EOS R3 Price Guesses anyone?

[Lotus7]

Well, Canon has finally announced a R Series camera that may actually compete with the 1D MarkIII for sports & action pros.

The new R3 will have a larger body with built in vertical grip and presumably a larger battery or dual battery capacity.

It will have a BSI  CMOS sensor, eye tracking focus sensing, and "Deep Learning" focus automation, as well as a 30fps electronic shutter, and better weather sealing.  No specs on resolution, dynamic range or video performance yet.

The question for the Forum is:  Whjat do you think Canon's MSRP will be for this gem?

Remember, it's being named a "3" Series camera, which strongly hints that Canon will eventually introduce an "EOS R1" as its ultimate Flagship (at least until they come out with an entirely new "Q" line of lensless, 4-dimensional, reality-capture cameras).

Considering the current R5 price is still US$3900 while a 1D Mark III is US$ 6500.

Personally, I'd peg the R3 at comming in at 5299.  What are your thoughts?

[Waddizzle]

No idea what the list price might be for an EOS R3.  I am looking at features and specs.

I do not need or want eyeball control of auto focus.  I think the feature is about as useful as placing the viewfinder in the top left corner of the rear panel, which is a non-starter for all of the left-eye shooters out there like myself.

I wear eyeglasses, and shooting without them is not an option,  On those grounds alone, having eyeball control is a useless feature that I cannot use.  Even if I could use it, what's going to happen to the focus when and if I glance at my settings?  I think it is major marketing error to include it.  Canon had it and dropped it 20 years ago, and for good reasons.

[jrhoffman75]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

No idea what the list price might be for an EOS R3.  I am looking at features and specs.

I do not need or want eyeball control of auto focus.  I think the feature is about as useful as placing the viewfinder in the top left corner of the rear panel, which is a non-starter for all of the left-eye shooters out there like myself.

I wear eyeglasses, and shooting without them is not an option,  On those grounds alone, having eyeball control is a useless feature that I cannot use.  Even if I could use it, what's going to happen to the focus when and if I glance at my settings?  I think it is major marketing error to include it.  Canon had it and dropped it 20 years ago, and for good reasons.

---

It was a switchable function on the EOS 3, so I would assume it would also be switchable on the R3.

[Waddizzle]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

No idea what the list price might be for an EOS R3.  I am looking at features and specs.

I do not need or want eyeball control of auto focus.  I think the feature is about as useful as placing the viewfinder in the top left corner of the rear panel, which is a non-starter for all of the left-eye shooters out there like myself.

I wear eyeglasses, and shooting without them is not an option,  On those grounds alone, having eyeball control is a useless feature that I cannot use.  Even if I could use it, what's going to happen to the focus when and if I glance at my settings?  I think it is major marketing error to include it.  Canon had it and dropped it 20 years ago, and for good reasons.

---

It was a switchable function on the EOS 3, so I would assume it would also be switchable on the R3.

---

Of course, I am sure of that.  It is still hardware I don't need that adds to the cost.  It would be different if it were a feature that could be implemented in firmware, like recording video.  The hardware is already present, right there in the camera.

It sounds like something that could be worse than the "overheating problems" in the R5.  I don't understand why they resurrected it.

[EDIT] You cannot use it if you wear glasses or contact lenses.  That is going to be a significant percentage of users.

[shadowsports]

For me on cursory glance and what we know thus far...  another.. can't get excited about it release.  

My guess is $5499 ~ $5899

Too bad we can't get something between the R6 and R5..  in MP's, form factor and features.  It is smaller than the 1DX3, but hard to say how its going to feel in your hands.  Once again they could have nailed it, and once again I say pass.  For now at least.

[Lotus7]

It seems every manufacturer believes they have to add more specialized features to satisfy each niche market, so given the R3's very high frame rate this may be Canon's bid for more exposure in the sports market. (no pun intended)

Re: the gap between the R6 and R5:  Wouldn't be at all surprized to see a R6-II in 18 months to add another data point on the EOS R continuum.

Not to be a "fan boy", but considering the difficulties encountered in running any sort of a manufacturing business during the last 14 months or so, I think Canon has done a more than reasonable job with what they have been able to bring to market.

[wq9nsc]

I will give the R1 a serious look as a sports body when it comes out to see if it overcomes my major objections to mirrorless (viewfinder that isn't pleasant to use continuously especially for those of us who shoot with both eyes open, viewfinder lag, short battery life, AF performance not up to top DSLR performance when rapidly changing from one area to another on a field of play).

