No, the Canon EOS R3 won’t cost $6,000 – Don’t be silly
May 25, 2021
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
Canon Watch is reporting a “rumour” that the Canon EOS R3 have a price that is “below that of the Sony Alpha 1” and “maybe even less than $6,000”. They seem to have been informed that the price for the EOS R3 will be $5,999 – at least at launch and all I have to say to that is… don’t be daft!
The Canon EOS R3 is not going to be a flagship camera, so why would it come with a $6K (I’m rounding up) flagship price tag? Canon Watch doesn’t really believe the price either, saying that it’s “wishful thinking”. I’m not sure who’s wishing it was $6K, though. Are they expecting it to be even more expensive than that?
While the Canon EOS R3 looks as if it should have some pretty respectable specifications. After all, it’s bringing back Canon’s Eye Control Autofocus, so you’d think that Canon would really use the EOS R3 as an excuse to pack a bunch of cool tech in there (like a shiny new BSI stacked CMOS sensor) and not have this just be a one-trick-pony gimmick of a camera.
But whatever goes inside it, it’s not a flagship camera. And at a $6,000 flagship price, it simply wouldn’t compete with other flagship models, out there. While the only real mirrorless flagship out there right now is the Sony A1, Nikon has a Z9 on the way at some point, and no doubt Canon will eventually announce the development of the EOS R1 to replace its 1DX Mark III DSLR.
I still expect the EOS R3 to sit somewhere in between the hypothetical EOS R1 (which will likely be around $6,500) and the EOS R5 ($3,899) in the product line and price range. It’ll be competing with Sony’s $4,500 A9 II as a fast-paced sports, action, journalism and wildlife shooter. And that’s about where I expect the EOS R3 price to be, too, around $4,500.
Sure, $4,500 still isn’t exactly inexpensive, but this is not a $6K camera. And if Canon tries to charge $6K for it, they’re out of their minds.
[via Canon Watch]
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Related Posts
NASA’s Video Of The Lunar Eclipse Will Make Sure You Wont Miss The One In October
Comparing the Canon EOS R, EOS RP, EOS R5 and EOS R6 head-to-head for portraits
This camera’s shutter speed goes up to 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a second
Employee fraud will cost $150,000,000 says drone manufacturer DJI – 29 people fired
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
17 responses to “No, the Canon EOS R3 won’t cost $6,000 – Don’t be silly”
5999?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f65ec39677e36634e3e0364b58499649af688cd144bec5132b90fe8ddd098a04.jpg
I think we can only postulate to some extent on the pricing. I think a 1D successor (R1?) will cost more than the EF equivalent. My guess is $8,000. It makes sense that a step down from that would be around $6,000, especially since the R5 is $3,900. As it stands, we don’t know much about the specs of the R3, so it’s very hard to say what price Canon will ask. No matter how they price it, they will sell a lot, and fast.
I think it’ll be the flagship i.e. “the finest, largest, or most important one of a group of things”. Until the next flagship comes out. Kind of like the sony a7r II was the flagship, with the best autofocus (at the time amongst its group), best image quality, etc. Then the sony a9 was the flagship. Then the sony a1 became the flagship. I’m kind of sick of flagships at this point. They’re getting more and more expensive.
In the times of DSLR, where you’d pack more processors, more physical materials and whatnot that made sense. Where mirrorless cameras are almost identical computers inside, the price differences are harder to justify regardless of their performance. Sure the sony a1 has that fancy viewfinder, but we all know that’s going to be in the cheaper models “moving forwards”. That’s just my opinion after designing things for manufacture. I am no doubt sure that someoen with zero knowledge, zero experience and zero understanding of the manufacturing process will be quick to argue with this :).
This article is basing flagship prices on the dslr market. Look at the R3 body, the dual grip double battery design is closer to the 1dx3, and performance matching and probably exceeding the Sony A1, so pricing will indeed be in the $6000 range. R3 will easily outperform the Sony A9II, since the current R5 virtually matches the A9II now and then some. So yes, the R1 will move upmarket when it debuts in a higher price bracket.
The a9ii beats the canon r5 in silent shutter, unfortunately there’s a lot rolling shutter in the r5
Yes, rolling shutter, what else? R5 beats a9II in everything else by a wide margin: resolution, buffer, af, video, etc. In fact, a9II looks like a very poor value compared to the R5, as does the A1.
well, A9ii beats R5 with AF performance. on top of that evf with no blackouts is also unique and highly appreciated feature.
that being said r5 is very, very good camera. it is one of the best all around balanced camera ever. even the poor rolling shutter is not a deal breaker in my opinion. a9 ii is much more specialized camera and keeps the ground on the sport/action area.
a1 is of course the winner in specs but with a very high prize tag and I fully understand that for some it has a poor ergonomics.
I suspect the R1 will be a $7.5k to $8k camera so $6k would be a reasonable price point for the R3 , but will be happy if is as cheap as $4.5k which is only a little more than an R5 and grip.
The 1DS was $8K.
We do not know if the R1 will be closer to the 1DX or the 1DS.
It may even be a combination of both which some of the rumors of 80 MP at 20 FPS.
~$2000 steps make perfect sense at the high end:
R1 $8k
R3 $6k
R5 $4k
R6 $2.5k
RP* $1k (*Or eventual entry level FF).
I’d also add that people who actually buy expensive camera are presumably relatively indifferent to ~10% differences in price.
Put the R3 at $4,100 and the R1 at 5,800.
More than make up in sheer market share and volume.
With “Medium Format” coming down so much it will be silly to charge more than those go for.
Canon will make huge bucks with those prices and again show dominance in the market through real innovation.
Lol that’s only $700 above the R5. That’s what I would call wishfully thinking….
When Sony fixes the EVF blackout, then we can discuss the A1 even in a flagship category. For right now Sony’s A1 with antique LCD and EVF blackout issues is merely a paper spec device with a lot short commIngs.
LOL. announced today and the price is $6000. guess you were wrong. too expensive for me. maybe I’ll pick up a used one for $2000 once the mark II and Mark III versions of it come out.
Literally the first thing I addressed in the announcement post. :)
Welp, this person was wrong. The cost is $6k