Canon R3

[Kayaker72]

What is going on smacks, at least to me, of a "tops down" decision where executives have decided that the R1 will diverge from the 1DX line but they want a few more years to further develop the technology. Thus, we sit at an awkward intermediate stage of transitioning from DSLR to R-series when all the R-series bodies have yet to be released.

Canon is going out of their way to say that durability is a a differentiator, but "durable" is one of those relative terms. Canon's lesser bodies are plenty durable. I tend to shoot 5 series bodies and have never had an issue. But, they've said it enough I suspect there is some technical element to it. If I was to guess, the magnesium in the R3 may be thinner as a way to save weight, so technically, the R3 wouldn't survive a drop from the same height or something like that. Or could be that some of the seals are foam and not rubber. This is the type of stuff we'll only really know if someone like lensrentals does a teardown and compares the two bodies.

But, I would not be worried about durability if I was picking between the R3 and 1DXIII. Both would be elite, but perhaps one ever so slightly elite over the other.

If waiting for an R1, I am thinking it is a couple years out. So, it gets down to how long you want to wait.

[HDNitehawk]

The video was a flavored sales pitch that requires reading between the lines and interpreting what is missing out of the interview as much as what is included.

Durability could because of heat build up and operating temperature and have nothing to do with weatherproofing and structural strength. The two examples he gives are places with temp extremes, Antarctica and the Desert.

R3 also has to have a cap on the shoe to be waterproofed?

The 1Dx III has a faster mechanical shutter than the R3.

The real deciding factor for me would be the AF system, which is better?
No doubt the R3 will be better than the R5 and R6, but how does its AF system fair against the 1Dx III?
That is the comparison I want to hear.

[Joel Eade]

I tend to agree, durability is probably not a differentiating factor.

I have a friend who operates an event photography business and he treats his equipment like a tool. Doesn't baby it at all.

I recall him telling me (several years ago) that he had two 40D bodies that each had over 2 million shutter activations with no issues.

[Fast Glass]

I echo all the sentiments. The idea of maybe thinner metal being a differentiator came immediately to mind. But Canon has said that the construction and weather sealing are at the same level. So that rules that out.

Both shutters are rated the same. So no big difference there.

So it leaves me with maybe the electronics are better? I'm not sure what else is left to improve otherwise. Not getting any good indication purely based on operating range. So it does leave me puzzled. Maybe just not as high quality electronics? But as Joel has said. There are many very old cameras from Canon that have lasted a very long and useful life that are not even built as tough as the 1-Series.

But when comparing the 1Dx III to the R3. The nerd in me still wants to know. I want to know if there is a difference worth noting. Because if it is as significant as Canon says. Then it can be something a hard core pro might be concerned with. Or at least keep their existing 1Dx III bodies handy if the R3 fails in grueling conditions.

[DavidEccleston]

Doesn't the lack of a mirror mean 100% less mirrors to break? Not having a mirror to move means 100% less mirror moving mechanisms to break? Everything else being equal, it's more durable right there.

[Joel Eade]

Doesn't the lack of a mirror mean 100% less mirrors to break? Not having a mirror to move means 100% less mirror moving mechanisms to break? Everything else being equal, it's more durable right there.

Excellent point!

[HDNitehawk]

The one thing I have learned about Canon over the years is that they accurately describe their cameras position in the line up.

So I believe the following that Canon has said.
If Canon says that the R3 is positioned lower than the 1Dx III then I it will be.
If they say it is less durable, it will be less durable.

By the specs we know that when shooting with a mechanical shutter the R3 will be slower.

So far we just have early reviews and discussions by those given pre release models. Usually those kind of reviews are lacking, after the body is out for 6 months or longer we will start hearing the real story.

If I were considering buying the best available body I would want to know how does the AF compare to the 1Dx III. I am guessing the 1Dx III will still be superior?
What is the expected battery life during shooting?
Does the additional demand on the battery that you have because of the electronic viewfinder take away from other performance criteria, for instance the speed that the 1D bodies are known for when driving the IS and AF motors of a big white?

