Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 13 posts | 
by KK Hui on Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:47 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
EOS R3
w/ Eye Control AF, Stacked Sensor etc.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/port ... ses/eos-r3
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by Dan Wolin on Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:26 am
Dan Wolin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4631
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Marshall, MI
That looks like it will be pretty amazing and pricey
Dan Wolin
Marshall, MI
 

by Ed Cordes on Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:39 am
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4874
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
Looks like an advancement in Tech. However, it also looks like the R series is getting bigger and bulkier. I guess I understand why this has to be due to more tech and what looks like a larger battery compartment. However, one thing I like about my R5 is the relatively compact, light weight system. RE cost, it does seem like the new R3 and the long primes will not be cheap. I assume it will be a big stretch for serious armatures.
Remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

by Robert Royse on Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:19 am
Robert Royse
Forum Contributor
Posts: 269
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
It looks like a camera that I'll enjoy owning in about 5 or 6 years when people are dumping their gently used ones for 1/4 the price of the new R3 Mark2.
Bob Royse
http://www.roysephotos.com
 

by Langsey on Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:42 am
User avatar
Langsey
Forum Contributor
Posts: 308
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Location: Indiana
I read that the cost will be between 3900.00 up to 6500.00. The following is from dpreview on the camera. Also maybe a R1 in the future?

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/093167 ... r_nl_473_4
John Langsenkamp
[url=http://www.naturescapes.net/membership.htm]NSN 0077[/url]
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:57 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
A lot of people loved eye control AF in the EOS 3 but it was also pretty flawed. 25 years since the EOS 3 should make the new version of this work pretty well I would think.
 

by david fletcher on Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:06 pm
User avatar
david fletcher
Moderator
Posts: 34206
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: UK
Member #:00525
Looks like exciting times for all. What also might interest Canon users are the super tele's too. The 600 F4 RF compares favourably in weight and length to the Sony 600 F4. (3,090kgs and length of 472mm and min focus of 4.2m v Sony 3,040kgs, and 449mm with 4.5m min' focus distance.
Make your life spectacular!

NSN00525
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:10 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
david fletcher wrote:Looks like exciting times for all.  What also might interest Canon users are the super tele's too.  The 600 F4 RF compares favourably in weight and length to the Sony 600 F4.  (3,090kgs and length of 472mm and min focus of 4.2m v Sony 3,040kgs, and 449mm with 4.5m min' focus distance.
I didn't double check your numbers but if they are what you wrote, that makes the Sony both slightly smaller and slightly lighter ;)  the big thing about the Sony though is that the weight is concentrated towards the camera end of the lens making it much easier to cary and hold due to the shorter lever arm.   In any case, I started a thread on the new lenses separate from this one so discussing the lenses there is probably best while keeping this thread to the camera body.  :)
 

by Doug on Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:52 pm
Doug
Forum Contributor
Posts: 162
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Location: Sacramento CA
Unfortunately it seems to be getting big & fat like the DSLR cameras I left behind a few years ago  :(
Doug Herr
Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:24 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
They are still teasing bits of info, but they are holding back on the megapixel count. After reading, it will shoot oversampled 4K, and no mention of 8K; I suspect it will be a smaller sensor than the R5? If it were 45 megs and 8K, it wouldn't leave much of a niche for the future R1 to occupy.
Thoughts?
 

by vbpholaw on Sun Aug 08, 2021 3:36 pm
vbpholaw
Forum Contributor
Posts: 438
Joined: 1 Dec 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Scott Fairbairn wrote:They are still teasing bits of info, but they are holding back on the megapixel count. After reading, it will shoot oversampled 4K, and no mention of 8K; I suspect it will be a smaller sensor than the R5? If it were 45 megs and 8K, it wouldn't leave much of a niche for the future R1 to occupy.
Thoughts?
It is reported that some images from the Olympics shot with the R3 that have come out that still have EXIF information indicate that the R3 is a 24 MP camera, unless the photographer was using a smaller RAW file format. (Both the R3 and Z9 are reportedly getting trial uses at the Olympics prior to their formal release later this year.)

Given the presumed intended purpose of the R3 as a mirrorless 1DX, neither the size, shape nor price should be surprising. Existing 1DX users who would be migrating to mirrorless will appreciate a similar form factor and operating control layout, the presumably larger battery that will allow longer shooting before requiring replacement, and presumably won't mind the size and weight which they are used to, as well as the price (if it's in the $5-6,000 range).
 

by Neilyb on Sun Aug 15, 2021 6:50 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
Size and weight maybe an issue for the "Mirrorless should be lighter and smaller" brigade but this body is obviously aimed at Sports so will likely be mated with a 300-600 lens most of the time. I for one prefer the balance of a large lens with a large body, even on a tripod it just works better. Each to his own of course. ;)
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Aug 15, 2021 12:23 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Neilyb wrote:Size and weight maybe an issue for the "Mirrorless should be lighter and smaller" brigade but this body is obviously aimed at Sports so will likely be mated with a 300-600 lens most of the time. I for one prefer the balance of a large lens with a large body, even on a tripod it just works better. Each to his own of course. ;)
Give the Sony 600 a try, it has a new optical formula that puts most of the glass near the mount and therefore balances well with the smaller mirrorless bodies like the a1, a9 and a7 range.  Definitely agree on balance though with the older optical formulas used in the DSLR era 600mm lenses from Canon and Nikon which have much of the weight of the lens out front.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
13 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group