I LOVE Canon cameras. I own a bunch of them — I have a C300 mark iii, that’s my main cinema camera, I have a 1DX mark iii, a pair of EOS R mirrorless bodies, and all the lenses to go with them. I have a LOT of money invested with this company.
I tell you that to highlight the fact that I have a predisposition to like almost anything that Canon does, at least on the professional side of their product line. I am the antithesis of unbiased in this context.
But, with that being said, the recently (or not so recently) announced/been in development for a long time EOS R3 gives me mixed feelings.
Who is it for? What’s it good at? As a self-diagnosed gear addict, am I going to buy one?
No… No I’m not. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. So let’s dive into this a little bit.
The EOS R3 is going to be an awesome camera, I have no doubt. Canon’s 1DX series of cameras has always been incredible, and honestly has been the envy of pro body DSLR shooters of all platforms for a while. The mark ii really changed the game being an absolute monster of a pro sports body as well as an awesome video camera. The mark iii took all of that and made it 10X better.
So on one side of the R3 we have Canon’s amazing ability to develop and create awesome pro body cameras. And then on the other side of the R3 we have Canon’s mirrorless camera tech, which let’s be honest, really isn’t about the bodies at all — it’s about their lenses.
The RF mount and accompanying lenses, although late to the game when compared to Sony are phenomenal. Canon brought it’s A-game and century plus long knowledge of developing optics to play when launching the RF line of lenses. They are fantastic.
So the R3 is going to be this marriage of Canon’s stellar reputation in the pro body/sports camera world and their also stellar reputation in the optics world which took a quantum leap with the RF mount and puts them together in one awesome, incredible, super capable body.
So, if I’m sitting here praising it this much, why won’t I be buying one?
Well, I find myself in a unique position amidst this DSLR to mirrorless transition that is happening, not just with Canon but with the camera world at large; as do many shooters who have large amounts of money invested in their systems. I own a $12,000 cinema camera, which was just released 12 months ago… with an EF mount; I’m going to have that camera for at least another 3 years. I own a $6500 B-cam (the 1dx mark iii), to the cinema camera, also an EF mount camera. I do own a pair of mirrorless RF mount cameras from Canon, both of which I love, but given the fact that I own nearly $20,000 of EF mount cameras, and another $12,000 of EF lenses, I’m not going to start switching my EF lens lineup out for RF lenses anytime soon. So I simply adapt all of my EF lenses to the RF bodies — and let me tell you that they work like a dream. I’ve done side by side comparison to the RF lenses and there’s virtually zero performance difference.
Canon has put us in a unique position where as hybrid photographers and film makers, they’ve given their stills cameras amazing video capabilities but with a mount that isn’t the same as their cinema camera line. Yes I know the C70 has an RF mount but it’s the only one and that’s not really the right camera for me, or a lot of cinematographers, anyways; discussion for a different day.
Which leads me to my next point: video capabilities of the R3. I’m a film maker first, photographer second. I own a C300 mark iii, which is a 4K raw capable camera. The 1DX mark iii is a 5.5K raw capable beast of a DSLR, also a monster photography tool, even if it does only produce a “measly” 20 megapixels. And in the stills world, I have a pair of EOS R bodies, which I love — the 30 megapixel sensor combined with the processing power of that camera produces great results for my work. And when I get around to upgrading my stills kit I’m going to be much more inclined to upgrade to the R5 than anything else. Which by the way is also a monster, all things considered, video camera as well as a great stills camera.
So… for somebody like me, with no desire to replace my EF lens lineup with RF lenses anytime soon and who already owns an incredible pro body like the 1DX mark iii, or even the mark ii, for that matter; where does the R3 fit?
Simple answer — it doesn’t. The way I see it, the r3 is going to be a great camera if you are a one camera type of person and are willing to totally invest in RF. If you want one camera that’s going to shoot the stills that you need and the video that you need and do it really well, than the R3 is going to be your best bet. But at the projected prices of more than $6000, you could buy an R5 and an R for less money and have an arguably more capable setup for most types of shooting, an A and B cam for video, freedom to wield dual cameras for stills or simply have a backup body should anything ever go wrong.
So maybe not.
The only thing I can figure is that this camera is returning to the roots of pro body stills cameras and it is for those people. People who need a pro body because their livlihood depends on it and not becasue they’re trying to flex on instagram. We’re talking pro sports photographers and photojournalists. People who need to know that they can take their cameras through hell or high water and still be able to get the shot. People who don’t give two rips about megapixel count because they were producing better work than I ever will on 4 megapixel cameras at the turn of the DSLR revolution.
Will the R3 have incredible video capabilities, I would bet my life on it, Canon has been doubling down on packing as much motion capabilities into these stills cameras as they can since they shocked the world by giving the 5d mark ii 24 fps capabilities (which was a strictly Hollywood feature set until that point). But it just so happens that great video capabilities make for even greater stills capabilities so this camera is going to be a photographer’s workhorse.
But not just any photographer. Product photography? Go with the r5, it’s near medium format level resolution will serve you better; same goes for commercial or studio photogrpahy. Portraits and wedding work? Go for the R or R5 again. Landscape photography? R5 again. Everyday carry/street photography/etc? Leica… I’m just kidding (but really though), probably the r6 or R will do great for you. There’s a myriad of types of photography and choosing the right tool for the job matters.
So again, who is the R3 for? What types of work will be best served by its capabilities? It’s not for cinematographers, the RF mount hasn’t really found it’s footing in our world yet. So it’s for photogrpahers. But not just any photographers; not portraits, not product, not landscape, not studio work, not street. No, this camera goes back to what the pro body DSLR, and SLR for that matter, were always designed for. Rugged construction that can take the beating of pro sports shooters, wildlife shooters, and photojournalists.
Is it going to be a great camera? No doubt. Is it going to be a camera for the masses? No… not really. Could I be wrong? Yes, most definitely; after all, I am looking at my situation and trying to extrapolate an umbrella scenario to the masses based on a sample group of myself which is usually never a solid plan.
But nonetheless, I see this camera as being for the working professional photographer in the sports, wildlife, and photojournalism world.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for reading. Much love. Peace.
