All of us with 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII and big whites. After the event and an evening of beer we all concluded that we're not.swapping out our gear anytime soon. Not shooting into the sin with an EVF for action sports where you're handheld and swinging and certainly not for another 20 something MP camera. We "all" said we wanted to try the Z9 but that was the only other camera anyone had even an interest in exploring even with the EVF. We all also guessed as to what the R1 will be like and if Canon will address the lag, bloom associated with losing shots when swinging into the direct sun.... Perhaps Canon has a new EVF design? As of now all of us are.sticking with our OVF's

Your link to camera size tells me that size is your primary measure.
This is where I feel you are mistaken.

@Mr Swiss

"Look at the A9ii back compare to the previous gen (body) A7iii. It is not much different than their entry level FF camera."

If you're writing that in good faith (which I doubt) you need to get to an optician.

As Mike says the A9II, A7RIV, A7sIII and A1 all have professional bodies and are professional grade cameras.

So some argue Sony is trying to save size and weight, by leaving off those features and using a smaller low resolution LCD.

Others argue the A9ii/A1/A7Siii has a budget LCD, no top LCD, and has the nearly the same body as Sony's upcoming entry level (or mid-range) cameras nd so ins't close to being a professional body.
I can see both sides here. If you are writing in good faith you will see the larger LCD, top LCD, extra buttons on the back of the mid-level Z6ii and see why many might think it is as good or better. You can see why it might look more professional, and why some think the A1/A9ii/A7siii are lacking.

I am willing to bet the A7iv has a newer LCD like the A7RivA and near identical body to the A1/A9ii. I hope it has an LCD that articulates left and right too like the A7Siii. You might say with the better LCD the A7iv will be more 'professional' and no doubt thousands of professions will buy and use it. Maybe more than the A9ii and A1 combined.

@ Kandid: Those huge and heavy cameras are yesterday's 'pro' form factor.

@Magnar W
Really? Good to know - wonder why Canon and Nikon don’t know that? - I mean you would have thought that their thousands of pro users might have told them……..darn it - why didn’t they ask you…..❓🤷‍♂️

@ Kandid: They are targeting a more conservative user group, so it would not be helpful to ask me. :-)

@Magnar
Right - so now you are saying that the traditional 'PRO' form factor is only for old fashioned pros - the hip crowd like it small to shoot sport eh? Unusual perspective - lets see if real pros agree with you.........🤔

@Kandid
the reasoning that anyone puts behind having the bigger body belongs to he past. Battery grip still has value today, but you are better off with a modular design, it is so much better to put it on when needed and take it off when not. There is a very small group of individuals for whom the integrated grip is beneficial, but it sucks that everyone got to take that for the benefit of very few. As a fact I have been long frustrated with the fact that Canon ONLY offered top performance in MASSIVE bodies.

@Kandid
as I said I think right now Canon is hiding behind the brainwash that the bigger the better to have competitive battery life. The R5 is plenty big to handhold my 400/2.8 and any extra gram is more detrimental that beneficial.

@armandino
Clearly Nikon and to an extent Olympus are hiding behind the same brainwash….? If you are correct (I have no skin in this game and no interest in a large form factor personally) then they will soon die out…..

@Kandid
new mirrorless and modern technology offer shooting styles that were not possible before. A larger body offers a lot of battery, additional grip, and a more ergonomic shooting in an integral body. This is cannot be a compromise for the few that go pretty extreme with their shooting. At the same same time you give up a lot. The fact is that who wants such large bodies are for the most part the ones who have always shot with them and could not care less for innovation while drawing irrational comfort from what they are accustomed to. Canon and Nikon will not have a problem in making such bodies for them and charge them accordingly. Sony, on the other hand embraced the mirrorless revolution without looking back, also because that is what works for Sony from a marketing standpoint. Look, check out my profile, you will see I did not shy away from larger bodies and back at the time I would take my big brick anywhere.

> I'm late to the 'party' here but it looks like Canon has more/less caught up to the A9

I would agree - considering that the A9 came out four years ago and costs half as much.

@mikegt
Good to know - and a bit of a surprise 🙄

Overpriced allright....
I mean, a great camera and probably the construction quality justifies the price, but there is too much on the market now that can deliver too close of a performance for so much less. Hard to make it a compelling camera. Nevertheless, lots will be sold.

