Canon R3

[LenR]

Noticed this announcement from B&H today. Details on specs not yet available from Canon.
Will be interesting to see where this one goes with Mp's and pricing..........

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...17FB07432EFC7E

[Manfred M]

They've done the same thing with the competitor, the Nikon Z9 - with the Tokyo Olympics coming up, we should expect to see more on both these cameras over then next while. Until these cameras show a ship / availability date, they are little more than rumours hiding behind NDAs.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...s_digital.html

[lunaticitizen]

Obviously I'm not Canon's target market, but I can't see myself lugging a camera that is presumably very heavy anymore..
Been there, done that with my old Nikon cameras.

Thankfully there are a lot of options now. You can get the crème de la crème without any weight penalty.

[Manfred M]

You can get the crème de la crème without any weight penalty.

No you can't. That statement is just plain silly, if you think about it.

[Tronhard]

Perhaps striking a milder tone, I am guessing that Leo is suggesting that cameras for a specific market may be smaller and lighter that previously. I don't think that is a given, but I must say that my EOS R6 bodies seem lighter and smaller than their DSLR equivalents. However one cannot simply look at the bodies alone: the lens is usually a highly significant part of the bulk and weight of any higher-end unit and certainly they have added significant amounts of both to the bodies.

I have the R6 bodies with battery grips (both for energy supply and dual portrait controls) and then when one adds on the good L series lenses, they are not feathers, but personally I find them lighter than my older gear of similar capability. I suspect that the high-end pro bodies like the R3 and assumedly R1 ( whenever one appears) will be fairly hefty because of the extra body strength and weather resistance enhancement. Still, we shall see.

Personally, I try not to get too involved in the weight issue. I shoot with the Sigma 60-600 S lens that is a hefty beast, but I do weight classes to give me the strength to both carry and use them hand-held, and anyway it's good exercise!

[Manfred M]

Perhaps striking a milder tone, I am guessing that Leo is suggesting that cameras for a specific market may be smaller and lighter that previously. I don't think that is a given, but I must say that my EOS R6 bodies seem lighter and smaller than their DSLR equivalents. However one cannot simply look at the bodies alone: the lens is usually a highly significant part of the bulk and weight of any higher-end unit and certainly they have added significant amounts of both to the bodies.

I have the R6 bodies with battery grips (both for energy supply and dual portrait controls) and then when one adds on the good L series bodies, they are not feathers, but personally I find them lighter than my older gear of similar capability. I suspect that the high-end pro bodies like the R3 and assumedly R1 ( whenever one appears) will be fairly hefty because of the extra body strength and weather resistance enhancement. Still, we shall see.

Personally, I try not to get too involved in the weight issue. I shoot with the Sigma 60-600 S lens that is a hefty beast, but I do weight classes to give me the strength to both carry and use them hand-held, and anyway it's good exercise!

Trev - 100% spot on. I do a lot of studio photography, so weight is not really an issue. Even when I travel, I generally haul along a full-frame body and often three lenses plus a heavy duty tripod. There are advantages with a larger body (plus lenses), even with image stabilization, mass reduces camera movement. I have no issues shooting and changing settings while looking through the viewfinder because a larger body allows for more controls that can be accessed through on-body controls. I've tried the full-frame Nikon bodies and was quite impressed with how well they were laid out. The weight difference between my D810 and the Z7 is around 300g, frankly not a noticeable difference in my fully packed camera bag.

Leo shoots JPEGs and mostly displays on a computer screen. I do large prints from raw files; we have different needs. If I were a pro, I would be shooting a medium format digital body for studio work. A few photographers that I know went to smaller mirrorless cameras and returned to shooting full-frame bodies because of the higher quality.

[lunaticitizen]

Oh I go to gym 5 times a week nowadays; I think I'm healthy and strong enough to carry reasonably heavy stuff.

For an upcoming trip I'm going for a 12-hour hike in a local mountain; weight is a big issue but with what I have now I can carry 2 cameras, 3 lenses, and a travel tripod, yet the total weight will be still under 5 kgs (11 lbs). I'm leaning toward carrying a single camera with a prime lens instead, though.

Of course no carrying ultra-sharp, monster f/2.8 zooms anymore, but I'm quite satisfied with what I have now. That 300g difference Manfred mentioned is probably the average weight of my prime lenses.

So I'm not so much a photographer as a traveler? Different threshold for weight I guess.

[Tronhard]

HI Leo:
I think we all have different needs and solutions at different times, which may well explain why I have a fairly large and divergent range of gear...

