Why does Canon just have to make EOS R3 and R1 so big, and compromise portability?

[Zalkonian]

EOS R3 and R1 are only camera among the few Canon cameras that use latest stacked BSI type CMOS (I asume it's BSI since it's latest, am I right?) with low resolution for good low light performance what got me interested in considering it as an alternative Sony A7sIII. But sadly there always seem to be design problems and in the case of EOS R3 it is it's huge size.

I want to take a camera for bikepacking trips and mountain hiking so size and weight are important factors. There are camera clips to attachs camera's to backpacks such as Peak Design V3 but big Canon camera will just stick out a lot unlike say R6.

Why is it so big, due to battery capacity or some other important components that improve photo/video quality? I owned a Sony A7sI and it was amazingly compact for a full frame sensor camera. I had actually modified it to full spectrum for infrared and UV photography so I seen that there is very little space wasted inside the magnesium alloy/plastic chassis.

Some people do need larger battery capacity but it can be expanded by separate battery grip attachment to keep the camera as compact as possible and more travel friendly. New battery technology such as silicon nanowire batteries can help reduce battery size and weight.

Why do professional camera manufacturers just have to compromise quality and not design cameras as good as possible using for example front lit sensors despite charging many thousands of euros for them?? It would be easier to find the best fitting camera if they just learned from previous designs and used the latest technology.

[johnrmoyer]

Canon does not tell me why they do things.

But, I find a larger, heavier camera easier to hold steady. Better lenses are usually heavier and larger.

You may find an example of "why?" questions answered at: https://asia.canon/en/campaign/rf-lens-world/the-world-of-L-series-lenses/developer-interview 

[Zalkonian]

Yes, I bought today Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 Di Vc Usd today and it's massive. Together with Canon camera's of similar size to R3 it's even bigger and heavier! Not good when bikepacking and traveling, problematic to carry even with belt clip. All this weight is also bad when using handheld and system needs more protection. Sony managed to make A7s much smaller. So I really wish to see advancements in camera, sensor and lens design to reduce weight and size, and as a result price too.

[JFG]

Hello Zalkonian,  

With all do respect, after reading your thread and previous ones, it seems to me that you're really in love with the Sony 7 III.  When you compare the EOS R1 / R3 to Sony's 7 III. you are comparing apples and oranges as those cameras are ment for different markets.  My question is, do you really own a EOS R1?  If  you do, didn't you look at the specs before purchasing it?   If you did then you would have known the actual size, weight and ergonomics of the R1, not to mention all other specs.  So, my question is, knowing the size, weight and ergonomics why did you purchase it?  🤔  I think that you are definitely very happy with your Sony camera as it seems to meet all your bycicle-backpaking  needs.  As everyone has tried to explain   the canon cameras that seem to most meet your size needs are the R6 Mark II or the R5 Mark II.  If you aren't comfortable with either of those canon cameras  than you need to make some adjustments in your thinking.  If the Canon EOS R1 is to big and the benefits of the R1 do not justify the size then you should go back to the Sony 7 III.  Canon has been making cameras since 1933 and has experience engineers and techies to produce/provide valued products to their intended markets, which have made it very successful over the years.  There is no manufacturer in the world that makes the perfect camera/product that meets everyones expectations, needs and budget.  So we all make adjustments and purchase the camera/product that comes closest to meeting our needs.  My question is if the Sony 7 III, meets your needs, what was it that made you look at the R1?

[JFG]

Zalkonian,

"Sony managed to make A7s much smaller.  So, I really wish to see advancements in camera, sensor and lens design to reduce weight and size, and as a result price too."

In that case you should go to the Sony website and give them your "wishes in advancements in their camera sensor, lens design and reduction in weight and size, not to mention price too."  See what they tell you.   Canon already knows what they are doing in research and development and have some of the best engineers and technician working for them, not to mention some of the best minds in photography.  Question:  Does Sony have a website like ours?  Cause I can't understand why you spend so much time on our website spouting what Canon should or should not do?!!  You should be telling Sony how to improve their new Sony A9 III; How to fix their "AF which occasionally gets confused not to mention that the "Battery grip feels essential"...   Or how to improve on the Sony's A7S III "Imbalance with larger lenses; No drive or focus mode dials; Burst shooting buffer being nowhere near the A7 IVs.  You have so much material to post on the Sony website, telling them how to improve their products.  Or do they, or do they not have a website?   Or were you kicked from their website and that's why you are here trolling ours?  Do you even own a camera, a Sony A7 III or any other?  Several of my colleagues have asked you "what type of photography are you into?"  We already know that you're into "bicycle-backpacking".  What we would like to know is what kind of pictures you take during these bicycle-backpacking expeditions?  Are you into Wildlife photography, or Landscape photography, or are you into Nature photography?  We would like to know, not that it would make a difference cause I for one think that you're just a troll and not a photographer.  My advice to you for your kind of bicycle-backpacking photography is to go out and purchase a Samsung S24 Ultra 526gb cell phone as you can take RAW photos with it, and you can also add small zoom lenses to it so you won't have to worry about size or weight as you can carry them it in your front or back pants pocket.   "It boasts a suite of features catering to a wide range of mobile photography enthusiasts:  an ultra-wide camera that excels in bright light conditions, a versatile zoom capability, a host of A.I. functions to make any bad artist better, and it's a 10x telephoto camera.  Additionally, the Galaxy S24 Ultra welcomes two tele modules to enhance detail and maintain overall image quality across long-range shots.  It also boasts Accurate target exposures in low light conditions.  Track sharp and very refined detail and Decent video stabilization.  Zalkonian, you need to get one and spend more time taking pictures rather than trolling.    😄

