Canon R3

[Kayaker72]

I feel like Canon in particular only listens if it fits their idea of a camera but with Sony it pushes them to think outside their sometimes narrow viewpoints.

I've always felt that Canon develops cameras specifically aimed at very specific core markets. The 1D lineup was aimed at professional photographers/sports photographers, the 5D lineup was aimed at Wedding/Event photographers, and the 6 lineup was positioned as a capable yet more cost effective camera for consumers and cost-conscience pros. Canon repeated has talked about their market surveys and working with these types of groups. It is very much a ground up construction of a camera that fits those needs of those specific core markets and then people that do not fit those markets are left to decide which camera works best for them.

Notice how Sony wasn't part of that description? I do not think Canon is following Sony. Rather the migration to mirrorless is an eventual outcome based on the simple fact that mirrorless is a lower cost construction (more automation, less moving parts, removing of certain parts, etc). Sony was able to see this and jump to mirrorless quickly. Canon and Nikon both continued their historic products as long as possible and are transitioning. What Sony and Nikon/Canon are doing have, IMO, little to do with each other, and much more to do which where they were in the market in ~2012-2015: established vs new to market.

.... I feel like Canon ..... Like low resolution, it's really just beyond me why they are so stubborn about it. It's just a narrow minded thought process.

Unless that is their target market for a specific camera and the lower resolution satisfies that market. Wedding photographer Taylor Jackson just did a bit on the R3. He sort of transitioned from Nikon to the R6 but seems all in on the R3....his section on resolution is titled "24 MP is perfect for me".

I do not mean to make this bigger than it is, but this is one of those topics where a number of people feeling strongly about a topic does not mean that there is not another group that feels completely differently. It's all good. Maybe Canon misses the boat for one or two of those groups. That is ok, as long as they satisfy enough groups to be a viable business.

This is just speculation based on recent history, but Nikon and Sony seem to be the companies trying to go after the high MP FF stills market. Fuji and Hasselblad for MF. For Canon, I actually think the R5's 45 MP is more about doing 8K video than stills.

[Fast Glass]

I've had this conversation many times before and heard all the typical popular opinions on this. This is one of them.

It's not about being cheaper to make. It's the purely because Sony is more out of the box thinking and there were certain advantages that can be realized by going that route. Canon would probably either jumped into mirrorless years later, maybe develop both lines as was initially thought or not even take mirrorless seriously because as I said before. They are narrow minded sometimes. Sony pushed the whole mirrorless concept and especially forced everyone to adapt if they wanted to remain competitive.

Right now it is costing Canon big dollars to develop the mirrorless system. It will pan out in the end but it's certainly not to save a buck making a mirror assembly. Actually manufacturing costs compared to what they have to spend in developing a new system. It makes no financial sense to do so. It's about remaining relevant, Canon is doing good because they are still making competitive products and are still transitioning to mirrorless. This was the reason Nikon was falling behind. They were not as competitive or as compelling.

Canon does well now, but they are very aware that in order to remain so they need to keep up with the market and be competitive.

But the thing is today, only reason not to have high resolution is lower end bodies. Today there is no reason in the world to have 20mp bodes for over 10 years. This alone has caused many a photographer, even sports photographera to switch. Because resolution does matter. Unlike what so many say. It gives you options and today we have the computer processing power to handle it.

I know there is people that's say 24mp is enough. Only because you are used to low MP and there is not another viable option. You give the option and nobody will want to go back.

Seeing the IQ of the R5 for my recent wedding shoot was awesome! But the AF was to inconsistent to be usable for chalenging low light situations. So better to have 24mp in focus.

But right now Sony has proved you don't need to make that choice. You can have a great high resolution body suitable for chalenging situations.

[neuroanatomist]

As far as evidence, this is way more than ancedotal.

Sorry, still anecdotal. One person’s observations of limited scope and geography. You’re talking about 10’s of observations. Canon has shipped well over 2,000,000 cameras this year alone.

It's about market trends and being competitive and Sony has really pushed harder that anyone else…

In the MILC segment for 2020, the market share breakdown was:

• Sony: about 35%
• Canon: about 30%
• Fujifilm: about 12%
• Nikon: about 7%

Compared to 2019 MILC market share, Sony lost 7% and Canon gained 6%. So the data show that the market trend is solidly in Canon’s direction. That’s the difference between anecdotes and data.

I’m not disputing that a relatively small number of people are switching to Sony. It’s also true that a small number of Sony users are switching to (or back to) Canon. But in 2020, far more people bought Canon MILCs than Sony MILCs. As Brant pointed out, the 2020 sales are mostly prior to wide availability of the R5 and R6, and still Canon gained a relative 13% over Sony. If that trend continues (even if the 2021 delta is only half that of the 2020 delta), Canon will overtake Sony to lead the MILC market, as they have led the ILC market for two decades. That may have already happened.

