Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Canon R3

  1. #91
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,854
    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.

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,958
    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.

  3. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,422
    I tend to agree, durability is probably not a differentiating factor.

    I have a friend who operates and 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.

  4. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    1,033
    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.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; Today at 12:23 AM.

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,374
    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.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    1DsII | 7D | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 18-135mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •