CJaurelius said:

I'm making an assumption that people who pay more for a camera are more likely to not be a hobbyist. You don't have to agree, its just my assumption.

Click to expand...

This does not make much sense to me: in my experience, hobbyists are the ones that tend to have the best equipment, even more than pros: pros need to justify the "investment" and therefore look closely to costs v benefits of every piece of gear, and often rent rather than own, or are loaned gear by manufacturers (often the case in fashion photography)... hobbyists do not have to do that.

Tom R5R7 said:

Yeah, software to replace optics. Which is fine to a point, but if you want pinpoint stars out to the corners, you're not likely going to get it when the software is used to turn the semi-fisheye lens into a rectilinear image.

Click to expand...

Optical correction isn’t perfect, either. I’m not sure why some people think that correcting an image with glass is the gold standard, there is no perfect lens and compromises are made on the optical side, too. I can’t say this is true in all cases, but when I compared the RF 14-35/4L to the EF 11-24/4L at 14mm (where the RF lens has enough barrel distortion that it requires correction to fill the black corners and the EF lens has essentially no geometric distortion), I found that there was no meaningful difference in corner sharpness. Then again, I did not test with astrophotography, a use case where Canon lenses generally perform poorly (though the RF 15-35/2.8 and RF 20/1.4 are exceptions to that, both have minimal coma and astigmatism even in the extreme corners).

neuroanatomist said:

Mercedes has higher prices across the board for comparable models than Lexus (which are made by Toyota Motor Corporation), and Mercedes does not offer low end models like Toyota. By the (dubious) logic of your assumptions, professional drivers must be driving most of the Mercedes cars on the road.

Click to expand...

But you would agree that under the scenario you outlined the typical Mercedes buyer is paying more for their vehichle correct? I'm making an assumption that people who pay more for a camera are more likely to not be a hobbyist. You don't have to agree, its just my assumption.

neuroanatomist said:

Anecdotes ≠ data. Assumptions ≠ data. However, anecdotes and assumptions are often used by people trying to convince others that their opinions are facts.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince anyone that my opinions are facts. As a former analyst I take the data I do have available and use that to make assumptions for future strategies. If Sony statred making a bunch of entry level cameras a year from now I wiould be like "Oh wow, I got that wrong".

neuroanatomist said:

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:
View attachment 227083

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I struggle to see the demand for a higher than R5II resolution body with a grip, especially given what Fuji did with the GFX 100 - GFX 100 II. I could see them putting the 45mp sensor from the R5ii into a gripped body to appease those who wanted a higher-resolution R1, but going higher than that R5 mark ii and you're starting to mix the use cases I feel.

If I think of which use cases would be open to compromises (maybe low light performance, burst speed) to get more resolution than an R5 ii, my guess would be landscape photographers, architecture photographers, and maybe fashion photographers? I'm not sure wildlife, or sports would be willing to sacrifice some low light or maybe burst speed for the extra resolution. Landscape and architectural photographers are more likely to work on a tripod, and at least from a landscape perspective (speaking selfishly here) a smaller body is often advantageous to reduce carry weight and size. A grip seems counter intuitive in those instances to me.

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.

I especially like the second one. Nicely done.

Nemorino said:

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

Click to expand...

That's why it has long legs, so it can scratch its chin. Nice series, Nemorino.

foda said:

The male Crowned Woodnymph often appears to be all dark, but when the light hits it just right the brilliant emerald and violet plumage is stunning. I photographed this individual while birding at La Florida, Bosque de Las Aves, at km 18, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 227077

Click to expand...

Beautiful shot of this colourful bird. Well done!

I’ve been loving my R1. When I had the R5, I had to make too many work arounds to be satisfied with using it. In the end, I sold it. That being said, I have been able to customize the R1 for my needs and to my liking. The only issue that Canon needs to address ASAP in the firmware is to “allow magnify view while recording both internal and externally viewed”. Although I do use a 5” monitor, 8” monitor, and 24” monitor, I am a rare case. When manual focusing, peaking only helps so much especially on the tiny flip out screen. The magnify view is essential to nail manual focus when racking.

a rumor stays a rumor lol

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...

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.

David_B said:

The EF-M 11-22 was also collapsable and doesn't have a straight replacement - all wide angle RF lenses have compromised optical designs, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Yeah, software to replace optics. Which is fine to a point, but if you want pinpoint stars out to the corners, you're not likely going to get it when the software is used to turn the semi-fisheye lens into a rectilinear image.

There are a couple of EF-S lenses also that are missing. No F/2.8 zoom. No f/4 zoom, just a couple of slow "kit" lenses.

Canon wants you to go full frame.

I shoot freelance sports with both the R3 and R5 Mkii. However I use them for specific sports. The R3 can handle basically everything thats thrown at it, particularly at higher ISO's whereas the R5mkii I tend to use for motorsport that occurs at relatively lower ISO's and it gives me the option of much larger file sizes. However once the ISO goes above 12,800 it sits in the bag. The other big advantage of the R3 is the larger battery. I absolutely detest the smaller battery in the R5mkii even with the battery grip.
An R3 MKii would be interesting, but only if Canon could increase the MP and maintain clean files at high ISO. Will it happen, I suspect not, but I live in hope.

neuroanatomist said:

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:
View attachment 227083

Click to expand...

While I agree that an additional gripped body doesn't necessarily make sense in Canon's lineup, an R3 II could be used to introduce/test new features (like eye-controlled AF) that need to be refined before introduction into the 1-series.

R3 could be a special camera in the lineup, the mentioned high resolution and high megapixel or maybe an experiment like the Sony A9 with global shutter.

sanj said:

Yes, it should have all modern features

Click to expand...

Totally agree.

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:

Yes, it should have all modern features. I would replace my R8 with this in a heartbeat.

masterpix said:

long time ago, when the RF system just came out, I was critisized fro saying that the M series will be eventually abandoned for a crop RF camera and mostly lenses. But time shows that it is the logic in keeping one line of lenses is the crrect path for any camera brand. For lenses aer used for much longer period of time than camaras. For example I use the same EF lenses that I bought for my 7D even that I changes to RF camera.

Click to expand...

Big bulky EF lenses never felt right on my R5 (correction: M5). I bought them to work on a 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D. They feel right at home on an R7 and R6-2. Canon could have kept the M series and also introduced the RF series. But they didn't. Why? The EF SL1, SL2 and SL3 were also tiny, slightly larger than the M5, and they were popular. Maybe Canon decided that having a large lens mount on a small body was acceptable.

SnowMiku said:

I have heard a few reports on here that the R7 has Shutter Shock, is that only if you use it with Mechanical Shutter? Or does it also have shutter shock using EFCS?

It's strange how my 90D has the EFCS option in live view, and the M6 doesn't even though it's got the same sensor.

Click to expand...

any pure mechanical shutter will have shutter shock, but EFCS is usually used to eliminate it.

the nerf of EFCS on the M6 mark II was odd.

foda said:

Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying the photos. The Hummingbirds are probably my favorite avian family (and among the most difficult to photograph well).

Click to expand...

Well, you certainly do it very well!

Richard CR said:

Okay, it's been over 3 years since the RF-S lineup was released by Canon, and they have yet to really capitalize on what those cameras were. I know some people dismiss the EOS-M system and what it was for Canon and wanted it to die (Ahem, Craig), but for me, anyway, it was the perfect […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

The EF-M 11-22 was also collapsable and doesn't have a straight replacement - all wide angle RF lenses have compromised optical designs, IMHO.

black-tailed godwit
R5 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1039mm, 1/4000, f/14,iso 5000