I agree with Brant that in no way do sales reflect what is ‘the best’. The thing is, there’s really no such thing as ‘the best’ as a universal concept. Everyone needs to define their own ‘best’ and for most, cost is also a part of the equation. Even ignoring cost, is a high-end sports car better than an SUV? Not for a road trip with a family of five with a boat to tow. ‘Best’ is relative.

As for sensor resolution, personally I am happy in the 20-30 MP range. I don’t print larger than 30” wide, and I have ample reach with up to 1200mm f/8 (600/4 + 2x). The 24 MP of the R3 is more than enough for modest cropping and leveling. More MP would mean larger files than I need – more storage used, longer processing times. Those aren’t major issues – storage is cheap and I don’t have deadlines, but I simply don’t need more MP.

It seems that your claim Canon is ‘narrow minded’ is based on your expectation that everyone should think what you think. We don’t. Canon has the resources to conduct thorough market research. When the 1D X III came out with the same MP count as the 1D X II, and that was only a 2 MP bump from the 1D X, do you honestly believe that was stubbornness? The 5Ds was the highest MP FF camera when it came out, so clearly Canon understands that some people want a high resolution camera. Similarly, the R5 is close with 45 MP (and an improved AA filter that means it’s optical resolution is as good as the 5DsR).

Canon just decided not to put a high resolution sensor in an integrated-grip body (at least, not yet). I get that you don’t understand their reasoning, and I suspect that’s because you want more MP, and you think everyone else wants more MP. If that’s true, it means Canon is ignorant of the desires of the target market for the 1-series and the R3. Given their history of dominating the ILC market for the past 20 years, that seems very unlikely. I think it’s more likely that a multibillion dollar, global corporation that has led the ILC market for two decades knows more about the desires of their target market than you or me.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I am sitting in my home office right now as I type this message. This room is where I keep most of my framed images. I have 8 of my favorite images framed in this room, all are 14" x 11" and I can rotate images in/out of the frames when I get tired of them. It doesn't take many pixels to be shown in all their glory at 14" x 11" certainly much less than any current technology camera. This is where I struggle with the pixel race.

Neuro's printing at 30" has more demands than my home office, but still is plenty happy with 24 MP.

I get that it is awesome to have more resolution, but what people do with the images? Do they print huge? Do they admire their images primarily on their monitor and zoomed in substantially?

I think this is the reason why the camera marked has slowed down. Cameras have long since passed "good enough" for much of the market.

Dave

[HDNitehawk]

So, hopefully it didn't come across as if I/we were trying to use sales numbers to determine which system was "best." Rather, my intent was to bring some numbers to the table in a discussion as to if people are migrating to Sony from Canon. While what Sony has done, going from zero to 2nd, is impressive, and Sony growing over the last 10 years is absolutely true. It is just over the same time, Canon's market share has increased and in the 2020 numbers, Canon maintains a strong market leadership position. So, while there may be individual cases of people leaving Canon for Sony, the numbers do not support some mass migration. Just the opposite, really.

As for "best"....it really is subjective. Starting with why do people like what they like? I mean, are you going to tell a guy that drives a truck that a Porche is better than his truck? I think we can talk about characteristics and what might be best for specific needs....but that is a different discussion.

You see the switch to Sony argument all the time. Sony is going to put Canon out of business. Canon crushes Sony.

Canon stated that the strong sales of the EOS R5 and R6 were one of the reasons for their success last year.

I don't think you can state from their numbers whether people are migrating to Sony or Not. It could just be that people are upgrading / switching to the RF system and that has created a surge in sales and at the same time some of those are moving to Sony. Possibly the numbers would be higher if there were none switching to Sony. The point is unless you see data from where the increase in Sony sales is coming from you do not know if there is any kind of migration or not. You can not reliable say there is a migration, or there is not.

If you look at Sony's sales for the first few quarters of the year sales for cameras is up substantially over the previous year. If you want the data you can go to the companies website earnings release and dig through the financials. You can peel the information you need to support a position either way.


Canon:

‘As for Imaging, the EOS R5 and EOS R6, which are highly competitive products, have maintained strong sales and have become the driving force behind business results, even one year after their launch."

[Fast Glass]

You are putting words into my mouth.

Let's try to be clear on what I said.

Canon and Nikon were the only two real top dogs and were comfortable not investing heavily into mirrorless at all and with them being set in their ways in other ways no reason to believe otherwise.

