AlanF said:

A local Robin and Blue Tit today. (R5ii/200-800mm).

View attachment 227098View attachment 227099

Click to expand...

The Robin is very nice photo but the Blue tit is killer!

CJaurelius said:

Agreed that were all making assumptions. From what I have seen from most reports are that Professional is the largest end user( by revenue), followed by Prosumer and then hobbyist. Content Creator/Prosumer may or may not be grouped together depending on where you look. As mentioned Content Creator is the fastest growing group based on revenue.

Click to expand...

Canon/Nikon/Sony probably have more granular market segments (especially by region) but for me, there are 3 buyer categories:
1 Full time professionals whose primary business is photography ie selling images or run/gun hourly rates etc.
2 Professionals whose side hustle/part time business is photography or who needs camera gear to provide an income from other sources. They aren't fussed on brand, want simplicity and are cost conscious.
3 Everyone else who can afford some or a lot of camera gear from their disposable income and make no or minimum money from images.

I am definitely in the third category and bought low end gear a long time ago when I had little disposable income and substantially more now.
OEMs target this segment as they can get long term value capture.

Photography workshops - especially travel destinations are a big growth area for full time pros vs having a gallery and trying to sell prints. Providing white glove travel experiences is where some can make a lot of money!
That said, there are now specialist dog photographers making 6 figures as well heeled empty nesters or other couples have fur babies buying lots of big prints.

Maybe in my transition-to-retirement after being retrenched, I might sell some prints or offer custom day trips around Sydney to traveling photographers. Something I would like to pay for when I am traveling to new places

Lovely shots, Alan.

roby17269 said:

As I know pros that had to downsize since they cannot afford expensive gear anymore...

Click to expand...

which is unfortunate but the internet meme has a lot of truth to it

Dragon said:

Punishment from that crowd didn't quell sales of the R5, so probably not too much of a worry for Canon. First is still first.

Click to expand...

They latched onto something to downgrade Canon for daring to be first with 8k30 raw and still the only OEM to have a hybrid that does this. If cinema light codecs or external recording (USB-C or Ninja) or had the subsequent firmware updates (timer to measuring temperature to allowing higher internal temps before shutdown) at the beginning then it would have been a different story.

I certainly have no regrets having put down a pre-order in Feburary 2020 and still don't have a pressing desire to upgrade although 14 bit ES with variable fps is tempting. Maximising dynamic range for low light is a priority for me though.
3rd party SW with noise reduction in the last 6 years (Topaz/LR etc) has been very useful and probably avoided the upgrade so far.

David - Sydney said:

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

Click to expand...

Punishment from that crowd didn't quell sales of the R5, so probably not too much of a worry for Canon. First is still first.

F/1.8 or F/2 are ok, but what about a more affordable 100-105mm with this aperture?

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...

Like, an R30?

Ozarker said:

I doubt there will be one of those. There might be (I hope) a 70-135 or 70-150 f/2.
I don't see overlapping two f/2 L zooms.

Click to expand...

That's what Sony does, if the range start at 70 make it up to 180mm. If it's start wider you can stop at 135 or 150mm.
I guess Sony offering starting at 50mm and Tamron 35mm forced Canon to change their plan.

wbrock001 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I doubt there will be one of those. There might be (I hope) a 70-135 or 70-150 f/2.
I don't see overlapping two f/2 L zooms.

neuroanatomist said:

Battery grips used to cost $200-250, they now cost over $400. Even accounting for inflation and the recent tariffs, that's a disproportionate price increase. A likely reason for that is that they are selling fewer units and need to increase the cost to achieve ROI. Canon stopped making battery grips for many lines, even the top APS-C R7 didn't come with that option...presumably because Canon didn't think they'd sell enough at an acceptable price to justify the development costs. No ROI = don't make it. So it seems that accessory grips are becoming less popular, not more. Probably doesn't add to the arguments in favor of a high-MP body with an integrated grip.

Click to expand...

Nikon surprised the market with their Z8/Z9 pairing which they thought would have been successful but only they know the volume of each. If they release their next iteration with the same option then we know there is sufficient volume for Nikon to offer it.

Sony clearly has the market lead when it comes to battery life but still provide a grip and would know how many they sell. Probably rare to need the extra battery life but moreso helping vertical shooting. If they were selling a huge number then selling an integrated grip version may make more sense but probably not the case.

