I guess I would be one of the few who would trade my R5II with grip for a R3II with high MP. My R5II is backup to my R1…. with two different body configurations and different batteries. For those who do not like grips on their high MP cameras, they have the R5…. so why are there three variants of grips for the R5? It’s obvious to me that there seems to be a market for a high MP body with built-in grip (and a longer lasting battery life). I’m currently considering purchasing a Hasselblad X2D II for the high MP (more than 45 MP), but would rather purchase a R3II with high MP instead (more than 45 MP)….. but would settle for 35 MP. That’s my two cents.

I’m am always looking for a high MP Canon. 45MP is perhaps enough but I’d be stupid enough to buy a higher MP model. Maybe it’s a hangover from 10 to 12 MP days . There was never enough. I think some commentators said they expected a higher MP R5 version. I’d be fine with that. Would it not be easier in an R3 body, more space for chips, more heat dissipation, more rugged body. If they did do a high MP R3 I’d buy it. I might be alone but it would be perfect for me. I love detail.

David_B said:

Do you meant to say that the RF 45mm doesn't need software to correct its image? Otherwise I'm perplexed about what's special about lenses from the 1990s-2000s.

Click to expand...

I was not praising the 45mm

scyrene said:

The R5 (and mark II) reportedly has roughly the same resolving power as the 5DsR, even if it has a slightly lower MP count.

Click to expand...

Hmm sort of, and not quite. The R5ii and all of the stacked sensors from Canon seem to be resolving detail from the sensor at a lower level than their previous non stacked version yeilded, for the same megapixel count.
If we compare sensor resolution tests from https://www.optyczne.pl/testy_aparatów.html, we can see the R1 and R3 resolve less detail than R6mkII.
The R6II and R5 resolved detail far higher than their DSLR counterparts. With the R5, it;s sensor out resolves both the 5DS, and the 5DSR. The R5's 45mp sensor gives a score of 82 against the 5DSR's score of 79, the 5Ds with a score of 67. So the R5 does resolve slightly more detail for it's lower pixel count than the mighty R5sr.
The R6ii yields a suprisingly high score of 64, which means the R6ii's 24mp sensor is resolving nearly the same level of detal (but not quite) than the 5Ds's 50mp....that's a stunning result and shows that there is more to resolving power than it's pure pixel count.
45mp in the R line up seems to trump 50mp from the older EF lineup and is the current highest detail resolver of any full frame Canon camera. The R7 is the highest Canon resolver of MFT50 charts at a stunningly high 92 value.
We have yet to see the sensor test results for the new R6iii, with it's 33.5mp non stacked sensor. It should theoretically close the gap between the R5 original and the R6ii. I'm predicting a score of around 72 (matching the Sony A7 IV's 33mp score). This easily out resolves the 5Ds but not quite the 5Dsr.
However, things seem to go a bit awry with Canon's stacked sensors. The R5ii's sensor yeilds a suprisingly low value of 76. Which is suprisingly lower than the R5's value of 82.
It means that the projected R6iii's value is very close to the current R5ii. It is quite likely that the real world detail resolution for the R6iii matches the R5ii. 33mp non stacked sensor matching the detail of the 45mp stacked sensor. Meaning that the only virtue of the R5ii is it's stacked sensor.
The R1 has a value of 59 and the R3 a very low 53, both lower than the R6ii's value of 64. The R3 by a significant amount.
So disgregard anyone saying that the R1 and R3's files are better than the R6ii...clearly (pun intented) they are not.

Summary of findings:
The highest resolving camera by Canon: R7 by some margin.
The highest resolving full frame camera by Canon: R5
A suprising result from the low pixel count R6ii (this has validated something I've been saying for a while)
A dissapointing result from the R5ii, R3 and R1 cameras, which all carry a stacked sensor.

I suspect that Canon can mitigate this lower stacked sensor detail resolution but designing a new breed of AA filters that are fine tuned for the stacked sensor depth and not re-using the same spec / design of AA filter employed on their non stacked sensor cameras. It's this AA sensor that allows the 45mp R5 to eclipse the higher 50mp 5Ds in it's MFT50 score.

However, in the past we all managed to produce customer happy professional images on cameras giving MFT50 results in the 45 scores....so take these results with a pinch of salt, becuase a good photo is always a good photo regardless of how much detail it's resovled.