@armandino
So - overpriced and underwhelming - yet will sell ‘lots’…..❓seems a little - contradictory….

@Kandid
Lots of overpriced stuff gets sold all the time. I never said underwhelming.
The R3 is facing the same issue as the A1: too many competent cameras are excellent at delivering what sport photographers need for much less. Diminishing returns now more than ever. At least the A1 has 50MP and a compact body, so a more versatile camera. But to me neither is worth buying at the current price.

@armandino
I agree that the A1 looks better value for most photographers (maybe not pro sports shooters ?) - but is still very pricey….
I assumed when you said ‘ Hard to make it a compelling camera.’ I assumed that you were underwhelmed - apologies if I got that wrong….

Sensor yields are definitely a factor particularly for large stacked die. A single failed interconnect between the two die and basically both chips have the be thrown away. No doubt Sony had yield issues years ago when they started shipping the A9 but the global supply chain crisis going on today wasn’t a factor back then.

It’s anyone’s guess whether limitations on R3 supply will be driven from their own manufacturing or from availability of other components. What I can say with certainty is that Canon, Sony, Nikon, and any high end electronics manufacturer is struggling with availability of raw materials as well as completed chips these days. There’s also a healthy bit (unhealthy actually) of price gouging going on with respect to sourcing some of these components. It’s a tough business right now.

Every time any brand releases a new camera, it is followed up by a statement about how demand is higher than expected. I don't think anyone really believes that anymore. In reality it's one of two things, neither of which they will ever admit: 1) They are affected by the global shortages (why not just say so?) or 2) to instill a higher sense of urgency to purchase/reserve/preorder from customers.

These multi-billion dollar companies with entire teams dedicated to market research aren't so incompetent that they grossly misjudge demand with literally every single product release. Nikon and Sony are famous for doing this as well.

Yes I agree, it is not like Canon will sell a fraction of what say Qualcomm will sell. A marketing ploy. No more R3 cameras that Canon will sell I bet they have enough stock to cover it easily.
Canon is king of BS..

Increasing complexity will always decrease yields. However, I don't think bonding chips will have a huge effect on yields. This is because bonding just is just wire lithography and not actual silicon lithography. The shortages are probably due to the general shortage of everything we have nowadays due to covid and Intel's failed 10nm semi manufacturing.

Like this? 😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣

always remember the first law of the internet:

1) Online social media = outright lies + exaggerations.

and the second law of the internet:

2) See Internet law #1

It takes between 150 and 220 milliseconds for a nerve signal to travel from your eye to your brain and then to your finger. That's the real lag that can cause us to miss the important shot.

@ Cian3307: You need to sync your response to the camera delay, no matter DSLR or mirrorless, OVF or EVF. That's where you need to do some effort if you want to capture the peak of fast action in a single frame.

Response time differ from person to person. Camera lag differ from camera model to camera model, and how the camera is set up will affect lag. So you need to learn the combination to know.

With SLR cameras with no or just a slow motor drive (2-3 fps), you simply had to practice the camera to know before joining the battle.

I've shot with SONY,Canon NIkon all have been similar when I use an EVF. I soot extreme water sport all my work is outdoors in the Tropics. I am in extreme sun I must shoot into the sun and shots are back-lit. To someone who is untrained it would look like high-key. Every EVF I've used has "Bloomed" out when I go into the sun. My OVF does not do that. I do not have to perceive where my athletes are they in "real-time" and when I follow them in the center of my focus screen with the frame filled with the appropriate lens, my composition and framing are perfect. I do not get the same "latitude" with an EVF. Also, I am very concerned about exposure, contrast, color and I find the EVF's add/distort/change what I was seeing. Through my OVF I get none of that. At night I shoot athletes with a pair of 600 watt strobes to capture acrobatics over the water, The modeling lights cannot reach out so The EVF's are not giving me the same "tool" I have with my OVF for night.