Maybe other spots shooters feel differently, but 30 FPS isn't a big factor for me.  My 1DX III shoots 16 FPS (faster if you want to use Liveview) but I use my 1DX II (14 fps) as a second body at events and on occasion also my 1DX (12 fps) and I have never missed the higher fps rate when using the earlier 1DX bodies.  I leave the bodies in high frame rate mode and the 1DX III is approaching my ability to trigger single frames which are the majority of the images I shoot during an event.  The three photos below are sequential frames captured last night with my 1DX II and 70-200 f2.8, 14 fps is fast enough for me.

A good sports camera is dead reliable, highly weather resistant, has excellent AF performance under very tough conditions, excellent dynamic range and excellent high ISO performance.  And most importantly an excellent user interface.  Eye control AF is something I would never use because while capturing frames I am looking for what is happening next and my eye often isn't aimed at where I want the AF point; this is critical when using glass like the EF 400 f2.8 which is my most often used sports lens and has a very shallow DoF at typical operating distance and aperture.

There are times when a higher MP count would be nice for cropping but only if it comes at no loss of high ISO performance and/or dynamic range.  And the downside would be additional file size and processing overhead. I am using a very fast dual CPU workstation with a solid state drive directly on the bus but chewing on 5DS and 5DS R files takes a bit of time with it.

It is likely the 1DX III series will do everything for me as long as I want to seriously shoot sports because at some point running up and down the sidelines with multiple cameras and big lenses will be less fun.  And depending upon my reflexes not only to get good images but also to avoid danger will be questionable.  While shooting soccer last night I used a fist to deflect a missed goal kick that was coming directly at my head and the keep had a look of horror on his face thinking that I was going to get nailed by the ball.  Last year I saw an official get knocked out by a ball deflected off the side of the goal and into his head.  

Current camera capabilities already exceed my capabilities which aren't going to get better with age 🙂

Rodger

[DigitalByDesign]

I would say US$7,000.The newer cameras aren't expensive enough, so they need to work harder at filling even higher price points. Now, for a more serious comment, I think they will price the R3 too high for most people with average means to purchase unless it is a used model years from now. The existing R Series bodies are too expensive as are the lenses if Canon intended them for someone who isn't pulling in a six-figure salary or isn't buying those products for commercial/professional purposes. When they come out with an R Series designed for a regular person of regular means, I'll be interested in looking at it.

[shadowsports]

@digitalBy Design,

My point(s) exactly.

I want an R series designed for the enthusiast / semi pro.  As you poined out, the R3 will be beyond reach for most.

Sweet spot will be $2499 ~ $3499...  and its got to be better than the R6.  The Digic X is capable of it, so just do it already.

Then bingo, here comes all my money for new glass.      

[DigitalByDesign]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

@digitalBy Design,

My point(s) exactly.

I want an R series designed for the enthusiast / semi pro.  As you poined out, the R3 will be beyond reach for most.

Sweet spot will be $2499 ~ $3499...  and its got to be better than the R6.  The Digic X is capable of it, so just do it already.

Then bingo, here comes all my money for new glass.      

---

The "sweet spot" of $2,499 - $3,499 would be the total cost of *all* of the equipment that I've purchased over a couple of decades. I want to see an affordable mirrorless, R series or otherwise, that has affordable lenses and can take my vintage glass and current lenses with an affordable mount adapter or two. Such a camera also must outperform any smartphones' capabilities or there will be little reason for younger individuals to even think about entering the traditional camera market. I'm open to exploring the new tech, but not at a cost that could purchase me a high-end laptop that has many more uses than a dedicated camera of that price range. The best camera for a brand new beginner is one that they can actually afford along with affordable glass. And the manufacturer can't neuter it as the T7 has been. The best camera for someone more advanced is also the kind that is affordable and has some more capabilities or features that can also use gear they own already rather than forcing the purchaser to buy all brand new lenses and speedlites. Yes, I know the R series doesn't make someone buy brand new lenses, not yet at least, but the price point isn't beginner friendly either for any of the bodies or lenses. Does Canon expect a total newbie to buy a $1,300 camera? You know, like a teenager who doesn't have rich parents? Or how about someone who has experience but also a limited budget? Those who think DSLR owners are out of touch with technology miss the mark when new and used mirror tech is affordable in comparison. I'll stay with the tech I can afford. And old doesn't by necessity mean obsolete or useless. I owned used Canon AT-1 as my first SLR, the standard 50mm lens, and had no flash for several years and learned how to deal with the limitations and challenges in a world of autoeverything cameras and lenses. I shot with it until I wore it out and took amazing photos with such a basic piece of kit. DSLRs aren't cutting edge right now, but their tech is well tested and affordable.