It also means that have have clear detail MFT chart guidance to lens MFT chart paring. A RF 200-800mm lens will be soft at the long end on a R7, slightly soft on a R5, but banging sharp on a R5ii. The R5ii's Sensor will be less resolved than the lens.
This is food for thought if Canon ever makes a 60+ mp Sensor, depending on the AA filter...we might have a camera that out resolves all of the current RF lenses except for the big whites, the RF 135L and the two Z lenses. If that hyperthetical camera ever came out, then we would need to stop down all of our lenses by at least a stop to optically out resolve the sensor...or really spank up our post production sharpening routines to compensate.

I permanently check on Laowa's EF 200mm f/2 lens pricing, as their lenses are occasionally on massive sale, however, perhaps that particular lens is yet too new for that. The original RF Canon variant would likely be over $6K.

riker said:

Accepting FD lenses?

I'd love that 32MP sensor in an AE-1 body BUT they need to do more than "hey this is so hipster!"
First of all it needs to be CHEAP! 2k in NOT cheap. Make it 1-1.2K and make it light, optimized for street and travel. No flipping lcd, no bullshit, just a great camera. Good sensor, good evf, good AF, good price. Fck video and bluetooth, ***, all that stuff. If it helps, even drop the backside lcd!!

Click to expand...

It will have a flipping LCD. 100 per cent. And I doubt if it will be 'cheap'. It is meant for people who want to make a statement. They will pay.

300mm f2, which fits well with current CanSony arms race.

mimbu said:

Canon had an EF 300/2 many years ago, but it wasn't sold to the general public. There are a few photos around online. Interesting lens. Nikon had a manual focus 300/2 which was also cool, but extremely heavy due to the all metal construction they were using at the time. Around 7.5kg, I think!! Considering we now have 600/4 lenses at 3kg, a 300/2 (same front element size) at around 2.8kg should be possible, and would be very usable.

But price... Price is the big question. Probably above the $15k of a 600/4L as it would be a very niche product. $18k or so would not be surprising to me.

Click to expand...

It was even better tan 300mm f2, it was f1.8. The lens was used for photo finishes in horse races

See: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

Exploreshootshare said:

I believe Canon could come up with a 300mm F2 lens, it would distinguish them from competitors and wouldn't cannibalise the 100-300mm lens. Personally, I´d wish for both lenses to become reality although I am not in the market for them. I´d rent them just for a fun weekend

Click to expand...

Canon had an EF 300/2 300/1.8 many years ago, but it wasn't sold to the general public. There are a few photos around online. Interesting lens. Nikon had a manual focus 300/2 which was also cool, but extremely heavy due to the all metal construction they were using at the time. Around 7.5kg, I think!! Considering we now have 600/4 lenses at 3kg, a 300/2 (same front element size) at around 2.8kg should be possible, and would be very usable.

But price... Price is the big question. Probably above the $15k of a 600/4L as it would be a very niche product. $18k or so would not be surprising to me.

Edit: The old EF lens was a 300/1.8, not a 300/2.

I believe Canon could come up with a 300mm F2 lens, it would distinguish them from competitors and wouldn't cannibalise the 100-300mm lens. Personally, I´d wish for both lenses to become reality although I am not in the market for them. I´d rent them just for a fun weekend

This afternoon I tried to find again the Orange-cheeked Waxbill. Looking at a group of ~60-70 birds didn't see it. Instead I found a partially leucistic Common Waxbill (first time I see such a Common Waxbill). Took bunch of photos and seat to see what I have done. Suddenly on several photos I saw blurred orange cheek! Went back and this time I spotted it! Same place as the previously posted photos, just 50-60 meters apart.

It's not 300mm F2.8, it's a 300mm F2!

Nemorino said:

black-tailed godwit
R5 + RF 200-800 + 1.4 TC
@ 1039mm
View attachment 227078View attachment 227079View attachment 227080

Click to expand...

This should be old photo, they don't winter in Germany and the bird is in breeding plumage (they breed in Germany). I got some photos in Bulgaria during the migration (early August I think...) and non of them was in breeding plumage (the map on Wikipedia is wrong, they don't breed in Bulgaria).

