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.

[Zalkonian]

"I have a couple of 5DS bodies with Canon battery grips and although it is nice to have the extra battery capacity and dual controls, adding this grip does not provide the beautiful balance engineered into a professional series body and the add-on is always going to be a compromise over an original fully integrated design."

I have in fact used Neewer battery grip on Sony A7s and had no problems with it except due heavy use sometimes contacts would cutoff. It had useful extra contols indeed too. But I did not like using for same reason I don't like Canon EOS R1 and R3 - it's bulky size and extra weight. If I needed extra battery I'd rather carry extra batteries or connect by wire power bank. In my view it's still better to have compact camera that can be upgraded with attachments.

So where I can see Canon EOS R1 and R3 internals, teardown photos? I'm really curious to see why they are so bulky and also more expensive than more compact counterparts. I plan to do full spectrum modification of these or other Canon/Sony camera's so photo/video dissasembly/assembly guide will be necessary.

[wq9nsc]

Standard game "wear" for me is a Sun Sniper dual shoulder harness with a pair of 1DX III bodies with an EF 70-200 f2.8 on one side and an EF 400 f2.8 on the other.  Last night at the game, another photographer asked how I was able to handhold a body with EF 400 f2.8 attached (I don't use a monopod because it limits mobility too much) and the dual answer is I have been doing it for several years AND most importantly the well designed 1DX III body provides excellent balance with that lens making it a pleasure to work with which wouldn't be true of a small light body.

The 1DX III is the best ergonomically designed body I have used and it has been 100% reliable in pouring rain, 15F weather, and a baseball game in the sun with the temperature in the mid 90s.  It runs nice and cool although last night a little warmth from the body would have been welcome with a 40F temperature and plenty of wind.  I have yet to find any gloves I like because I switch between bodies quickly, often during the same play and gloves create a delay so I just keep some chemical hand warmers in my pockets and do a quick thaw during timeouts and long snap counts 🙂

Photos captured with 1DX III and EF 400 f2.8 @ f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 6400

Rodger

EF 400 f2.8 @ f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 6400EF 400 f2.8 @ f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 6400

[WCETECH]

For myself and a lot of cameramen a lightweight camera is a burden, light bodies lack the stability required for long handheld shots. Then again I am also used to working with shoulder mounted camcorders of which the body weighs 11 pounds add a battery and lens and it's up to around 18 pounds. But a unit so stable the human holding it becomes a excellent video tripod. 

[Zalkonian]

 "a lightweight camera is a burden, light bodies lack the stability required for long handheld shots"

What? This does not even make sense 😄 If extra weight is better why their frames are made from lightweight magnesium alloys instead of much more stronger steel? If someone really needs extra weight and grip it's better to use battery grip or lead weights. But that is bad idea to have more hand burdening camera especially with big lens.

[WCETECH]

So says you, i have found lighter weight cameras to be unsuitable for my type of work which is why both of my 60D's have battery grips on them. 

And I refuse to move away from shoulder mounted camcorders. 

[wq9nsc]

It's called balance and the 1 series bodies provide a much nicer balance for the longer and heavier lenses.  Canon (and its 1 series users) clearly have different preferences than you and I am sure you would be much happier with a lighter Sony body.

My EF 400 f2.8 and 1DX III create a balanced combination that I shoot handheld for football games and soccer matches without fatigue.  Putting that same lens on a Canon 5DS body I have without a battery grip would be extremely tiresome to handhold for more than a short period of time.

Canon has been making this style body for quite a while (as does Nikon) and they do so for a reason because that is what the market for that type of camera setup wants for their use.  I don't like every camera on the market and neither does anyone else, we buy what best fits our photography needs.

Rodger

[WCETECH]

wq9nsc

Elite

In response to Zalkonian

‎11-17-2024 06:11 PM

It's called balance and the 1 series bodies provide a much nicer balance for the longer and heavier lenses.

Very true, a light body has little inertial resistance making it difficult to use with a long telephoto  lens, it simply lacks the weight to do the job properly.

Maybe for taking snapshots it might be ok but for serious telephoto work it's useless.

[March411]

It is an interesting perspective. I have the R3 and cannot speak to the R1. I do know several Sony owners and recognize that not all would agree with your position.

A buddy of mine that often wanders with me owns and uses the Sony A7 (a couple bodies) and a decent line of lenses. Normally he is carrying his 200-600mm or the 100-400mm and converter. I have my R3 and either the 200-800mm or the 100-500mm.

We often switch at some point with my buddy Russ being the one that usually suggests it. He even wants to put in clean cards when we make the switch. He has stated on several occasions that with all things being almost equal (always says Sony is sharper) that the setup I carry is more comfortable and better balanced then his setup.

After carrying his setup several times, I know that he is right. With the 200-600mm on the A7 the setup is front heavy, not well balanced, and more difficult to steady even though it is lighter. As for the A7 body itself, well compared to the R3 I would not call it robust. Do not get me wrong it is a nice body but I would use it for holidays and sightseeing but not in outdoor venues, sporting, and concert events.

Unless you are pixel peeping the image difference is negligible but when you start comparing build and balance of the bodies I believe that one stands well above the other. Right tool for the right job!

The R3, I love the form, function, and images the it provides. Having used both Canon and Sony I just believe the Canon has a better build quality, weather sealing, intuitive menus and functions. That being said I don’t feel need to stop by any Sony forums to let their users know they are wrong.

Perhaps thou protest to much