I’m just a minority of 1 but I’d buy a high MP R3. Something great than 45MP. The R5 has been so good I haven’t upgraded to the R5II. I’d have thought given heat dissipation & required room for extra chips and R3 body would suit. It’s debatable that more MPs are really required but at this point room for improvement is slim. More FPS is almost not necessary (even a disadvantage), ISO improvement has stalled, dynamic range is hard to increase (and is pretty decent). MP and tracking ability are two areas left to improve. I love detail.
The R3 may be more focused on convenience of sports photographers getting their images to media sites. For that 20MP is sufficient.
Canons risk is making it better than the R1. The R3 probably has to remain worse than it in many ways.
We will see. I’ll keep saving away for a successor to my R5. It continues to impress even though it’s years old. It’s close to perfection. If it could track better BIF would be it’s only necessary improvement. Its eye tracking is great. Image quality is excellent. I’d recommend it to anyone wanting to upgrade on a budget. A second hand version is worth picking up.

Canon Rumors said:

Yes, some plastics can be more durable than metal. However, a camera is the sum of its parts and you can feel it. That matters to some... I'm part of the some. Muscle memory as well, the Sony's are so cramped and not built for the natural placement and movements of the hand.

Cameras like the OM-3 and Leica MP.... the plastic on the MP iso dial annoys me and it doesn't even matter! The OM feels rock solid, it just needs a joystick where the CP button/dial is.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but, unfortunately, I must correct what you wrote.
The Leica M ISO dials have a known tendency to break or to get stuck. There would have been many better ways to fit the M with an ISO dial, sadly, Leica chose the cheapest one. But what can you expect of an inexpensive $9000 camera? M3 times are long forgotten...

Exploreshootshare said:

The R has/ had beautiful ergonomics which were flawed by omitting a joystick (maybe a scroll wheel, but I could do without). With that/ those item(s) it would have been perfect.

Most importantly, the weight was absolutely manageable for one-hand shooting and caring it around for an entire day.
The R5 imo has perfect ergonomics concerning button placement, joystick, scroll wheel and how the camera is being held. I did realize while shooting last year, that the R5 is a bit too heavy. I do realize that the difference between 651 gr and 738gr is only 87 gr, but it really has a huge impact on how I receive the weight. 650gr or even 600gr should a sweet spot for a reasonable sized camera and weight. If it is lower it quickly misbalances the camera when attached to certain lenses.

So, kind a like a R8 with a joystick, scroll wheel and 1/8000 shutter speed.

I for myself have now purchased the R8. It matches the needs derived from the R5 perfectly. It is small (great for hiking/ family dinners e.g.) and weighs only 481 gr although having a FF sensor. AF is faster than on the R5, which is nice as well. The controls are a little different and not as comfortable, but as long as I´m not shooting fast paced scenes (sports/ wildlife/ running kids) I´m perfectly fine with it.

If a R8ii can integrate a joystick and still keep the weight (or not go over 500gr), I'd switch the R8 for it as soon as discounts are granted.

Click to expand...

Based on reactions, this topic seems to be more difficult than I thought.
I understand that Canon needs to differentiate cameras and the R8 will never get all the features from the R5-ish cameras. My point was that one of the differentiators is size: better (and more expensive) camera is always bigger. And I'd like to have something like the R8 (or eos R) with the features of a high end camera and I'm willing to pay for it (unlike other people who complain that the R8 has one slot, is not water resistant etc – I know that there must be some trade off).

I also know that the camera physically can't be too small. I'm sure that the R8 body wouldn't fit large display, joystick, all the wheels and arrows all together. I guess it needs to have certain size. But I'm sure they could come up with some solutions that would solve it (thinner bezels, more clever controls etc). I'd be even fine with polycarbonate body if it shaves off the weight. My camera doesn't need to withstand falling from a rock. Weather sealing would be important though.