@tvstaff
you might have very specialized needs and preferences. That is fine, just do not assume that is what most others do or need. That said, I haven't had such a hard time with EVF as you say. My main annoyance is the the white balance shifts but that is minor.
"I do not have to perceive where my athletes are they in "real-time" and when I follow them in the center of my focus screen with the frame filled with the appropriate lens, my composition and framing are perfect. "
wonderful....so?
"I do not get the same "latitude" with an EVF." That can be a con, but also a pro, because you see what you get. The OVF latitude is not what you get and you need to adjust for that.
"Also, I am very concerned about exposure, contrast, color and I find the EVF's add/distort/change what I was seeing" Well if you are shooting sports you should be able to appreciate to be able to assess the exposure BEFORE taking the shot....

@tvstaff
"At night I shoot athletes with a pair of 600 watt strobes to capture acrobatics over the water, The modeling lights cannot reach out so The EVF's are not giving me the same "tool" I have with my OVF for night."
What aperture is the lens you are using at night? Fast lenses should give you almost night vision with an EVF see details you could never see with an OVF. Remember, and OVF is never brighter that F2.8, even if the lens is, such limitation does not apply with the EVF which can also benefit from digital signal gain.

@ armandino: For those who actually have compared EVF to OVF in low light, you would be surprised how early the OVF goes dark.

@Magnar W
agreed. I shoot sports and events in dark conditions all the time, I would really have hard time go back to the the OVF just for that. You can look at the EVF at the actual exposure brightness level and if you are shooting with flash, disable the exposure simulation. I always scratch my head when someone makes such comments....

@tvstaff: it is great that the OVF works for you and gives you the results you need. Many sports photographers have no issues at all with EVF, especially in their latest iterations. Or else there would be a large demand on the forums asking Sony to put an OVF in their A1 camera. There isn't - for good reason :)

I knew pointing out a flaw would trigger our resident Canon trolls.

TRU, let me recycle your own arguments since you recycle them so often: Do you think your rabid defense of every Canon product will lead to Canon making you their brand ambassador ? What is your end-game here ?

Actually we know your endgame: It's to try to discredit any criticism of Canon products, to make it about the person instead of about what he/she said.

Explain to us if you can why using a cheap fragile micro-HDMI port on a $6,000 camera intended for professional use is good for Canon's customers. Try leaving out baseless accusations or insults in your reply, if you are capable of doing so.

@mikegt: Let me point out that this is a discussion of a Canon product. That makes a big difference.

There is plenty of good faith criticism and questions in the discussion, along with understandable enthusiasm. But there are a few like you who we know are not here in good faith, to just criticize.

Because this product is being so well received, you actually have to resort to criticizing some minor detail like the hdmi port. Yes it matters but people can work around it and do so all of the time.

Try going into a sports bar in NYC and criticizing the Yankees, and then when you meet a reaction, playing the victim and acting like you are so surprised and they shouldn't do that. Well, that's you in this forum.

So go on, we know you will find ways to nitpick. But it really won't change anyone's mind. I've already got my preorder in at my local store.

I'm not a videographer but, HDMI is for external recorder right?
Why use external when the camera can record RAW internally?

Alam some people might want to do it because it might be part of their work flow.

The HDMI port is needed for much more than just external recorders. It is the only way to connect an external monitor or play back what has been recorded in something bigger than the tiny back LCD screen. Professional users do this all the time on-set; you want the director to be able to see what is getting recorded and the actors like to see the playback. For long shoots, an external recorder can be vital to help avoid overheating the camera.

Non-pros use the HDMI port to connect their cameras to a TV for quick & easy playback.

TRU: I guess it was too much to expect you to change your ways, as usual you are blaming the messenger to try to deflect attention from the message.

And of course you completely avoided answering my question! So here it is again:

Explain to us if you can why using a cheap fragile micro-HDMI port on a $6,000 camera intended for professional use is good for Canon's customers.

Mike, full size HDMI is reserved for the R1... please wait with your wallet wide open.
Canon still haven't figured out battery and heat management. in the interim, they released a camera with a larger body and battery as a stop gap measure i.e. for pros. Pros shouldn't be using the R5/6 for pro work.

Vignes: To be honest, I'm not sure even the R1 will get a full-size HDMI port. I've been doing some checking and it does appear that Canon has not put a full-size HDMI port on any of their DSLRs or mirrorless cameras to date.

On the other hand, every Canon Cinema Series camera comes with a rugged full-size HDMI port. Based upon the evidence, it does appear that this is a feature that Canon management has decided is reserved only for the Cinema Series line.