[Tronhard]

I think you need to consider that Canon, like all manufacturers, make specific cameras for specific markets.   The R1 and R3 are specifically designed for professional sports photographers, along with those who shoot news events.  If you look at such events, they are dominated by those cameras because they are a specific tool for that profession.  

They canvas those professionals to find out what features they want or don't need. Then they build the camera to deliver those benefits via a feature suite.   In the case of the R1 and R3, those photographers wanted:
1. Extremely sturdy cameras with serious weather sealing, massive batteries, and fast dual memory cards for reliability and endurance.  That contributed to the large body size.
2. They wanted large, high-performance BSI/Stacked sensors but of modest MP count to rapidly capture images of action in a wide range of lighting conditions.  Those sensors needed to be backed by high-speed processors, large buffers and fast cards to process and store the images.
3.  They needed super high-speed internet connectivity, both via Wi-Fi and Ethernet to send said images to their agencies in as close to real time as possible for publication on web-pages, social media and magazines.  Also, they wanted to be able to remotely control cameras to capture action from various angles where they might not normally be able to be themselves.
4.  They desired duplicate controls for portrait work, and high levels of customization of controls.
5.  They needed to manage the heat that all that tech produced, so the cameras had to incorporate heat sinks and, in the case of the R1, a venting system.

All of that required a lot of technology to be squeezed into the bodies they did produce, and they are miracles of design and functionality - for the purposes for which they were intended. They never specifically intended that you would go backpacking with such gear: there are other models far better suited to that.  

I might also add that bodies are often not the heaviest component of a camera system.  The optics often weigh at least as much as the body and the better the optic the larger and heavier it is.

Those cameras were not designed for you.  They are designed for the purposes clearly stated in the documentation and as I have explained. If you want to go backpacking then consider a camera designed for that purpose.   Maybe a Sony might be better for your purposes, if you really want.  But these cameras is not the issue. It's your process for choosing gear.   
So, I would suggest you come back with some details about what you need:
1.  Budget -  There is no point in us suggesting gear you can't afford - that should include the cost of optics.
2.  What subjects you photograph under what conditions - light, environment.  The optics required for photographing macro predators are going to be seriously different from shooting wide scenic vistas.
3. What do you produce?  For social media, digital display, small-medium prints or extremely large prints for sale?
4  What are you prepared to carry?  Sure, you are backpacking over multiple days, but do you want something that will sit in a holster, hang from your backpack harness or what?  If you are considering multiple optics what would they be, and how will you manage them?

I have been backpacking for decades as a wildlife photographer, and I would not choose the R1 or R3 for that purpose.  I would choose (depending on conditions, my purpose and what I expected to shoot) either one of the R5 or R6 models with something like a RF 24-240 lens, or a Sony RX-10IV if bulk and weight were really an issue and I needed a massive focal range.

So, if you really want help to choose a Canon camera, then come back with the answers to my points, and we can help you.  Otherwise, get the Sony you seem to prefer.

[Zalkonian]

So Canon R3 and R1 are packed with technology and has minimal air pocket voids inside like any other camera? I couldn't find on Youtube teardown video of these camera's so I don't know if these camera's are huge only because of poor design. Sony A7sIII seems to have same functionality yet keeps camera significantly small.

There are attachments, cages and handles to make compact camera's more ergonomic and easier to handle say for video making. So making R3 and R1 so big only for this reason limts it's versatility.

Does R3 and R1 have advanced sensor cooling?

[Tronhard]

Let me ask you a question... is your interest in cameras just the technology or do you actually take photographs?

I have asked you repeatedly what you are trying to achieve as a photographer and am yet to have a clue.

[Bazsl]

What functionality are you looking at? Give a photojournalist in a war zone an R1 and an A7III and see which camera is still working in a month. As others have pointed out, the R1 and R3 are designed for a very specific market and being extremely rugged in harsh environments is one of the requirements for photojournalists and that adds weight. If you want a lighter camera that is a closer comparison to the Sony, look at an R5 or R6. 

[WCETECH]

Technology with a robust protective housing to protect it is in the long run trash, add in ample battery power and you have even more weight.