I don't deny that for a lot of people, bigger size is better and I noticed that it really depends on the lens used more than on the hands. The R8 feels great in the hands when using the 1.8 primes or the RF 28-70 f/2.8. But with the f/4 zooms (24-105, 70-200) it feels uncomfortable. R6 feels well-balanced with the f/4 zooms and it's comfortable to use it all day (same as with the R). And when using the f/2.8 zooms or lenses like 135 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2 then it needs R5 or higher. I also tried some of the long lenses (100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) and those really need R3 or R1.

Again – I understand why the cameras are bigger and why cheap cameras don't get all the functions. I just wish there is a camera for an enthusiast (not a pro) who wants lightweight but packed camera that would be used mainly with f/4 zooms or f/1.4 primes and budget is not that important.
I didn't mention resolution. That one is also not important to me (20-24Mpix is perfect for me) but I guess if it's a packed camera than people would want higher resolution.

esglord said:

None is definitely not the worst hairstyle. As long as you don’t have a rat tail, man-bun, or the Lloyd Christmas, you can have a Leica

Click to expand...

You just named my 3 most disliked hairstyles!
PS: I own Leicas, but no Q yet. I am simply waiting for a Q starting at 24mm! 24 to 50 would be perfect for me, there would still be an appropriate number of MPs left at 50mm.

Maybe I'm oldschool (OK, I am...)
But to me, smaller often stands for poor ergonomics (Sony), more plastics than metal for the camera's structure.
I know plastics have some advantages too, especially Toray carbon fiber reinforced ones. But I doubt these will be used in cameras for cost reasons. Still, I far prefer a heavier rigid body chassis to a weight optimised one. There is a limit to weight reduction: Cost!
I agree on my reasoning being partly subjective, yet I feel better with a bit of weight in my hands.
Though, when I drop a lens, I prefer it being partly made of shock absorbing "engineering" plastics than metal. Partly! But rather see individual lens elements positioned in a magnesium/aluminium/brass tube than in flimsy plastics.

I would choose the 1.8 200mm lens because it has good reach in both, APS-C and FF, would be moderately compact and "light" and would be compatible with teleconverters (presumably). With a special 3x TC it would give [email protected], insane - maybe with some quality losses but good enough for 24 MPix FF!

Avilux said:

Since Canon hasn’t released an RF version of the 500mm as well it would make sense if they would pair the proposed RF 300mm f2 with a portable 500mm f2.8, both with built-in TCs, of course. Such fast prime lenses would provide an excellent USP in an increasing competitive market.
When Canon Inc. is addressed in this way I refer to Genesis 1,3: "Let there be light, and there was light".

Click to expand...

"Light" not as in "portable" - a 500/2.8 with a built in TC would be at least some 50% heavier than the current RF 400/2.8, weighing in north of 4.5kg. The diameter of the front element would be at least 179mm, compared with 150mm for a 600/4 and 143mm for a 400/2.8.
As the god Kwanon said "Let there be heavy, and there was the 500/2.8 with a built in TC."

Since Canon hasn’t released an RF version of the 500mm as well it would make sense if they would pair the proposed RF 300mm f2 with a portable 500mm f2.8, both with built-in TCs, of course. Such fast prime lenses would provide an excellent USP in an increasing competitive market.
When Canon Inc. is addressed in this way I refer to Genesis 1,3: "Let there be light, and there was light".

Traveler said:

I still hope Canon will break their rules that better camera needs to be bigger and only top cameras have certain features. I think that the original EOS R had the perfect body size and design, top LCD, bigger display than the R6.

Click to expand...

The R has/ had beautiful ergonomics which were flawed by omitting a joystick (maybe a scroll wheel, but I could do without). With that/ those item(s) it would have been perfect.

Most importantly, the weight was absolutely manageable for one-hand shooting and caring it around for an entire day.
The R5 imo has perfect ergonomics concerning button placement, joystick, scroll wheel and how the camera is being held. I did realize while shooting last year, that the R5 is a bit too heavy. I do realize that the difference between 651 gr and 738gr is only 87 gr, but it really has a huge impact on how I receive the weight. 650gr or even 600gr should a sweet spot for a reasonable sized camera and weight. If it is lower it quickly misbalances the camera when attached to certain lenses.