AlanF said:

While @foda and @ISv are getting their spectacular close-ups of rare colourful birds, what do I get. Well, a rare scarce winter visitor Red-necked Grebe in non-breeding plumage was reported a short drive away. At 80-100m from the shore, it needed to be pointed out to me and I got one shot in focus of the dull bird in grey light of less than 400 px width at 800mm with the R5ii. Oh well, some shots are just for the record and for the twitchers they just need only to give it a tick.

View attachment 227069

Click to expand...

When in Bulgaria (2023) I tried to find it on a spot that it should breed (it's relatively rare species there but breeds on many localized spots). Didn't see it and I have never seen it! In England it should be by far more rare bird - I mean you are lucky to see it at all!

I think it would be great to see the R3 II be where the R6 II appeared to be headed right up until the III dropped.

In fact, I saw the R6 / R3 as a low/high market pair, and the R5 / R1 as a low/high market value pair. And before people jump on me with the R5 sensor is nothing like an R1, consider that it's probably not bonkers for people spending R5 cash to spend R1 cash, just as those spending R6+grip cash might be be tempted to spend on R3 cash.

Going back to my opening statement, The R6 III is headed in a different direction than the R6 II in my mind. It's a perfectly valid offer, but seems to be more toward video makers and just happens to take nice stills as a bonus. The R6 II felt more like a stills camera that just happened to take nice video as a bonus. Canon has kept both alive, so I think they are also holding their breath a bit to see how the bites happen. (And ditching stock, of course.)

It doesn't make sense to have two R6es, however. So perhaps the spirit of the R6 I and II with grip (and they are nice with the latest grip) makes more sense in a slightly reimagined R3 line. Canon could dumb down the body a smidge for better separation from the R1 -- say, less EVF capability, slower sensor, less DR, less paranoia about the body build (but you know, still nice), consumer-grade SLA / warranty, etc. Given that the R6 III doesn't fit into my use case very well, I'd seriously consider an R3 that carries on with the ultra low-light and clean images, etc. emphasis pre-R6III.

Tom R5R7 said:

I can think of one other approach to the R3 II, but I'm almost certain that Canon would not do it - a pro-level crop body. A stacked or semi-stacked low-noise 32 mpx APS-C sensor on a fast body with a huge battery, built for birding, wildlife, and such for those with a bit of a budget constraint. Who can afford a 600 f/4 and a couple of teleconverters? How about a 400 f/4 instead with a couple of teleconverters. Or the fabled 200-600 f/5.6....

There would be a market for such a camera, although it may be somewhat small. A crop R3 with a couple or 3 fast zooms like a 15-55 f/2.8 or 15-85 f/4 L quality available.

Click to expand...

I agree, this would be a head-turner in the industry and would make a lot of wildlife people happy if the images are rather clean. Even if the body production run were limited and round-one was more about marketing.

I'm waiting for the 50-150mm f/2 for RF. Also I don't think they'll do a 300 f/2.8 just because they already have the 100-300 f/2.8, unless i suppose they want to do what sony did and have a very light 300 prime.

johnchio said:

How about Canon's first entry into global shutter cameras? It might just be like the current R3 but with global shutter and other features they want to test. Maybe the R3ii to the R1 will be like the A9iii to the A1ii.

Click to expand...

I believe that Canon has the technology now to release a global shutter sensor if they wanted to.
They have multiple patents and the C700 GS was released back in 2017 which admittedly wasn't for stills and was stupendously expensive.
So the cost/effectiveness/forecasted sales triangle isn't there for them yet.
The A9iii was portrayed as having significant dynamic range issues due to front real estate being used for storage vs pixel well depth so maybe Canon is waiting for when they are capable of moving the storage to the backside.
I am sure the Sony has sold a bunch of A9iii anyway. A niche product for a niche number of buyers.
The rest of the well heeled Sony buyers went straight to the A1/A1ii.

Strangely enough, the A1ii and R1 are basically the same price in the US but the A1ii is 15% more expensive than the R1 in Australia at the moment. The R1 pricing is USD5000 (ex tax but including local Canon 5 year warranty).... worth the USD2k trip to Australia to buy it for some??

How about Canon's first entry into global shutter cameras? It might just be like the current R3 but with global shutter and other features they want to test. Maybe the R3ii to the R1 will be like the A9iii to the A1ii.

