Sporgon said:

Indeed that’s what history tells us so far. I’d see an ultra high mp R3ii as basically a ‘R5S’ configuration.

Click to expand...

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.

There is different “colour science” for portraits (skin tone warmth) and for nature (correct biological colour). Maybe the R5 series is optimised for Nature and the R6 more for studio work in general.

Quack said:

There is only one reliable source and that is personal experience. Anyone can start a website. Anyone can be a blogger. Expertise is not a requirement. Not being biased or having an agenda is not a requirement. Even with the best intentions, lenses vary. Experience varies. Needs vary. Clicks, followers, subscribers are usually the goal.

Click to expand...

I fully share your opinion, basing one's choice of lenses on pictures of charts, MTFs at full aperture only, or reviews by self-declared experts is always a risk.
Renting and testing before buying, whether from friends or a store, is a much more reliable practice. Or simply buying with the possibility of returning the lens to the seller if dissatisfied.

Beautiful colours in a dark background. Nicely done, dpc.

Bob Howland said:

That depends on how much Canon wants to charge for it. The 21MP Canon 5d2 made the 21MP 1ds3 virtually unsellable. The 24MP Nikon D3X was replaced after 4 years by the D800, with 50% more pixels, a less rugged body and a 60% price reduction. People who want lots of pixels don't seem willing to pay for extreme ruggedness

Click to expand...

These day's Canon have really mapped their customer's shooting requiremens. Professional photographers is a very wide category of shooters. Sports and press photographers have very different requirements to say landscape, wildlife or even wedding photographers. Camera bdoies sales also are not indicative of the buying populace, not eveyone who has a R1 sells their frames for a living.
Sports and wildlife photographers both need cameras with speed, ergononics, top AF and buffer speed / size. Other features like top resolution at lower in their priorites than say a landscape or bird photographer would want.
Cameras like the 5Dii and the 1Ds3 were at the cutting edge of camera developement and the 5Dii was a far later camera, both revolutionary at lauch and state of the art. But a 1Ds3 was looking a little long in the tooth against the 5Dii, except for AF, battery life, ergonomics and buffer. These days, the tech is pretty common to any manufacturers and across the various models in a brand. The AF in a R10 is shockingly more capable that that of the 5Dmk4 for example.
These days we have so many options and choices both lens wise and camera. My R6ii / R5 combo are way more capable than any cameras I've owned previously. That said, I am considering flipping my R5 for a R6iii, because of the superior WB/Colour science in the R6 range. I love the camera but the Af is a little pedestrian and I'm finding the R5's files need more work in PP due to the colour choices of the camera.

I guess the R7i was designed during a shrinking market to replace two product lines, the 7D and the 90D and the result was something that was too pro for enthusiasts (for ex. dual card slots) and not enough pro for pros (no weather sealing). Now that the market has recovered somewhat, it seems the R7ii is going back where it was supposed to be. If the R10ii becomes an enthusiast-only version of R7 (like the 90D), the question is whether the IBIS will be considered a pro feature or not. Sony has had an IBIS-equipped enthusiast camera for 10 years now (from A6500 onward) roughly in the price range where the R7i is now and the R7ii won't be, so hopefully Canon will make one as well.

But I'm not sure if waiting for the R10ii makes sense if the R7i can be bought now for 1000 EUR? Would it be cheaper, or have more features? A newer and faster sensor - probably not. How likely is it to get the LP-E6 battery? Newer software, probably - but better than the R7i? Most of its technology will be recycled from previous models, and not from the high end ones either.

Sporgon said:

Will 28/1.7 do ? If so you have the perfect excuse to get a Leica Q3

Click to expand...

Not really, not on that tier. It's not that much of a difference going from f/2 on the 28-70 to f/1.7 on the Leica.

I'd rather buy a budget 28mm f/2 to f/1.8 for personal use, or a 28mm f/1.4 L for work, than spending more than I did on my main camera and main lens together (R6 + 28-70mm f/2) for a secondary device.

Whatever 28mm I buy, it can't be more expensive than my main gear. Don't get me wrong, I very much like the Leica, I've tried the camera and I'd love to own it, but it's not the tool I need.

For now, I have the RF 28 pancake for personal stuff, the 28-70mm f/2 for work, and I recently added the RF 45mm f/1.2.
I need at least one fast prime between 28 and 50mm, preferably on the wide end, with an aperture wide enough to be worth putting down the 28-70mm f/2, when the light is not enough and flash is not a possibility.

puffo25 said:

I own an EOS R5 and I do mainly landscape and astro (Milky Way and so on....).
I use the RF 15-35 f2,8 with the MSM rotator star tracker but indeed a faster/brighter lens would be a bonus.

In my photography sometimes I also would like to use a wider fish-eye lens, for dramatic images so now my major question is what would be the most obvious choice: the RF 14mm f1.4 or the RF 7-14 f2.8 considering the fact that I have already the RF 15-35 f2,8? In terms of wider images, is the new RF 14mm f/1.4 making the images much wider compared to the RF 15-35 f2,8? The faster lens is of course handy BUT at the end it is a bit more important to me to use a wider lens rather than a brighter lens, since astro is NOT my only photo genre????

Click to expand...

My answer?
Both!

I expect a Single SD slot R7, with updates on softwares.....