Kudos to Panasonic and Sony for putting full-size HDMI ports on their recent high-end cameras, even though they also have "Cinema" style product lines to protect. Also Blackmagic is using full-size HDMI connectors, even on their cheap $1,295 Pocket Cinema Camera.

@mikegt
You are classic Sony troll desperately trying to find every issue you can with a Canon launch and reporting it - and yet policing EVERY Sony related article with maternal ferocity. Find a better hobby…..👎👎👎

The 1DX, DXII and 1DXMKIII all have had PCB issues in early production but Canon /CPS made good on everything. CPS is good that way. HDMI PCB issues abound in cameras, DVR and TV's. To put this "more sensitive' HDMI port on a camera like this could cause issues. I also think the articulating back will be a big CPS visitor. As for the removable shoe shield needing a sealed adapter to use an on camera flash or flash adapter.... This could be another stress point. To those of us who shoot professional water sports the shoe had always been a weak point, I hope the R1 has the same cover but somehow it stays attached. On a moving wet boat or running down the sidelines, they are going to get lost.....

As I've said before, the R3's eye-control autofocus is probably the camera's coolest feature, and it's a shame it doesn't work in video.

It just occurred to me, what if the reason eye-control focus is unavailable for video is the same as why Canon didn't give the camera a full-size HDMI port ?

Like full-size HDMI ports, they could be reserving video eye-control focus for the expensive Cinema Series line. It makes sense, eye-control for video could be very useful for professionals. It could actually do away with the need to have a focus puller person on-set (someone dedicated to manually adjusting the focus either on the lens or via a remote control to follow the actors in a scene). We will have to see if video eye-control focus appears on the next Cinema Series camera.

@ ikegt
There you go again with innuendo and guesswork. A focus puller btw will likely be needed for some time yet as their job is to physically measure object (actor) distances and GUARANTEE via their measurements and knowledge of the lens that focus is correct. I doubt that they would rely on any electronic substitute..l

Kandid:

Hardly guesswork - I've worked on Hollywood productions as a camera assistant so I am speaking from experience. I must be really unnerving you by raising legitimate questions regarding the R3.

Why are you so afraid of what I am saying ?

The HDMI port thing is a valid criticism.
It’s bizarre given the size of this camera that they couldn’t figure out how to put a full size port on it.

And yeah. That the R3 doesn’t use eye control in video is an omission. One that may just deserve mentioning every time TRU and the SDS sufferers bring up that animal EyeAF doesn’t work in video on the Sony’s.

I think micro hdmi is just fine if it's only for playback and stuff
But idk

@MikeRan: As to why no ECAF in video: who knows? I would imagine that involves even more processing power and it introduces other factors into the equation, like making a smooth focus transition.

As to comparing it to the lack of animal/eye AF in video in the A1, there's only one problem: we know from Canon that this is very feasible. Canon does it in cameras that cost lower than the A1.

Seeing as right now Canon is the only one with ECAF, and only on this camera so far, we don't yet know what it takes to achieve ECAF in video. So it's not like you can point to any camera that yet has ECAF in video.

Video being layers of complexity above stills, I would imagine that may be some details to be worked through.

So sure that would be a nice feature. I would imagine Canon is working on it.

But again, it's nice to have ECAF in stills and right now only Canon offers that.

Typical response from you. Canon did ECAF in video in 1999. But apparently it’s too complicated now.

Mike, you know the implementation today is different than in the 90s.

I’ve worked on software engineering projects and even the simplest change usually is not so simple, because of the many dependencies in these complex systems.

But at least Canon has ECAF in stills when no one else does.

Also most videographers don’t use the EVF but the back screen or an external monitor. I remember when the a7s iii launched many wondered why Sony put their best EVF in a primarily video oriented camera.

Speaking of crippling, Sony didn’t put their S Cinetone profile in the a7s iii at first. You had to buy a cinema camera. Then they put it in the higher priced a1. Then they put it in the FX3, which is the same camera inside. So then the truth was revealed and Sony finally added S Cinetone to the a7 s iii by software update. So Sony withheld a popular feature on the a7 s iii for several months to preserve it for higher priced models.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the profile wasn’t tested enough with the new sensor with the A7siii was released so they added it later. There are any number of valid explanations.

