The ability to jam timecode into the camera would be tremendous. Other brands can do it. 3.5mm mic jack like the BM cameras, flash sync port like the Lumix and USB-C like the Sony.

Adding features by firmware is a non-recurring expense. Once the developers have created the necessary libraries and assuming the the camera has the underlying hardware to support the new functions, there is no additional expense per camera to add it. However, creating a price hierarchy of camera models can be more difficult.

From the post:

"Since the EOS R6 Mark III can have precapture binded to a button, obviously the EOS R5 Mark II and EOS R1 can also have the same simple thing added via firmware. I'd be happy if they released a firmware update today just for that alone. Maybe it's a niche thing, but it's annoying for some of us."

...precapture is indispensable for certain tasks, a fact that first became evident (for me) when using an iPhone to gather images.

Simple birthday snapshots are so, so much better with precapture/LIVE view enabled...remarkably so.

Certain bird shots...and almost all sports shots...under certain circumstances precapture makes me look like a much better photographer than I am.

It is almost like 'cheating'.

...anything that improves the usability and convenience of Canon's precapture feature?

Uneternal said:

After only 7 years Sony has officially lost any advantage they had over Canon. 30 fps, sure, but with all kinds of exceptions in the small print. Probably falls to 5fps again with certain settings (mech shutter + lossless compressed raw?)

Click to expand...

Its actually the other way around. With mechanical shutter the A7V is 10 fps and the R6miii is 12 fps which is pretty similar. However when you go above the 12 fps on the R6miii you drop to 12 bit RAW. On the A7V you can shoot the full 30 fps in 14 bit RAW.

Uneternal said:

And on top it eats into their $6000 flagship segment, not just A1 but also FX3. I mean good for Sony customers but Sony basically shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you figure this as the the gap between the A7V and the A1II is wider than the gap between the R6miii and the R1. Not to mention the R5miii on sale at $3900 pretty much makes anything above that price obsolete. And to be clear I think the R5mii is hands down the best camera pound for pound and at that price better than anything Sony has.

neuroanatomist said:

If shooting astro, I’d go with the faster aperture. For everything else, the RF 10-20/4L is an excellent lens (though is certainly works for astro, too) and a lot of fun to use. Easy to pack, too (I had the EF 11-24/4L previously, that thing is a beast).

Click to expand...

The Rf 10-20mm f4 L is a sweet lens. I also have the EF 11-24mm f4 L and it's great that I can use it with rear mounted drop in filters in my EF to R adapter. However, it is it's only advantage. It's a nice benefit, but I'm finding that I'm often leaving it at home due to it's sheer size, bulk and weight. That RF 10-20mm f4 L is sure looking tempting!
I think 2026 is a year for me to invest in some cherry picked RF glass (finally).

Del Paso said:

Looks like your wife and mine are twins...

Click to expand...

I need an ass whooping now and then. I didn't want my wife to be the one doing the whooping.

Etnaphele said:

Wait wait:

• the one with exceptions is Canon with 12 bit readout without having a choice for 14 bit (à la Panasonic)

Give credit where it’s due, the sensor is slightly better than the R6III’s one (same readout but at higher bit rate), it has blackout free shooting and some design choices like the screen and multi-card compatibility would be welcome on a Canon camera.

Click to expand...

this + shutter angle would be the perfect camera in Canons segment! ((

There were rumors about a new screen design... WHERE is it?! :'(.
And also the 12bit again with e-shutter -> not acceptable!

I wish Canon would also made a f2.0-Zoom line up! 50-150 2.0 or something similar would be a beast!

I'm excited for any new features! Camera companies should be celebrated for delivering meaningful firmware updates. I think the features outlined in this article are great, and I would also hope to see some of the ideas we brainstormed in this thread: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...ates-for-the-eos-r5-mark-ii-and-eos-r1.44735/

JohanCruyff said:

Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.


RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

Click to expand...

The mainstream zooms and prime are all there, with choices in multiple price brackets. The problem arises when someone has specific needs for a more niche application: astro, unamorphic, macro and weird "do-it-all" (Tamron 35-150 𝑓/2-2.8) zooms for example. Canon won't be interested in manufacturing these, from a business perspective, for a long time or ever. Let's ignore adapting older EF mount lenses, as many new mirrorless lenses have many improvements over the older reflex versions.

I really hope they could provide compatibility for at least some selected lenses, similar to what Nikon does with Tamron offerings. It's clear that they want to protect their lens selling business (and I can really understand it), but I don't see how letting the Sirui autofocussing anamorphic lenses would be detrimental for Canon - quite clearly the opposite in my opinion, with R6III and C50 having open gate now. The same for the Sigma 14 𝑓/1.4: such a huge lens and specialized is by itself bound to sell low volumes, but at the same time bring a photographer to choose a system that supports it.

