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

Tbh the only thing I missed from EFM is the EOS M/M2/M100/M200 size body, 22mm pancake and 32mm f1.4. The later got a equivalent with Yongnuo's 33mm f1.4. So there's not much Canon needs to do but I wish they put more effort in RF-S. Semi-open RF-S lens ecosystem is good but the bodies needs update.

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).

Nicely done, Alan.

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, gps, all that stuff. If it helps, even drop the backside lcd!!

Canon Rumors said:

The original Canon EOS R3 was a “stop-gap” for lack of a better term until Canon could develop what they considered a true 1 series flagship. The EOS R3 certainly resembled Canon's gripped DSLRs like the EOS-1D Mark III, that was and is extremely popular among professionals in various disciplines. The EOS R3 has a […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

I think Canon has it exactly right. Sports shooters need high speed but small enough file size to get to the editors quickly! Pro sports shooters make enough to afford R1 bodies. Pro events shooters need the high MP counts in the R5 to get fine deal in the wedding dresses and the beauty of the location of the event.
The R3 is for the hobbyist shooting his kids sports teams.
You can mix and match but I love my R5 for events and Bird Photography. The events pay the bills and the birds pay the hobby!

TimS said:

Are we missing the obvious here?
Nikon do the same camera, one in a normal body, the other on a gripped body with the Z8 and Z9. So Canon could put the R5 II in a gripped body and call it R3 II...

Click to expand...

Agreed... Canon would know the number of grips for R5ii sold but I believe that a Z8/Z9 style versions of the R5ii would have been a better option.
High mp gripped and ungripped options would have muted the objections to the perceived low res R1.
Integrated grip should have better heat management and of course battery life and less inventory items to manage vs 3 different grips for BG-R20 (base model), the BG-R20EP (with Ethernet port), and the CF-R20EP (fan cooling + ethernet) especially with the incremental price of USD460 for the last grip.

Tirmite said:

Why not a High MP gripped camera? Just because it has a grip doesn't mean it's exclusively for sports photographers.

Click to expand...

no but, the gripped body only helps handheld operation. as soon as a tripod/slider or gimbal is involved, the grip doesnt have much value. I am not sure how much high resolution work is hand held. that said, if r52 had the r3 body and some faster readout that would have been great.

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...

Indeed. Some people conflate MP count and resolution, and some people think a 20-30% increase in MP count makes a big difference.

Tirmite said:

Why not a High MP gripped camera?

Click to expand...

Time will tell, but I doubt we'll see a high MP integrated grip body from Canon in the future. It limits the market, in that an accessory grip can be added and an integrated grip cannot be removed.

FWIW, I am in agreement with your position. When I got my first DSLR (a T1i/500D), I got the battery grip for it, and then for the 7D and 5DII. When the 1D X integrated speed, FF and the gripped form factor, I got that and stuck with it until the R3 then the R1. I far prefer the ergonomics of an integrated grip. But market realities seem to disagree.

neuroanatomist said:

Some data (with rounded numbers):

• 150,000 US professional photographers (BLS)
• 620,000 YouTube channels with 100k subs (Google)
• 6,600,000 ILCs shipped in 2024 (CIPA)

Extrapolate the US number to maybe 1,000,000 global professionals (big grain of salt, but the US represents ~25% of the population of the 'developed' world).

So if every professional photographer and every 'successful' YouTuber (as defined by a silver play button) bought a new ILC in 2024 (which didn't happen, of course), then that's about 25% of the market. So maybe the 'pro/creator' bucket accounts for 10% of the ILC market. Fully acknowledge there are many assumptions in the above, but even with those it's apparent that someone suggesting that professionals account for the majority camera sales is way off base.

The bottom line is that the market comprises a range of buyers, as Canon puts it they, "...offer a lineup that satisfies both demand for still image photography from professional photographers and camera enthusiasts, and for diverse video recording from social media users."

Click to expand...