Sony comes and has been listening to the people and delivering in ways Canon and Nikon have not up until then and now is the trend setter if someone wants to be competitive.

It's not about the vertical grip. I'm rather impartial either way with only a preference to it being built in since I'll add one anyway. Not like I can feel the difference it's just authentic. It's about a truely consistent tool with consistent AF and all around performance. But R5 is far away from a 1Dx III outstandingly consistent and accurate AF and dependability. Not just in build but every aspect of it. It's just a professional tool meant to deliver. The other fancy features of eye detect while super amazing mean nothing when it can't focus on the bride and groom during the ceremony. That's a nightmare that almost happened to me and I switched to my 1Ds III for the shot. This is not acceptable to me and it has consistently plagued my experience with it and simply put others are willing to deal with it, but it's not pro level dependability. 80 or 90% doesn't cut it on someone's big day.

The fact Canon is doing well is besides the point. Canon has literally been pushed into being competitive. It's Sony who has done this because of the of all the things I have mentioned before.

The fact so many have switched is the reason they are having to adapt. When it comes to the R3, look at it from a person who is not heavily invested or in my case most of my gear stolen and only have a few things left.

There is nothing compelling about the R3 that makes me worth considering it. It's really performing plus or minus the same to the A1 and I loose half the resolution. Even if I didn't particularly need resolution it would behoove me to choose the higher resolution option if for no other reason I can view it on a 8k display and for future proofing as much possible.

Other option is wait for the R1, it likely will cost $8000. But I get to stay with a familiar brand and operation and lenses I really like. But if it's something like 30mp. I not sure I would stay with Canon.

This is just my scenario. So many simply sell and switch.

Ad far as seeing people switching over a lot it's not ancedotal. It is a trend. Even studies/stats are nothing more than asking a small percentage of people their viewpoints, sometimes only a couple hundred or less are what studies can be based off of. And they probably sre not that far off either because they are indicitive of something really happening.

Simply put, Sony revolutionized the camera industry in so many ways and now everyone is following suite. Those who don't will be left behind. Canon and Nikon probably best case scenario would hang onto the DSLR for a lot longer. They might have not ever fully switched to mirrorless and keep it as a second line of products.

[HDNitehawk]

Canon and Nikon were the only two real top dogs and were comfortable not investing heavily into mirrorless at all and with them being set in their ways in other ways no reason to believe otherwise.

This part I do not agree with. It is like saying that Canon waited till the twenty teens to start researching mirrorless.
Canon released the 20Da that could be shot in live view in 2005. Live view uses no mirror, it locks it up. It takes research for this, and I am sure Canon had an overall game plan.

[neuroanatomist]

I get that it is awesome to have more resolution, but what people do with the images? Do they print huge? Do they admire their images primarily on their monitor and zoomed in substantially?

I think very few photographers actually need 50 MP. Some people simply want the most because they equate the most with the best. Even billboards can be printed at high quality with 20 MP or less.

Having more MP does make sense in a couple of cases. For those who are reach limited, more MP allows a deeper crop. Often, the reason for the reach limitation is budget – few can afford the great white lenses. I feel that Canon has tried to address that with lenses like the 800/11 and 600/11, both of which take extenders. At the other end of the distance scale, macro photographers looking to put more pixels on target can benefit.

Those cases aside, I think most people who want more pixels don’t actually need them, if they’re honest with themselves.

[Fast Glass]

That would be ignoring Canon wanting to develop both lines and their historically reserved take on things, like not needing more resolution.

That's another thing, 20mp or 24mp is not that much and even at 8x10 there is a visual difference. It's not huge but I'll still take it.

And with me having a 24" wide printer, more resolution is absolutely helpful.

It used to be you gave up significantly in terms of speed, think 1Ds III. Today manufacturers on top of the line cameras hit 30fps. That's fast enough for just about anyone save maybe for the most hard core sports shooter.. If we are accepting 24mp, what are we getting in return? Nothing really. If we got say 50 or 60 fps then sure, that at least be giving you something in return. But are we gaining with more resolution? You are gain options just like what has been said with cropping head room. This is really nice to have.

Another reason is 8k displays are gonna be more common in the future and it be future proofing your images or vids.

Third is prints, I do 24×36" prints. It does make a difference at that size. I care about the difference even on a 13×19. Others may not. But there is difference.

One can argue that they don't care about such small differences. But when you are giving up nothing return (And no the file size arguement is not a good one). I'll take it.

[Fast Glass]

I think the correct argument is someone doesn't care about small differences in detail from resolution. Not that it doesn't matter.