Yuge EOS-M fan here, Yuge! My M6ll is my most used camera, despite OM-1 for birds and bugs, R8 for full frame / night shooting. I keep thinking the R8 plus 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 could substitute for the m6 ll plus the 32/1.4, but it doesn’t, even though the R8 plus the 50 is lighter, and probably just as good at 2.5 or 2.2 vs the M6 ll at 1.4, and even though on the M6ll I am switching between electronic shutter and mechanical frequently, depending on the shutter shock likelihood, and even though I now only charge through USB so I don’t have to reset the date and time, because the inner battery died. I like using, and like the shots I take with the M6 more. Could be real if subjective, or imaginary and arbitrary based on how the camera looks and feels. I had an M2, the M6ll, and now I have a backup M200 for when the 6ll really dies. The M’s replaced the powershots, s90, s95 and s100. So the M6ll is a lot heavier and larger than those, and I’d want an RM to be not much above a 400g body and carry over all the M lenses. Until then I will use this camera until it breaks down, and then the M200 after, so maybe another 10 years. My use of lenses has changed a lot though. In the past I’d take just the 22mm for a weekend trip, or maybe the 22 and a long zoom. Now I will bring the 18-150, and /or just decide today is a 32 1.4 day or a 56 1.4 day, and I use the phone for 24 or 15 equivalents. I don’t use the 22 or 11-22 much at all any more. I still like what I take with the m6 more than most phone shots, but it’s as much because those shots are more intentional.

I don't see RF-S primes happening, Canon has treated APS-C with decreasing importance now that FF mirrorless cameras and lenses can be made small and cheap, and left it to Sigma to fill in the gaps.

The 16mm/28mm/50mm are quite nice on APS-C too.

I think the R3 line is a perfect body for those that want the grip body, advanced features, but not having to break the bank to get it. Many photographs can easily afford a R63 w/grip for about $3200 USD and R52 w/grip for about $4800. Jumping to an R1($6800) isn’t an option. But an R3M2 at $5000-$5500 might be more manageable. Used R3 are even a better deal! And many may not need 45MP, but with a bump to 32.5MP would be enough. If Canon admits that the R3 was never a "true flagship," then why discontinue it? I think the R3 compliments the R1…greatly! I’m sure many R1 photographers have an R3 as a back up because they don’t need 45MP, or even 32.5MP. The R3’s ability to capture extremely sharp images, hardly any rolling shutter that I’ve seen(unlike in the R6M2), great high ISO performance, and the ability to register 2 AF zones per orientation, which the R6M2 doesn’t do & I presume the R5 line doesn’t either, makes the R3 line a keeper in my book. I use two R3 because the R6 and R62 just didn’t do want I wanted in the field.

scyrene said:

I feel like naming conventions are quite a good insight into Canon's reasoning. If they change the concept radically then it would surely have a different name. I think they chose 3 in the first place knowing it was likely a one off, as the earlier 3 was. Most of the rest is wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

I think you're right--there was only one -3 camera in the lineup before, and it was the EOS-3 back in 1998-99. And like the R3, it debuted tech that was new to Canon at the time (45-point focusing sensor, stacked imaging sensor) and had improved eye control focus. If there is an R3 Mark II, it will have some new to Canon tech in it that they want to do a production run on, but not in an established camera series.

Dragon said:

There are a few possibilities that could result in a gripped high-res body. For a high-res FF body to be interesting to birders, it would need to put at least as many pixels on the bird as an R7 and preferably more. Canon has had a very strong focus on video lately and were the first with 8k with the R5. The next significant step in video resolution is 12k, which calls for a 101 MP sensor (at 3:2). That sensor would also have to be decently fast (in terms of FF readout) to be acceptable for video. Such a camera run in crop mode could make birders very happy. Now to the nitty gritty. Such a sensor (and its supporting circuitry) would almost certainly be a power hog and battery life with an LP-E6 battery would likely be dismal. That alone could dictate a gripped body. Time will tell, but I can see Canon wanting to be first with 12k (even if such high resolution is essentially useless for anything but post cropping).

Click to expand...

The reviewers would certainly punish any Canon attempt for 12k unless it can continuously record for 2 hours without overheating