I'll add 2 points for professional photographers (without data)....
- The cruise line industry is ruthless for minimising cost and maximising profitability for items besides cabin costs and their photography department would be one of those. They are still using DLSRs which surprised me but they have reasonable lighting. This avoids the need for high ISO sensors and no need for high mp sensors when printing to average sizes.
- In "developing" countries (think China/India/Indonesia etc) there are massive markets for weddings with middle class roughly defined as USD500-5000/month salary. India = ~10m weddings/year with Indonesia 1.5m and China = ~8m. The wedding segment can be a relatively big spend and "professional photographers" need to look professional. Having a "professional" ILC - even a DLSR - is a big differentiator compared to everyone having a phone with camera on it.

I am suggesting that volume professional photographers exist at the low cost end of photography.
With baby boomers retiring and living longer plus expanding middle class in all geographies allow them to have greater disposal income. All OEMs are chasing this more profitable growing segment.

EOS 4 Life said:

I am not sure how Canon or Sony would even know what the other was going to come out with.
Each camera was a reasonable upgrade.
The only advantage that Sony had is that they knew the Canon price ahead of setting theirs.

Click to expand...

Industrial Espionage is rife, it’s amazing what information financial bribes can yield.

gdanmitchell said:

"The only segmentation that made even a little sense to me was making it a high-resolution camera body. I mean well beyond the 45mp we see in the EOS R5 Mark II."

Canon's continuing inability or unwillingness to produce a high-resolution successor to my 5DsR is the reason that I'm almost certain to move to a different platform during the next year — most likely Sony.

(I don't care if it is "gripped," in fact I prefer that it not be for my purposes — in the same way that the 5DsR was largely the same body as the other 5D series bodies.)

Click to expand...

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

Brown said:

If it was then they would have used a non-numerical name, like the R, Ra or the RP.

Click to expand...

They have done it that way too. But I think the name harked back to the EOS-3, at least in part.

Great Cormorant and Egyptian Geese in flight today (R5ii RF200-800mm).

Tirmite said:

But what IS great about a "gripped" camera like the R3 is this: one big battery that lasts a long time and is quick and easy to change.

Click to expand...

I wish the Li-Ion packs were longer and occupied the entirety of the vertical grip, like the Ni-MH predecessors.
Then, one battery would be enough for any job, even after the cells began to degrade.

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.

Click to expand...

It could serve dual purposes, if the resolution was high enough and the sensor had dual outputs.
The full sensor could record at modest speeds and a 30MP+ APS-C crop mode could run faster that the R7.
EVFs have eliminated the losses of crops due to their scalable nature.

TimS said:

Are we missing the obvious here?
Nikon do the same camera, one in a normal body, the other on a gripped body with the Z8 and Z9. So Canon could put the R5 II in a gripped body and call it R3 II...

Click to expand...

Just put the R5's sensor in the R3's body.