Traveler said:

I think there are quite some people who would spend the money on the R5 but it is too heavy for them. And people who just want something nice but not necessarily big and heavy. Enthusiasts, travellers, young people,...

Click to expand...

So, kind a like a R8 with a joystick, scroll wheel and 1/8000 shutter speed.

I for myself have now purchased the R8. It matches the needs derived from the R5 perfectly. It is small (great for hiking/ family dinners e.g.) and weighs only 481 gr although having a FF sensor. AF is faster than on the R5, which is nice as well. The controls are a little different and not as comfortable, but as long as I´m not shooting fast paced scenes (sports/ wildlife/ running kids) I´m perfectly fine with it.

If a R8ii can integrate a joystick and still keep the weight (or not go over 500gr), I'd switch the R8 for it as soon as discounts are granted.

Canon Rumors said:

Here is the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM with the RF 2.0x Teleconverter. The photo is good enough for the photo frame, not really paper worthy. If you want to fill the frame, the performance is very good.


View attachment 225879

Iberian Lynx // EOS R1 // RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM // RF 2.0x // 600mm // F5.6 // ISO 3200​

Click to expand...

My daughter recently adopted a kitten. Here is a shot with her cellphone and her comment is "She is birder too!". By light years not as good photo as yours but it make's me laughing...
P.S. I'm afraid to ask my daughter if she has scratches on the furniture already. On other hand I know her answer: "Not big deal!"

mimbu said:

Due to the growth in the Asian market you are likely to see Canon and Nikon follow Sony into making smaller FF bodies going forward. Legacy markets in Europe & the US have little growth these days (or are shrinking), so makers will cater more to where new customers are.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure Canon will make smaller than necessary ie: Sony for them all. Even Sony's A1 / A9 are small. In other words, I want canon to make smaller cameras, but not at the expense of more comfortable ergonomic cameras.

Canon seems to be doing quite well over here in Asia from what I could see just walking around. For instance, in Vietnam, I see an overwhelming amount of Canon mirrorless versus any other brands (as an anecdotal comparison).

snapshot said:

45 MP global shutter? i would atleast drive to the camera store to check it out.

Click to expand...

I would guess that Sony is working on bringing a 50mp global shutter sensor to the A1 III in a few years.

Traveler said:

I still hope Canon will break their rules that better camera needs to be bigger and only top cameras have certain features. I think that the original EOS R had the perfect body size and design, top LCD, bigger display than the R6. They could make a camera that is comfortable to hold, not too heavy or big, has nice bright LCD with thinner bezels, high-res EVF, IBIS, enough controls (both rear wheel and arrows like the 90D or Sony's) and doesn't have limited menu options and features. It's fine if it shoots less fps or has weaker video specs due to the smaller body (less efficient cooling).
I think there are quite some people who would spend the money on the R5 but it is too heavy for them. And people who just want something nice but not necessarily big and heavy. Enthusiasts, travellers, young people,...

I know, I'm naive.

Click to expand...

Due to the growth in the Asian market you are likely to see Canon and Nikon follow Sony into making smaller FF bodies going forward. Legacy markets in Europe & the US have little growth these days (or are shrinking), so makers will cater more to where new customers are.

Del Paso said:

I didn't know the Japanese had such a bad taste...

Click to expand...

Much of Asia prefers smaller cameras which is why APS-C and even M43 sell so well here. Smaller FF bodies make sense considering the size of the market, and I think we will see Canon and Nikon respond to that in the coming years.

I heard their autofocus is quite good (at least the VCM on their new 135)? Could be good for us Canon users who want something more than STM but don't have money for the expensive L lenses

I totally agree with you. I really like the effect of the sunlight on the horse.

snapshot said:

this assumes you need dark pixels for both sides of the DPAF. but, yes, Global shutter is about fast moving objects, so 100 MP usage might not need global shutter or perhaps even DPAF.

Click to expand...

