Right now they think it's 3. Sounds about right to me, too. One as cheap as possible, one sensible entry level and one slightly above that.How many entry-level cameras does Canon need ?
Right now, there's the R100, R50, R10, and maybe the R50 V.
I can't see an R3II of any sort, but if there's another 3-series it would have to be the R3II and would you really expect a MkII version of a gripped, low MP body to be a non-gripped, high MP body? I don't see how that makes any sense. On the other hand, Canon had the 5D series and came out with one of them that was high MP called the 5Ds. So why call a new, non-gripped high MP body an R3II instead of an R5s? I really just don't get it.I agree; what I’m suggesting is that going forward Canon could use the 3 series model number for their (even) higher mp body, and as such it would essentially be a R5S - a five series style body. I just can’t see how a version two update of the current R3 would fit into the Canon lineup without diluting the position of the R1.
The analysis is in. The person that posted that rumor that was passed along to CR was smokin' the ganja hard.Whoa, what's Canon doing here? What exactly is this "enhanced Bayer array"?
It doesn't seem to be quad-Bayer like a smartphone. 54MP -> 24MP is a conspicuous 2.25X reduction, not 4X.
I can't wait for some more analysis on this.
I agree; what I’m suggesting is that going forward Canon could use the 3 series model number for their (even) higher mp body, and as such it would essentially be a R5S - a five series style body. I just can’t see how a version two update of the current R3 would fit into the Canon lineup without diluting the position of the R1.Canon knows how much profit they made from 5Ds/5DsR bodies, compared to the 1Ds series. If we see another 'high MP' body (i.e., significantly more than the R5 line) from Canon, I strongly suspect it will be in the R5-series body type and not the R3.
It does actually say FW, not FV. The left part of the W is squished against the middle, just like the “IV” in “III” so the same person who wrote that did that also. Probably put the tape on the cabinet then awkwardly wrote on them at an angle.I hadn't thought of that! Nice. Edit incoming.
A rare group will be able to justify 2 systems and have the disposable income to support it. A mid priced telephoto + Z8 Nikon pairing is a good example for a particular use case.On the other hand, people who swap brands or use more than one (and I imagine both are a minority) can overestimate how much brand loyalty there is. Speaking for myself, I have no loyalty but I do have inertia. My gear does most of what I want and any gripes or dissatisfaction aren't worth the hassle and expense of starting afresh. I suspect a lot of people are likewise in the middle.
It would cost me a lot to switch and I don't think that the competition is that much ahead of Canon. I've mentioned the cost of underwater housings for instance.Brand loyalty has never made much sense to me, but it does seem to be an affliction that many people suffer from.
Sigma have a choice... they could release their current lenses in EF and use the older AF protocols but they haven't. A deliberate decision and different this time around. Sigma/Tamron don't want to annoy Canon and are happy to wait. There might be a point where that strategy changes and risk lawsuits but it isn't now.Over time Canon will release more RF glass, but the Canon tax will always be high and the selection will never be as good as it would be with 3rd party glass in the mix. Lenses like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8. Amazing lens. Will Canon release something like that? Probably not. Or the Sigma 135/1.4 or 200/2. Both are good astro lenses that will never come to RF. New Sigma 105mm should come sometime soonish and since they already have a 135/1.4 I personally think they might do something crazy and bring out a 105/1.2. Of course that will never come to RF either. Then there are lenses like the Sigma 300-600/4 or the almost unbelievably small 500/5.6. Or the all in one 20-200 lens which is surprisingly good for a superzoom. None of that will come to RF either.
It wasn't that long ago when I thought that China was a long way behind the Japanese suppliers. That gap is reducing and tempting.And China is only just getting started. This year we will start to see AF zoom lenses from them, and camera bodies (probably L mount) are not all that far behind.
Whoa, what's Canon doing here? What exactly is this "enhanced Bayer array"?...The new machine supports switching between the two native resolutions of 54 million pixels and 24 million pixels, respectively, to achieve 40 shots per second And high-speed continuous shooting of 90 shots per second. It uses an enhanced Bayer array to pass through adjacent images in 24 million pixel mode! The combination of elements increases the sensitivity by about 80% compared to EOS R3...
Canon have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders but not their customers. Keeping customers happy is wise though. As @scyrene says, inertia is a powerful motivator.Yipp, I don't like it too, but most people stick to their brand (and usually Canon knows best how the market works).
A manual 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 from a Chinese supplier with good performance would be an instant buy for me. Could be released on EF or RF mount and meet my needs.But I also see that the new(er) 3rd party lenses - from China - are relatively good for their low price, but they can only offer MF lenses for the RF mount or AF for the EF mount with adapter. If these 3rd party lenses would be available with AF for the RF mount, that would probably hurt Canons financial results a bit (and they still recover from the smartphone competition).