When you are wanting the latest and greatest new item it is easy to overlook the minute indicators that the manufacture gives you.
When pre-ordering this body you would be buying what Canon considers their best RF mount body. You would not be buying what Canon considers its best body.

[Fast Glass]

I agree, except we already know what the specs are and what photographers have been getting in terms of battery life ect.

Yes there are a few things, but nothing in the real world that would make up for the advantages of the RF mount system and the R3 advantages. The one example I like to refer to is Froknowsphoto. The R3 with an RF 85mm f/1.2 (I have messed around with this lens myself) will continuously focus accurately on moving subjects with eye detect at full 30fps. This right here absolutely BLOWS away what the 1Dx III and 85mm f/1.2 II can do and I have used this combo quite a bit. It cannot reliable track anything like he did. It really is remarkable.

So will it blow out of the water the 1Dx III with fast focusing lenses like the blisteringly fast 70-200mm f/2.8 III (Again something I have used)? Not sure, but if the prior example is any indication of what it can do the 1Dx III is gonna have a run for it's money. If not destroyed.

It will most definitely make more sense it's positioning when the R1 comes out. But for now, unless the 1Dx III proves to have better AF. There is nothing it offers that would convince me it is a better body, it's just better in almost every way. And better in the practical ways that matters.

Only way I see it being viable is the used prices being significantly cheaper or if they price it below the R3. But at the moment with it being more money, it's a no brainer. Get the R3.

It's like comparing the 1Ds III to the 5D IV, the 5D IV squashes the 1Ds III where it really matters. But it is not built like a flagship or have certain things like dual slots, pro build, long battery life ect. It's not enough to make up it's short comings. Canon nor anyone would consider the 5D IV a flagship. But it is the better body and nobody would choose the 1Ds III over a 5D IV.

The 1Dx III might be built like a 1-Series, but it can't keep up with the latest and greatest.

I will say though, with all the bashing I do about the 1Dx III. It's still a ridiculously good camera in it's own right! I still loved that thing to death and it's amazing piece of kit. For the right price, I can see it being a popular choice for those who don't want to sink the cash into the RF system and is content with it's performance as a whole. I have been thinking about this option myself as I just can't justify the expense of the RF system right now. But IBIS seems really attractive to me.

Either that or just go for the R5, it's not exactly a slow body at 20fps.

[Kayaker72]

So I am as guilty as anyone going through these new bodies trying to see what exactly recent improvements mean for photography in general and my photography specifically. But 10 yr old cameras could take good pictures, anything within the last 5 years likely had sensors with better noise control. Which camera you need really gets very specific.

1DX III vs R3. I agree, I would likely go R3 at this point. But what if I was a shooter than needed the same memory card in each slot? Then 1DXIII is the choice. While specific, I have seen a number of videographers state that they will not be buying the R5 for this exact reason, as they are shooting they want to seamlessly transition from one card to the next. Those videographers/photographers tend to be using Sony or the 1DXIII. 16 fps mechanical vs 12 fps mechanical...both very fast, but I've seen a pro sports photographer assessing rolling shutter on the R3 'cause any distortion is not going to work for him/her...answer, 1DXIII's 16 FPS is still better.

Then, there are still some details I haven't been able to track down. For example, in promoting the R3, Canon mentioned how the AF is calculated 60 times/sec compared to the R5's 20 times per second. I haven't seen frequency for AF calculations through the OVF of the 1DXIII which as a dedicated sensor and processor for AF. Other details, but mirrorless sensors are always on, will this cause them to heat up? I have always noticed more dead/hot pixels after extended liveview usage. What happens to mirrorless after 4 hrs at a sporting event? Maybe that is under control with mirrorless and it is a non-issue as I have not heard anyone comment on this. However, going through R5 files, I do occasionally find a noisy image that I wasn't expecting (ISO 800-2000).

But, IMO, it is very specific details such as that. These are elite, highly capable, extreme spec'd cameras. Which elite camera will work best for you and your very specific situation? Which specific features would benefit your photography?

[HDNitehawk]

While I believe what I posted earlier, I will say that at this level the difference between the two may not matter at all to the majority of shooters.
Most will never notice.