The Canon EOS R3 is likely in use at the Olympics as we speak, and we can expect it to be fully announced at some point later this year. While Canon has dropped a few impressive specs about the camera (like a 30 fps continuous burst rate and eye-controlled autofocus), one important specification has been noticeably absent: sensor resolution.
Canon Rumors is reporting that multiple sources have put the resolution of the EOS R3 somewhere around 24 megapixels. While previous rumors have put the resolution around 30 megapixels or as high as the EOS R5's 45 megapixels, it is unsurprising to hear that the resolution may be lower. At 30 fps, the camera is pushing a ton of data, and given its design that is clearly intended for work like sports and photojournalism, professionals using it will likely prefer a more manageable resolution, especially when images need to be disseminated quickly. So far, Canon has confirmed other features like an integrated grip similar to a 1 series body, a newly developed stacked CMOS sensor with a back-illuminated design for reduced rolling shutter, rugged weather-sealing, internal raw video, eight stops of image stabilization when in-lens and in-body stabilization work together, and more. It looks like there is a lot to look forward to in the EOS R3!
Why would this be competing against the a1? This should've been seen as an a9 competitor from announcement date TBH, considering it's not a "flagship" based on the naming system Canon uses.
I'd imagine a future R1 being the actual a1 competitor.
"A rose by any other name", or a more apt cliche, "pigs are pigs".
If you truly believe these two cameras are not competitors, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you at a good price.
Canon themselves have said that the R3 isn’t their flagship Mirrorless so why would a non-flagship be competing competing against Sony’s flagship, in terms of product positioning?
Again, this was pretty obviously an a9 competitor from the start IMO, or in any other case, positioned to be somewhere between the a9 and a1, competing directly with neither but meeting the requirements for an individual that needed a bit of what each of those offered.
So where's this bridge you want to sell me, now that the official press release clearly didn't mention it's their new flagship :)
Read my post again. Where did I claim that the R3 was a flagship? I'll repeat "pigs are pigs" and these two cameras are absolutely competitors regardless of what each company calls them. Since future products are generally better than current releases, so what if there is an R1 coming in 1, 2 or 3 years? Hell, eventually there will be a Z9 II and A1 II. That has nothing to do with what's out today. Do you believe every claim a company makes? If Toyota tells you its minivan competes with a Porsche 911, do you believe them? The only categorical differences between these two cameras is the resolution and the ability to shoot 8k, which is due solely to the lower resolution. In every other respect, the R3 is either comparable or superior to the Z9 (oh, and the R3 has an SD slot as opposed to 2 CPE slots, and having two different slots is a positive for many). This along with similar prices makes these cameras competitors in my book--or, since most aren't prone to switch, in the same category-- in the minds of any photographer with critical analytical skills. There is no magic to calling a camera a flagship. There isn't one thing I can't do, and do as well, with either camera other than shoot 8k video. And before the A1, not a single "flagship" camera could shoot 8k.
Unless, like me, you really dislike Sony's ergonomics. Subjective? You bet, but a deal breaker for me ever considering a Sony camera. Besides, one has to work at taking a bad picture with any of the new cameras on the market. They are all good. It's the intangibles that make the difference and in Sony's case, it's the lousy in hand feel for me.
Improved, maybe, up to my subjective standards, needs more improvement. Sony makes terrific cameras just like Nikon, Fuji, and Canon. I like Canon. The choice you or I make is neither right nor wrong. It's what we like and what works best for us.
I switched from Nikon to Sony. While I appreciate the massive leap in video tech, I miss the Nikon ergonomics and menus, I was really used to them.
Looks like 24MP to me via the EXIF? Could be wrong?
I want to transition to mirrorless...but these newer top of the line bodies are just as big as dslr..what is the point...especially I do tons of long exposure and to add a battery grip to the R is just as big and heavy..the top of the line R L lens are also big...my ancient canon 6d and 11mm Zoom which there is no other equivalent..can go all day with 2 battery long exposure dawn and dusk landscape..without battery grip...didnt canon promise smaller bodies when all the hoopla regarding the R cameras...maybe if they can equal my 6d in ters of battery longevity and 10mm L zoom..I will switch...
There are literally dozens of mirrorless options that are nowhere near the size of DSLRs. Almost all of them are much smaller than a DSLR. But cameras like the Canon R3 and upcoming Nikon Z9 are aimed at users coming from 1DX Canons or Nikon D5/D6, which have integrated grips.
Pick up a Canon R6 and tell me it's just as big as a Canon 6D.
I do agree that the RF lenses, overall, are huge since Canon decided to massively prioritize ultra-expensive, f/1.2 lenses first before releasing affordable f/1.4 or f/1.8 primes. Their entire release strategy was a mess, given that their debut body (and the body after that) were prosumer (at best). But hey, Canon dominates the market seemingly no matter what they do, so I'm not really in a position to say that they did something wrong.
For your shooting style, you may be better off sticking with DSLRs.
Anyway, I missed the memo where Canon promised smaller. Although the bodies are smaller, I think that Canon promised better performance, albeit at the increased size of some of its lenses.
The big benefit to mirrorless is elimination of many (most?) of DSLR mechanical subsystems replacing them with electronics. This results in significantly smaller bodies and enhanced durability at the expense of battery life. Every Canon R release is smaller than its DSLR predecessor. However, unless you need super fast, full frame AF, mirrorless doesn't offer you much.
That may be the reason why Canon went all in on releasing great new lenses at the expense of size. Although those 1.2 primes are huge (every time I attach my 85 1.2, I console myself by saying "at least it's not a Sigma 105!"). That RF 28-70 f/2 lens could also serve as a boat anchor. The saving grace are the (other) amazing L RF lenses, which are either significantly smaller (I love my ultra-compact 70-200 f/2.8), or have enhanced functionality (15-35 rather than 16-35, or a 100-500 rather than 100-400). Rather than size, my biggest complaint is the massive vignetting that afflicts most RF lenses. With the new bigger mount, I thought that vignetting would be the least of my concerns.
Thus, be happy. Unless there is some "must-have" lens in RF, stick with DSLRs. For anyone who doesn't need the improved AF, there are few benefits to switching, so don't.
Can't wait to see the review of the eye contol feature.
What if this is just the "crop mode" that allows for the full 30fps. If so, what would the non 30fps/non cropped mode be with these numbers?