By the way I never even insinuated that canon crippled the R3 video by not including ECAF. I just identified it as a deficiency. As you do incessantly about anything negative you can find about Sony.

You keep parroting your canon marketing. “We are better than Sony”. “Your Sony doesn’t do this”. “Look what we can do”. Yadda yadda yadda.

Enjoy your Sunday.

@Mikegt
Afraid? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🥱🤣🤣🤣😂😂 -of what you say? 😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂. I have already indicated the source of your comment (Sony worship) and of course it is a red herring. Sports and action pros would not desire to use a camera destined for the wild wet and woolly with a bunch of screens and other stuff hanging off it attached by any sort of connector - a more compact one is fine for any later work they may do. Stupid of Canon not to consult your superior expertise about such specifications rather than the many actual working pros that they talked to - what were they thinking of….🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🥱

@Sgt Mikeran
Here you are again telling us poor Canon folk in this Canon article why Sony is so super. Thank you for taking the time away from your busy Sony worship schedule 💦💦💦👅👅👅👅💦💦💦👅👅 to enlighten us

You should read all of my comments about this camera. As normal you are being highly selective in what you focus on. Shocker.

@MikeRan
Yeah right…..🙄

@Thoughts R Us

"I’ve worked on software engineering projects"

That's interesting. As a manager or a programmer? I work as a designer and I do some coding.

"That's interesting. As a manager or a programmer? I work as a designer and I do some coding."

Here i left the job to develop software. Almost a million lines as of today (started in 2015).

Excellent points.

To me this particular body size/weight seems just about perfect. It's smaller than the 1DX series but not too small, and has its advantages of ruggedness, grip, control layout and overall handling.

It actually reminds me a bit of the 1D mark iv in size.

Hey Thoughts. I have the 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark III, both are very similar in size and weight. 1DX came the other day, it's bigger and heavier (noticeably). I'd say the R3 is the smallest of all, in a sort of twilight zone between big non grip DSLR's (D810/850 and 5D Mark III/IV) and the 1D Mark IV/1Ds Mark III. its noticeably lighter too than all. I think the R3 will be smaller than the R1, because the larger bodies just need to be large and heavy for the kind of work they are being used for. I could be wrong about the R1, but if I am, Canon ought to take note. It should be bigger and heavier because working photog's appreciate balance when holding a heavy rig hand held.

@3Percent: yes, the R3 is even smaller than the 1D IV, and I personally love the size. I can't wait to hold it because for me it seems about ideal.

As to the R1, I wouldn't be surprised if it came in larger than the R3, but still smaller than the 1DX series. I would also assume that they have gotten input from a lot of the pro's that use Canon equipment.

No lag on mirrorless is impossible, electron charge cannot travel faster than electro-magnetic wave propagation as it travel by collision, it need a medium that exist first in space-time then make a jump, electro-magnetic wave propagate as fast as existence of time, no need to wait for medium to exist and collide

Yep, ovf's need to stay. No matter what. Both can live together in peaceful harmony on the camera market.

Great explanation except that electronic signals travel through wires between 70-99% of the speed of light. If you think that’s not fast enough I have a bridge to sell you.

The reality is the readout filling a memory buffer and that data being transferred to the display driver is the main driver of EVF lag. Yes there is lag. But on modern sports cameras like the A9/A1 and I presume the R3 it’s negligible. I measured the A9 readout myself at about 10ms. I suspect the A1 in its 240hz mode is on the order of 5ms.

If you think this is significant there’s another bridge I can sell you also.

even the best dslrs have shutter lag, see the d5 for instance:

Prefocused[lag]: 0.039 second = Time to capture, after half-pressing and holding shutter button.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d5/nikon-d5A6.HTM

I'm not sure how having "true color rendition" with an OVF is an advantage, considering that the OVF view does not inform you of what color rendition the camera will produce. If I wanted to see the truest color rendition, I'd leave my camera in my bag and just use my eyes, but we're here to take photos and therefore knowing what exactly the camera sees is a desirable aspect of the tool.

@Alam12 from my recollection of Physics 2, the electrons physically move slowly, but the propagation of the electron movement down the wire is very close to the speed of light. IE when you run a current through the wire, electrons pop out of the other end of the wire almost immediately, though they're not the same electrons you put into the wire (the electrons you put into the wire will take more time to reach the other end).