Interchangeable lens cameras are awesome because you can jump from super-standard to extremely niche, it's sad that Canon cuts off the niche part of the whole.

Now this may simply be wishful thinking from my side, but I am expecting the R7 Mark II to receive dual-band Wi-Fi 6 connectivity.

My justification for this is that, assuming the R7 Mark II is equipped with a stacked or partially stacked new sensor that is able to shoot 40 pictures per second (fully electronically, as was rumored) at an unimpeded bit depth of 14 bits and with 33MP, it would be very similar to the 30 pictures per second at 14 bit depth and at 45MP of the R5 Mark II. If the similarity is not immediately apparent: Multiplying those numbers gives intriguingly similar data rates between these two cameras for RAW images. From a pure amount-of-data perspective, equipping it with dual-band Wi-Fi 6 would therefore make sense.

And as the article states:

The faster wireless file transfer is a needed feature to move data in real-time quickly at a sporting event or in journalism.

Click to expand...

Since the new R7 Mark II is expected to move up-market a little with its larger body size and much faster sensor, Canon may expect it to be used by more sports event shooters and journalists in the future for its longer reach, which would fit into this concept perfectly.

domo_p1000 said:

The moment always comes when pro‑level features trickle into consumer gear. Is dual‑band Wi‑Fi 6 about to make that leap, or is it still too early?

Click to expand...

I agree that dual-band Wi-Fi 6 also won't necessarily remain a "flagship"-exclusive feature, and Canon might decide to use it also in future mid-range bodies where high data rates require it. The R7 Mark II might simply be the first "non-flagship" camera body where this is implemented.

Firstly - would love some clarity. The WiFI functionality of the R5 II and R1 is tri-band WiFi 6E, so 2.4GHz, 5GHz and 6GHz. If it is, then it's likely a significant overhaul of an existing product, so could be an R7 II given the speculation of the market positioning for a budget professional sports camera use-case. The R7 II at a high frame rate would make a very useful camera for additional remotes, as a fleet of R1 bodies would be costly, but would definitely be a viable use case and would demand good network connectivity, eg, 6GHz to overcome loaded 2.4 and 5GHz bands in stadiums or performance venues. If so, it's likely this was identified during advisory/meetings/early product development stages and would have likely been decided independent of the R6 III as the typical users of that body likely don't have a high performance file transfer use case. The R7 II's closest competition in my mind would actually be the OM-SYSTEM bodies, and would be a really good place to drop in a global shutter which could see serious interest in the camera.

What would an R3 II have that the R1 doesn't? Other than a global shutter, it seems like an odd product. Any other features, and Canon would be looking a bit silly with the R1. Perhaps there is a high resolution alternative to the R1, or a higher quality sensor with a slower readout speed but with an increase in DR and/or better high ISO performance? I find the R3 gave me better low light results (and had more latitude for shadows to be pushed) than any of my low light images from the R1. So maybe an R1s? I'd swap my R1 over for that in a heartbeat.

The Canon 1D Mark IV only got to see the winter games in 2010, as it was superseded by the 1DX in time for London 2012 so short lifecycles for pro series cameras aren't unheard of; it's possible a large agency has put the screws on Canon to make with the global shutter to prevent a switch to Sony, to get the results and workflow they want for the games. The R3 looking like a sore thumb in the lineup is also ripe for replacement.

Some have suggested the EOS RC, or a compact EOS R. I would have expected Canon build this product around the R6 III given what other camera manufacturers have gone eg Sony with the A7C II based on the A7 IV. But what if Canon want to put the guts of an R5 II in there instead, to target a more premium market segment eg potential Leica shooters and pair with a revised 50 1.2L and a 35L without the VCM's shortcomings? I'd expect a dual-band WiFi chip rather than tri-band to keep size and power consumption reduced, but it could be a tri-band chipset with the 6GHz band disabled. That's my other theory, given that Canon would likely want to keep the firmware stack consistent.

The R1 was announced nearly 18 months ago, so the bigger question is why the R6 III still running at the older 802.11ac standard? Did they strike a good deal on the older outdated 802.11ac silicon to keep the prices down? The A7V has WiFI 6. I would be wary of anyone releasing new products in the here and now with outdated WiFi chipsets.