Yes, you would need the dark pixels for both sides of DPAF because there is no way to read out the data until it is transferred to the dark pixel and you still need the difference for DPAF to work. I agree on the parameters for a 100MP sensor. DR is much more important than super-fast readout for most high res applications, but birders would like such a camera, so it shouldn't slow, either. I, personally, have no objection to using mechanical shutter for hummingbird shots, but some folks do like the silence and lack of vibration with electronic shutter.

Thank you Richard for the history, it was great. You mostly describe the shift from eos to powershot development teams as positive because they had a better handle on AF, which is interesting. I remember being grumpy about some powershot controls, or at least what I interpreted as powershot relics, mostly that if you let the camera merge HDR, you were stuck with only the merged jpeg, and lost the raw and jpg bracketed images. Now someone will explain that I could have had both all along, but I remember having to use the 80d or 6d ii to get both when shooting HDR

Del Paso said:

No, you are not naive.
You simply forget that some of us have larger hands, and simply cannot get along with smaller cameras, while the opposite is not true.
Canon should not start developing expensive cameras for a fraction of their customers. I do still own an EOS R, but it represents the absolute limit of what I can use. The 5 D IV was perfect for me while the R5 II is ok. Size matters if you dislike cramped controls. Yet, if my carrying system allowed it, I surely would get an R 3 or R 1
Thanks God, Canon still pay lots of attention to ergonomics.

Click to expand...

I think it'll never happen but it would be nice if cameras could be customized by order similar to how some car manufacturers allow.

Get yourself a 45mp sensor, integrated grip and a non-touch screen!

I also had and still have the AE-1 setting around collecting dust. I love using my R5 because of the way it feels in my hands. Cannot see myself buying a retro AE-1 body that wouldn't have the the latest body style design. But just my two cents.

Traveler said:

I still hope Canon will break their rules that better camera needs to be bigger and only top cameras have certain features. I think that the original EOS R had the perfect body size and design, top LCD, bigger display than the R6. They could make a camera that is comfortable to hold, not too heavy or big, has nice bright LCD with thinner bezels, high-res EVF, IBIS, enough controls (both rear wheel and arrows like the 90D or Sony's) and doesn't have limited menu options and features. It's fine if it shoots less fps or has weaker video specs due to the smaller body (less efficient cooling).
I think there are quite some people who would spend the money on the R5 but it is too heavy for them. And people who just want something nice but not necessarily big and heavy. Enthusiasts, travellers, young people,...

I know, I'm naive.

Click to expand...

No, you are not naive.
You simply forget that some of us have larger hands, and simply cannot get along with smaller cameras, while the opposite is not true.
Canon should not start developing expensive cameras for a fraction of their customers. I do still own an EOS R, but it represents the absolute limit of what I can use. The 5 D IV was perfect for me while the R5 II is ok. Size matters if you dislike cramped controls. Yet, if my carrying system allowed it, I surely would get an R 3 or R 1
Thanks God, Canon still pay lots of attention to ergonomics.

Del Paso said:

Everybody has a better hairstyle than me. I have none!
Does it mean I don't deserve a Leica Q?

Click to expand...

None is definitely not the worst hairstyle. As long as you don’t have a rat tail, man-bun, or the Lloyd Christmas, you can have a Leica

esglord said:

He has a better hairstyle than I. Maybe a Kodak FunSaver is a better fit for me.

Click to expand...

Everybody has a better hairstyle than me. I have none!
Does it mean I don't deserve a Leica Q?

justaCanonuser said:

I doubt Canon will bring out a real rangefinder camera like the famous P with a digital sensor. The mechanics of such rangefinders is complex and it is hard to revive their production when the knowledge is gone. Nikon really struggled when they revived their Nikon S series with the "S3 2000" 25 years ago. It was very costly to produce, so its price was up to Leicas, it was more a collector's item. This S3 was a film camera, of course, but a digital version would need basically the same mechanics. So the only option would be a pseudo-rangefinder design like that of the digital Fujis - not really attractive for photographers who still are used to real rangefinder cameras. But I guess Canon could sell such rangefinder retro style cameras, so why not.

Click to expand...

Canon, would you please listen to "JustaCanonuser"?
But with a Leica M bayonet!