Genaric is correct. Electrons move quite slowly. However the signals themselves move very quickly. It’s the difference between electron velocity (slow) and electrical signal propagation. (Approaching the speed of light.)

As with most things electronic you can relate it to water flowing through a pipe…. If you opened the spigot with a 100ft hose connected that was already full of water you would know at the end of the hose instantly that the valve was opened…. orders of magnitude faster than it takes for the water at the valve to reach the end of the hose. (Not sure if the explanation made sense but anyway.)

No. We use fiber optics for long distance because there’s no resistance. You know electronics drive those lasers? Yes. They operate as fast as the light over short distances.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-fast-does-electricity-flow/

A simple description for those that don’t need to know all the details.

I like vintage cameras too

@ Alam12: Maybe you should check how often your vision refreshes the projected image on the retina, and also chech what lag is caused by the mirror box ... there is no way shutter delay and the flipping mirror can beat the speed of electrons.

You need to sync your shutter release technique with both types of viewfinders if you want to grab fast action at the peak point on a single frame.

Well, you see, light hit sensor first, translated to electron signal, converted to data, travel to evf, then convert again to light
By the time the light hit your eyes, you press shutter, electron give signal to start capture but the sensor already perceive different things, and that's the one that's captured

Meanwhile in DSLR, the mirror flip and sensor start capturing, that's all

Just remove your lens and use mechanical shutter and the evf can't even see the shutter being released, meanwhile your eyes can see it if you release the lens,. That's how slow it is

If your shooting styles based on reflex instead of burst you will realise the image captured is not what you perceive when you press the button

EVF will always have a lag for the reasons stated. Now that lag will get smaller and smaller as tech advances, and arguably hit a point where it is so negligible that it matters not to the vast majority of users.

With stacked sensors also can achieve blackout free EVF.

But to, while I appreciate the advantages of an EVF, I still will always have a fond spot in my heart for an OVF. There is something special about seeing the scene as it really is, and not through another electronic screen.

One intriguing feature of the R3 is that OVF emulation mode in the EVF. I am eager to try it out.

@ Alam12 and Thoughts R Us: Perceptual and response-wise lag is lag. If you respond from what you see, you will always be too late.

Adapting to the evf lag is easy, but takes a bit different approach than adjusting for DSLR lag. I have used both types of cameras for years, for full time press work, and one of the first things I do when getting a new camera is to make my reactions match the camera lag.

Sounds like you and some others here never have tried such a simple and basic adjustment, so that you can capture the peak moment in action scenes on a single frame.

@ Impulses: Professionals shooting fast bursts use a well-known trick: Pushing the shutter release button just before the action peaks!

This is all kinds of wrong but if it helps you justify your OVF then go for it.

@ Impulses: The training improves your skills. That's the point - to reduce the too late or missed shots.

Most photographers nowadays rely on short bursts. Observe, be aware, and shoot. The unaware photographer will miss the peak anyway

For me I can use either an OVF or EVF and it will work fine.

My main point is that sometimes it's nice to just see the scene through an OVF, rather than looking at yet another electronic screen. It's kind of like using a rangefinder as well...sometimes it's just nice to experience that again.

They do care, 50 mpix means you fill the card with 1.5 gigabyte of file per second, nobody pixel peep for sport photo and only one of this 30 file is going to be used if you're lucky, if not, you create 1.5 gigabyte trash per second

I sometimes question my life choice while shoot high burst and curse the file size since i need to reverse to jpeg, 5k camera and 5k lens just to shoot jpeg?

"This is 2021 and we have super fast transfer technologies, SSD’s, acres of storage for not much money and computers that laugh at 100mp image files."

One issue is that many do not have access to these new technologies yet. Many sports venues for instance do not have super fast transfer tech. Many users don't have computers that "laugh at 100mp image files." Tech transitions take time; it's a time period, not a single point in time.

Look at moving from HD to 4K. A total transition still has not occurred.

So the issue gets complicated and messy, with so many types of users out there, and so many types of equipment dependencies out there.

If you can afford $6000 for a camera you can afford $800 for a laptop that can eat through 50MP files.