My money is the R7 II first, potentially a revised R1 with a different sensor second, a compact R5 II as a third and a distant fourth will be the phoenixification of the R3 product line (and I don't see another R3 until the R1 gets some sensor tech that makes it look less like a sports camera and more like the no-holds-barred days of the 1Ds series).

Canon Rumors said:

Lenses definitely matter. There can be 200 lenses available, how many are you actually buying? (some of us crazies around here aside). Some of the unique and niche ones will sway some customers for sure.

Click to expand...

Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.


RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

blackcoffee17 said:

To be fair, 15fps is more than enough for 99% of stuff. I rather have a Sigma 14mm 1.4 limited to 15fps than nothing at all.

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me of the Sigma 14 1.4 and making me cry.

Something tells me we will be stuck without a proper modern astro lens for a while (RF 15-35 2.8 and 20 VCM 1.4 are fine astro lenses but markedly different).

DhlcadR6 said:

Cheaper 3rd parties with 15fps handicap. I rather adapt EF or native RF with R6iii 40fps.

Click to expand...

To be fair, 15fps is more than enough for 99% of stuff. I rather have a Sigma 14mm 1.4 limited to 15fps than nothing at all.

I have no idea what Canon is working on in terms of camera or lenses, but since I own a R5 Mk2 and R1 I am really not interested in any cameras until the refresh in 2028. A couple of lenses do have my interests: 1) Rumored 300-600 mm L lens and 2) 2nd generation RF 400 mm f2.8.

Each camera has some strengths and weaknesses. Canon only has 12 bit in electronic shutter mode, Sony has no Open Gate or 6K video. I think the next generation of Sony sensors is going to be more interesting.

Uneternal said:

After only 7 years Sony has officially lost any advantage they had over Canon. 30 fps, sure, but with all kinds of exceptions in the small print. Probably falls to 5fps again with certain settings (mech shutter + lossless compressed raw?)
And on top it eats into their $6000 flagship segment, not just A1 but also FX3. I mean good for Sony customers but Sony basically shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Click to expand...

Wait wait:

• the one with exceptions is Canon with 12 bit readout without having a choice for 14 bit (à la Panasonic)
• Why should the A7 eat into the A1, while the R6 not eat into the R5 and R1?

Give credit where it’s due, the sensor is slightly better than the R6III’s one (same readout but at higher bit rate), it has blackout free shooting and some design choices like the screen and multi-card compatibility would be welcome on a Canon camera.

The FX3 is a pure bread video camera and excels at it, it’s completely out of scope.

I would take Canon 99 times out of 100 still, but it’s good that Sony got fully back into contention. It pushes Canon to do better.

Reflecting on the above, if the R6III fits on those graphs where expected, a conclusion one might arrive at is that Canon's sensor design has evolved to deliver roughly the same IQ regardless of pixel size, meaning they could potentially go to 60 or 80 or 100MP with no loss in IQ.

After only 7 years Sony has officially lost any advantage they had over Canon. 30 fps, sure, but with all kinds of exceptions in the small print. Probably falls to 5fps again with certain settings (mech shutter + lossless compressed raw?)
And on top it eats into their $6000 flagship segment, not just A1 but also FX3. I mean good for Sony customers but Sony basically shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Ozarker said:

My wife is 4'11" and 95 lbs. She's a tiny, delicate woman. The Olympus works for her.

Click to expand...

Looks like your wife and mine are twins...

Come on Canon, allow us 4K60p oversampled on the Canon R5 mark ii, to beat the competition. Also the A7 V can do this...

Wasn't the EOS 3 line previously used to test new technology before it was incorporated into the EOS 1?
I do believe that an R3ii is possible. Perhaps Canon is testing a global shutter here? Or are they putting a sensor with more than 24MP into the camera for the first time? I really like the R3 and currently can't think of any reason why I should switch to the R1. I use the R3 for sports photography and the R5ii when I need more resolution for cropping. If an R3ii were to come out with a resolution higher than 24MP, I would prefer it to an R1 any day. The size of the R3 body is perfect for my hands. The R1 is a little too big for me.

Del Paso said:

No, no, no!
This is untrue! You slander the Olympus.
You just need a small child, or a very small size adult, to operate the Olympus and its tiny controls.
My wife could, but prefers using her Iphone, and the Olympus collects thick dust.

Click to expand...

My wife is 4'11" and 95 lbs. She's a tiny, delicate woman. The Olympus works for her.

This one looks like Inonotus dryadeus to me but I can't put my head behind of this ID.

Click said:

Like this one

Or this one

Click to expand...

Both are great!!! If next weekend I don't see that bird I'm going to use both of them! Well, it's not time for jokes - it starts only if I got the bird!