Yes and no. Some customers complain loudly and some of that subset do something about it. It might shift the needle a little from a financial results perspective but isn't proving a massive issue for Canon (yet).Well, the lack of lenses for the RF mount is a severe issue!
To be specific, RF allows 3rd party crop sensor lenses that have full access to Canon's AF/IBIS protocols.And Canon steadfastly refusing to allow 3rd party glass on to RF is why Canon is dead to me. It's too bad because if 3rd party glass was allowed, there is a reasonably high probability I would own an R5 II.
On top of what neuro said, one indirect sharpness benefit from stacking would be more practical electronic shutter use, which means less blur from shutter shock at long focal lengths.ref the R7 II. If it doesn't include a stacked BSI sensor, I don't see it being a big seller to those who own the R7. BSI is old tech but it is the best tech for sensors. It is sharper imaging than the Front Side Illuminated (FSI) sensors of old. What do we want? We want the sharpest image we can acquire. Just an opinion. Stacked is for the processing speeds. BSI is for the image quality.
Sorry, but...huh? You could argue that BSI delivers better signal-to-noise (which is true, but while relevant for smartphones it's not really relevant at pixel sizes for ILCs). But better sharpness? Can you support that claim with evidence?BSI is old tech but it is the best tech for sensors. It is sharper imaging than the Front Side Illuminated (FSI) sensors of old. What do we want? We want the sharpest image we can acquire. Just an opinion. Stacked is for the processing speeds. BSI is for the image quality.
Still, given how spoilt I amI think the key is to buy the new body along with whatever your "next lens" purchase was going to be. Then slowly switch over. It takes time. There's nothing wrong with owning two systems, especially if you segment the use cases somewhat. I've owned 3 or 4 different systems at the same time in the past. It keeps life interesting.
I figured, but I was facetiously serious: with me being into portraiture / fashion and me loving more teles over wides, it means I'd be truly intrigued by a lens such as the 105/1.2... and given the other interesting Sigma lenses available for L mount and Sony... pity if I had to choose a mount from scratch right now it'd probably be NikonThere are no rumors of a 105/2, but Sigma pretty clearly wants to keep doing things to elevate themselves above the Chinese makers, and they definitely want to be the go-to for astro glass. The 105/1.4 was a big deal when it came out and was a big (literally and figuratively) halo lens for Sigma at the time. Since they already have a 135/1.4, if they're going to bring out a 105 I think it will be faster. With that in mind, I'd be shocked if they weren't at least considering (and probably prototyping) a 105/1.2.
Ask for a substantial raise, you deserve it!Craig parses out that stuff, I'm just a peon.
On the other hand, people who swap brands or use more than one (and I imagine both are a minority) can overestimate how much brand loyalty there is. Speaking for myself, I have no loyalty but I do have inertia. My gear does most of what I want and any gripes or dissatisfaction aren't worth the hassle and expense of starting afresh. I suspect a lot of people are likewise in the middle.Brand loyalty has never made much sense to me, but it does seem to be an affliction that many people suffer from.
I have a couple of Mac 35w twin port USB chargers in addition to the more powerful ones. Not cheap but very small and useful, and Mac gear rarely fails. With two of them while travelling, I have a back-up in case one does and can charge our phones, iPads, Air, and batteries in cameras. 3rd party Canon USB-cradles are almost free.Maybe they just don't see the need for it? I'm with you on not buying Canon's PD power adapter, I have my Mac charger with my anyway and use that to charge the battery in the camera.
I think the key is to buy the new body along with whatever your "next lens" purchase was going to be. Then slowly switch over. It takes time. There's nothing wrong with owning two systems, especially if you segment the use cases somewhat. I've owned 3 or 4 different systems at the same time in the past. It keeps life interesting.To be fair, there are some advantages with staying with a brand. Switching may be expensive if one has a number of high quality lenses...
There are no rumors of a 105/2, but Sigma pretty clearly wants to keep doing things to elevate themselves above the Chinese makers, and they definitely want to be the go-to for astro glass. The 105/1.4 was a big deal when it came out and was a big (literally and figuratively) halo lens for Sigma at the time. Since they already have a 135/1.4, if they're going to bring out a 105 I think it will be faster. With that in mind, I'd be shocked if they weren't at least considering (and probably prototyping) a 105/1.2.Please don't say thata 105/1.2 might be the thing that pushes me over to the dark side, together with the 135/1.4, the 200/2 and the near-mythical 35/1.2. This would be a disaster for my wallet, especially since all the money I have donated to Hasselblad
![]()