BTW Canon said that Digic X refers to a family of processors and that this one is new and different from other models.

So the “computer inside” could be faster.

@Thoughts R Us I'm sure they all have the same Digic X and the differentiation lies in binning. The more expensive body the better binned Digic X.

Binning may or may not apply here. It’s possible but we simply don’t know.

In our briefing we were explicitly told this is not the same processor as in the R5 and R6, despite the branding.

Richard,
Canon website shows the same processors, if it's different... Canon would have mentioned it. processors differentiation has been key marketing info. How could Canon miss this?
here is the exact statement: brand-new 24.1MP back-illuminated stacked CMOS sensor, working in concert with our world-class DIGIC X image processor.

they mention brand new sensor but just world class DIGIC X

Come on guys, its a blatant rip off.

AF same as R5/R6
Same processor as R5/R6
Micro HDMI
24mp sensor, seriously.
30fps? Fuji XT3 can do that.

Should it really be cheaper than an R5?

Even Peter McKinnon said he wouldn't buy one.

It uses a totally different sensor built in a way that has commanded a premium on any other FF body it's shown up in (eg A9/A1), whether that premium is more/less than you're personally willing to pay with doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the market at large is willing to pay.

Who remembers all canon fans proclaiming that r5 is better than. a9 as it has more MP for less dollars. They wouldnt acknowledge that a9 stacked CMOS sensor let's it do things that r5 can't like blackout free shooting and and silent shooting with no motion artifacts.

Now canon releases a camera wiith 24 mp 2016 sony 9 for $6k and the same people now claim 24 mp is enough?

I think generalizing about ALL fans of brand XYZ usually leads nowhere good, even in a shrinking market these comments sections are usually filled with a vocal minority.

it should be same price as R5 or in between R6 and R5. the R3 is a stop gap measure while Canon figures out and improve their battery and heat management. They release a camera with larger body and battery to work around this problems as an interim measure for the pros.

I hope you Sony worshippers know that you are just talking to each other 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣. The main input of sense from Richard smothered in ridiculous Sony propaganda…..🥱🥱🥱

Kandid has your cheque from Canon come on time?

It’s gonna be a little bit less than last time. Not enough emojis.

@whitelens
Can’t all be correct. Overpriced only if it doesn’t sell - we will see. Low resolution? This is medium - low resolution has been reserved for the A7S3. Lousy battery life - in real use it would seem not…..! That leaves you with your first statement 👍

@Kandid:
No, that leaves YOU with my first statement.
Since I am using a reasonably priced camera with 61 MP and good battery life my point of view would definitely support Option 2.

R and RP are too slow and lack too many features, plus the ergonomics - mo joystick? The M mount stopped being interesting when m5ii never came. M50 has no controls, m6 has no Vf.

@Ad12
Well all of that is a matter of opinion/ preference - the op asked for more affordable alternatives which these undoubtedly are….👍

And?

most people shooting with cameras like the a7RII probably do not need the latest updated to beat the other pros with the best action pictures.
Also, they will not buy a used R3 because it has niche specification unless at an extremely convenient value.

The second part is obvious. The first part is silly.

@SomeguyPNW
"And?"
"The second part is obvious. The first part is silly."
Some guy of many words.

@SomeguyPNW
I am no millennial nor an SJW. It will take a lot to offend me. Keep on barking. Seems like you are good at entertaining, bring it on.

GAS is a real thing. We all get it, but this would be a fine example of an extreme. If you want more than 24mp @ 30fps, get the A1. The A9 was introduced in 2017 and is still quite relevant; it's no $200 paperweight.

Not that anything I say will fall on anything but deaf ears with you. You obviously have a massive ego - it's hard to miss from your tone alone.

@SomeguyPNW
my objection was on "find little incentive to upgrade" not so much about the $200 paperweight hyperbole.
Nevertheless I am pretty sure that in the 5-8 years time frame we will have global shutter for this sort of cameras, and everything else will be history for pro sport photography. Allow computational photography reaching camera processors, and machine learning AF which is at its infancy to mature. Add pre capture. Add more responsive and more capable EVFs. Who knows what else.

