speak about the usual comment that the R3 will actually not be orderable in meaningful quantities anyways.

Nothing against the R3, it’s a very competent camera and I applaud Canon for their work on eye focusing that seems well designed. It’s just that the sensor is 4 years behind.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

Could you please at least quote me entirely? I included “probably for the Z9”.

But considering that the R3 has 2 months until availability the actual ship time of both cameras may not be that different. Not to speak about the usual comment that the R3 will actually not be orderable in meaningful quantities anyways.

Nothing against the R3, it’s a very competent camera and I applaud Canon for their work on eye focusing that seems well designed. It’s just that the sensor is 4 years behind.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry.. thats like saying 'probably the R1'. Z9 is vapourware. Granted R3 is not delivered before November, but we know what we are getting.

If Im not mistaken Nikon has said the Z9 is their flagship. Canon has clearly said the R3 is not. You have to wait for the R1 if you want to make an apples to apples comparison. Not that its meaningful in any way.. its the image that counts and not the camera that took it.

Some of you are far to worried about the tool. These days no camera is the limiting factor folks. The limiting factor is the human holding the camera.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Could you please at least quote me entirely? I included “probably for the Z9”.

The quote was not because the Z9 "probably" bla bla bla Bernard, it's because the Z9 is simply not yet on the market so you cannot have one of those these days. BTW just like the Canon R1, that will "probably" have a lot of Mpx too.

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

The quote was not because the Z9 "probably" bla bla bla Bernard, it's because the Z9 is simply not yet on the market so you cannot have one of those these days. BTW just like the Canon R1, that will "probably" have a lot of Mpx too.

Right… sorry no time for kinder garden level conversations…

[kers]

I agree with Josh that sports photographers do not need more than 24MP.
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
Cropping a 24mp image still provides enough quality for that platform.