[xpatUSA]

Obviously I'm not Canon's target market, but I can't see myself lugging a camera that is presumably very heavy anymore.

Been there, done that with my old Nikon cameras.

Thankfully there are a lot of options now. You can get the crème de la crème without any weight penalty.

Just weighed my two main cameras.

The Sigma SD9 house-brick with the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 weighs in at 1589g. The Panasonic DC-G9 µ4/3 with 12-35mm f/2.8 "Leica" weighs just 992g.

I regard the SD9 as a challenge to anybody for getting a good shot, the sourest crème de la crème Sigma. The shutter sound alone scares small children and causes wild life to flee for it's life.

On the other hand, the DC-G9 is indeed the crème de la crème µ4/3 in terms of usability. My shaky hands just love the dual IS ... no tripod necessary.

Please pardon my mention of cameras from outside the Real World of Canikony ...

[DanK]

Leo shoots JPEGs and mostly displays on a computer screen. I do large prints from raw files; we have different needs.

Exactly. The question isn't "how do the options stack up," but rather, "how do the options stack up given what I do with my equipment.

I don't do studio work with models, but I do studio macro, for which weight doesn't matter. For everything else I do, weight does matter. However, I virtually never shoot JPEG and print often, frequently 13 x 19 (A3+) and sometimes 17 x 22 (A2). Given that I sometimes need to crop and sometimes have to deal with less than optimal lighting, FF gives me better results. I can still lug my stuff around, but I find the weight more annoying each year. The hardest is when I need my EF 100-400, which alone weighs 3.61 lb / 1640 g. Still, the gear I have is high quality and mostly fairly new, and it serves my needs very well, so I'll make do for the foreseeable future.

One thing that helps a bit is that I never use a grip. I'm perfect comfortable holding the camera in portrait orientation, and it's a lot lighter simply to throw an extra battery in the bag. Since I have a DSLR, not a mirrorless camera, I very rarely need a second battery for a shoot anyway.

[Manfred M]

Leo - photo gear is a tool and I know of very few tools that are "universal". I have three different digital still cameras (mFT, APS-C and FF), a dedicated video camera plus my phone which has a pretty decent camera. I have taken tens of throusands of shots with the two crop sensor cameras, but am well over 100,000 with the full frame camera. I have lots of lenses, especially relatively fast ones (f/2.8 and up), not so much for the amount of light that they capture, but rather to let me shoot very shallow depth of field. Focal lengths varies from an 8.5mm fisheye to a 600mm zoom. Most of my shooting is in the 14mm - 200mm range.

I own five different tripods (each has a specific purpose), have 8 different flashes (not counting the built in camera flash); two Speedlights, two bare-bulb flashes (that I primarily use for location shoots) and four studio flashes. The list goes on.

Photography is an "equipment sport", so the right tools for the right job, often dependent on either the location and / or the genre I am working in.

[DanK]

That raises another weight issue: my two most-used lenses are f/4. I rarely need shallower DOF, and I can compensate for the speed difference by boosting ISO one stop if I need to. In the case of my 70-200, this decision saved roughly 50% in both weight and price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

That raises another weight issue: my two most-used lenses are f/4. I rarely need shallower DOF, and I can compensate for the speed difference by boosting ISO one stop if I need to.

My Sigma 17-50mm APS-C zoom is a constant f/2.8 but, by coincidence, I'm usually on f/4 which is it's best setting for sharpness at around 30mm (50mm equivalent on my camera).

[xpatUSA]

I'm leaning toward carrying a single camera with a prime lens instead, though.

Leo, be careful while zooming with your feet, eh?

[Manfred M]

Leo, be careful while zooming with your feet, eh?

Back when I first got into serious photography, that was the only option. Zoom lenses were very rare, not inexpensive and in general, not very good.

[royent]

Zooming with feet is not a bad option and why are most photographs taken from five foot up and with the camera in landscape ?

[Tronhard]

Zooming with feet is not a bad option and why are most photographs taken from five foot up and with the camera in landscape ?

The answer is the same as when Hitler was asked in 1945 why he invaded the USSR in 1941: "It seemed like a good idea at the time!"

[DanK]

Back when I first got into serious photography, that was the only option. Zoom lenses were very rare, not inexpensive and in general, not very good.

Yes. I recall the first zooms I encountered, which must have been the very late 60s or early 1970s. They weren't very good, and few people I knew used them. However, the alternative, which was often prohibitive, wasn't zooming with your feet; it was changing primes. "Zooming with your feet" is fundamentally misleading because it doesn't create the same perspective as zooming out.