@SomeguyPNW
I definitely agree that there is no rush to upgrade at this time. I tent to believe that these above will happen within this decade. My next thing got to be global shutter, unless any of the bodies I have will let me down before. It is obvious that new tech is trickled down to future proof camera sales. That is the business model.

Looking at R5, consistency was out of the window when canon was designing it.
i.e., inconsistent M shutter fps when battery drops… forget about video consistency.
Hopefully different design groups worked on R3, not those whom developed the R5.

Mechanical shutter pfs performance relating to the battery level and video overheat of R5 are both advertised and it has nothing to do with consistency. They are limitations you have to work around if you chose to work with this particular body.

This slow to edit stuff is BS. No one complained about 20MP files being slow to edit 5 years ago. Computers have more than doubled in speed in that time. Maybe your 2012 computer will be slow to edit 40-80MP files. But your 2018 computer will have no problem.

...."Do you really need all those pixels?"...
No, I do not really need more than 24 MP.
I do not even NEED a camera.
I W A N T more than 24 MP.
I am using 61 MP right now and I would really hate having a lot less than that.

@petteriJ What MikeRan said. You can get an 8-core laptop that can take up to 64g ram for under $1k now. I use a 4800h laptop w/ 40g for multilayer 42mp composites and it doesn't struggle.

No man. You don’t process them all…. you pick the one that shows the key moment and you send that one.

Anyway if you’re worried about too many pictures, you spent $6000 on a camera that shoots too fast and you’re still using a 2012 laptop then you can slow the camera down.

@ TheOwl360: Have you tried this feature now? technology is being developed, and new solutions are being found for previous obstacles.

Truth is Owl really, really doesn't like Canons implementation of eye af, despite never using it and despite the positive first impressions of those that have.
Maybe he'll change his mind if this feature works really well in real world situations, but I wont hold me breath, unless of course if Sony comes up with a version of it, then it will be the best thing since sliced bread.
I am still on the fence because we need to see it in use across multiple scenarios and by different people, however every initial impression review I've read so far is really positive.

TheOwl360 is trying to rationalise his/her denial.

Used the ECF in my Canon EOS 5 in 1994 for the first time, it worked flawlessly. Its two steps calibration was so easy.

Theowl360 acts as if he is the CEO of Sony. What a joke he is.

There's no reason to insult TheOwl360. I think I understood the point he/she was making. Probably because I'm not "brand sensitive". Go easy on each other, we are all photographers here no need to divide and conquer.

That said, many manufactures make big claims of new/improved features that rarely become staples. Canon's dual pixel autofocus is one true innovation that has become the industry standard- a tech that lived up to the hype. But those innovations are rare.

I'm sure that with the current technology climate we are in, vs. when eye AF was first introduced, Canon can continue to improve its use with hardware and software/firmware improvements.

Eye AF has a better chance of becoming a real practical tool vs. the first iterations, it's just too early to tell yet. Early reports look positive.

Owl has a point. If it doesn't build into a work flow it'll be ignored. As much as I hope this tech is the future and not a gimmick, its a lot of money if it becomes a justification to buy it, it might be superfluous. Advances in tracking have changed the way I shoot, helping me compose scenes on the fly and letting me keep a step back to look at the bigger picture happening, but I'm iffy on this eye control until I've had hands on

Precisely. Holding all judgement of this tech until it proves itself, and it needs to do just that. Not saying it won't or it will, just need a bit more time. Then you need to factor in improvements/updates/hardware into the future of it. It has a chance if Canon remain dedicated to improving it.

@theowl
Realky?
You have made multiple comnents on the eye af, that it is a gimmick and that reviewers praising it are 'incentivised and biased'. You are dismissing it out of hand and disparaging those who have used it, like the guys at DPR, without ever using it yourself or the sort of testing that the people you cite are suggesting. I have said myself that it looks good but more real world use by more people is required.

@3percent
Agree

Glad you agree.

I remember a time when Forums and online communication was polite and civil. Internet has become a toilet- but people made it that way. If we want a better internet, we all have to do our part to clean it up. No other way the way I see it. :)

And all of the other reviewers are also vested interest? Why read any reviews at all? BTW, while I disagree with DPR on some things in their reviews, I don't think they are any more biased than any users who has their own preferences and I do think that this new implementation of selecting initial focus points is potentially a big thing if it works well.

@3Percent, I agree