Why not a High MP gripped camera? Just because it has a grip doesn't mean it's exclusively for sports photographers.
And it's not like they have to design a completely new body. Stick a 45MP or hight sensor in the R3 body. Done!
Some of us don't like "small" camera bodies. I have always purchased the accessory grips because it makes the camera much more user friendly. The second battery is a benefit, but not the sole reason I've always preferred a grip.
There are fashion, portrait, architectural, technical, wedding, (I could keep going) photographers who shoot vertically and like having the grip and controls to duplicate the normal (horizontal) grip's buttons. I have a 100PM medium format (GFX) but I rarely need that much resolution. I have NEVER had a client in 40 years EVER ask for a huge file. Just doesn't happen. We shooters decide that and it's just not necessary 90% of the time. But what IS great about a "gripped" camera like the R3 is this: one big battery that lasts a long time and is quick and easy to change. You don't have to open a door on the bottom of the camera while you turn your rig upside down. You slide it in or out from the side. And you don't have to fumble with changing TWO batteries if you're dealing with a grip battery tray like on the R5. You can standardize on ONE battery and ONE charger instead of carrying one type for you R3 and another for your R5, R7, etc. Less gear to travel with. Les weight. The form factor is relatively small. My R3's are noticeably more compact than my 1Dx's were. It's a great szie. Not too small, not too big. It makes the camera more solid as well as good looking. I hate that "add-on" look. Kind of like converting your garage into another room. Sure it works, but it will always look modified and not as aesthetically pleasing as something integrally designed from the start. If you disagree with having nice looking gear then I question why you're a photographer: we are ALL ABOUT visuals. Looks matter as well a form and function and strength. Adding an external grip to an R5 or other model not only looks kind of stupid and cheap, it's one more area for dirt and dust to enter the camera and it's not going to be as rigid as a one-piece unibody. It's not about Gripped or No-Gripp bodies. It's about engineering a professional piece of equipment that performs at a professional level and does so in a right-sized package. There was the 1D and 1Ds as noted in the article. Just offer an R3S that has a sensor at least twice as large as the 24MP one. Charge another $500 and the only thing they need to do is change the badge on the outside. I wouldn't need or expect a 50+MP body to shoot as fast as the R1. It doesn't have to be a speed demon. Just get me a body built like a tank that doesn't weigh as much as a tank and gives me the option for large files that have more detail or allow more cropping but doesn't require me to also pack my medium format kit on a job or vacation. I just need one more slot in my camera case for that one extra body. It'll use the same lenses, battery, charger, eyecup and my muscle memory will love that it's exactly like my other R3's on the outside except for that "S" on the front.

Richard CR said:

Amusingly, I used the 18-150mm for those same use cases as you mention. have you tried it? I would use it with DLO though, as it needs to clean up it's mess in the corners and whatnot.

Click to expand...

No, I have not tried it. The 18mm in the wide end just sounds a bit boring to me...

osakawayne said:

The Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f2.8 is pretty much a perfect travel, all around compact and sharp lens. It's my main lens for my aps-c setup. Not sure Canon even needs to make anything to match it unless they add IS.

Click to expand...

And pairing it with 50mm in the long end doesn't make it any more interesting - at least not as a replacement for the 15-85mm.
As I said, I already have the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 and Sigma RF-S 17-40/1.8 to cover fast zooms - and btw also Sigma 10-18/2.8, 12/1.4 and 56/1.4. But for me, neither of those offers the everyday versatility of the 15-85mm zoom.

On paper, the closest thing I have seen looking like an alternative, must be the Sigma RF-S 16-300mm. I have always considered the 15-85mm to be of very high optical quality. But there's no denying that it is a 16 years old optical design. A superzoom always have some optical compromises, but considering the age difference, maybe the practical difference isn't so big afterall? I hear the biggest comprimise is in the long half of the 16-300mm range, and that is what matters least to me as a replacement for the 15-85mm. Anybody got any experience with the 16-300mm? It is probably difficult to find reviews of those two lenses head to head? (But I guess, after having found a very nice new (old) 15-85mm, changes are very little to switch unless Canon/Sigma comes up with a direct replacement for my favorite lens)

The R50V doesn't have active cooling (the Powershot V1 introduced at the same time does) and it's actually thinner than the M6 II.
It's a pretty good alternative, especially if you do video. If only thr screen were more visible in bright light.
Im still a big M fan, mostly using the M6 II and 22 as a compact.
I miss the 22 for sure, but I've never used the 32 much because the 50mm full frame equivalent just doesn't do much for me.
I bought into M during the original Fire Sale, and have owned most of the bodies since. I still have various original Ms, one full spectrum, and 3 others with various IR conversions. I've all the Canon EF-.lenses, and various others. I don't see myself abandoning it completely for some years, if at all
But these days, my favourite travel kit is R8, R50V, 10-20 f4L, 18-150, 24-240 and either 28mm f2.8 pancake or 24mm f1.8 - double the value on two formats.
If just using the R50V, the tiny RF-S 10-18 is great. I actually prefer it to the 11-22.
In all honesty, with my usage, the RF/RF-S lens range actually works perfectly fine for me.