In my opinion, Canon needed to have a cooling grip even if they sell very few simply to counter the massive over reaction to the overheating situation for 3 video modes in the R5. A R5cii also wasn't announced or released since. I imagine ethernet being a very small niche but critical to them. Extended battery and vertical shooting would probably be the highest volume.

I still contend that combining the 3 grips into an integrated body would save some money in multiple SKUs and offer the market a choice between R5ii body and R1 silencing the reviewers (and users) that want a higher mp integrated grip/ extended battery etc.
What Canon would name it is an interesting thought. Probably not a R5s. Maybe a R2?

David_B said:

Why is that? Canon sells more single memory card cameras than it does with two and it sells relatively few large battery pack cameras.


Why is everyone saying 45mm is a retro lens? Was it released with the AE-1?

Click to expand...

My first SLR was an AE-1. Bought it with the 50 1.4 which at the time was not a bad lens. However, after getting a 35-70 it hardly ever got used. So the two lenses mentioned are very likely candidates, though I was surprised that the RF45 was introduced rather than a 50. Suppose Canon want 50 to appear pro? Still have those bits of kit.

A local Robin and Blue Tit today. (R5ii/200-800mm).

montyproductions said:

Who’s running things at canon??? Not a good business decision in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The people who took the company to the leadership position in the ILC market 22 years ago, kept it there since then, and made the ongoing decisions that resulted market dominance with nearly half of the cameras sold every year having the Canon nameplate on them. So...I'm guessing people who know more about what features should go into cameras at various levels and for various target market segments, including the R1, than anyone posting on this forum.

Here are the two main reasons I bought the R1 over the R3. First, the R1 has dual CF express card slots. Second the R1 has a full HDMI port. Now, was it worth such a huge price gap to make the purchase? Probably not, but that’s what I wanted and that’s what they had.

What canon should have done, was put the R1 specs into the R3 and the R1 should have had 8K 60p with at least a 45-50 megapixel sensor all in “fine”. As a former product manager and director, they should have put all the bells and whistles into the R1 and yet, somehow the R5 has a higher pixel sensor, but doesn’t have fine in 60p, only the R5 in crop mode and R5c. Who’s running things at canon??? Not a good business decision in my opinion.

The R1 should have been and should be the red dress!!!

neuroanatomist said:

Offered for your consideration, the Leica Q2 "Ghost".
View attachment 227097

Click to expand...

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

Our crop stable included the Rebel, Rebel XTi, T2i, and 80D. I love the Rebel and 80D, although the former is now for nostalgia and the 80D is in the hands of my kiddo. The 80D resulted in large, beautiful Alaska prints that adorn my office.

I was tempted with the 7D2, but at the time I felt it was too out of date compared to the 80D. But I have friends with the 7D2 for whom you'd have to pry the camera out of their dead hands, even with the R7 offering.

I ultimately decided the R6 with long glass gave me equivalent framing at much higher quality pixels, so left the crop world. But I think the crop world remains quite valid, and the sensors only get better. Someone mentioned in the R3 "II" forum how a crop R3 would be a neat spin on the professional use of crop sensors, and I have to agree. It would be neat to see an R7/R3II crop value pair in the line-up for those photographers needing every last ounce of apparent zoom.

CJaurelius said:

Agreed that were all making assumptions. From what I have seen from most reports are that Professional is the largest end user( by revenue), followed by Prosumer and then hobbyist. Content Creator/Prosumer may or may not be grouped together depending on where you look. As mentioned Content Creator is the fastest growing group based on revenue.

Click to expand...

I think the problem with those analysis is that there are no well-defined boundaries to separate hobbyists from prosumers from content creators. So it is difficult to establish what category goes up or down.

CJaurelius said:

I don't disagree that the hobbyist market is going upmarket as well. That was a core part of my argument. My macro view was that the bottom of the market is being eroded to smartphones and the Chinese and the Japanese camera makers are shifting toward more premium products rather than trying to compete head to head on price. For example Full frame is gaining ground. So if smartphones and the Chinese are making more and more small sensor cameras the Japanese are making more larger sensors.

Click to expand...

Agreed

CJaurelius said:

A hobbyist will be less likely to upgrade without a real meanigful upgrade. And we are hitting a point to where for the casual shooter they may never need to upgrade. I argued for example 8K tv's are declining in sales. So if we never surpass 4K displays as mainstream why would we need 12k consumer cameras for example?

Click to expand...

Well a lot of "gearheads" upgrade regardless Personally I tend to skip a generation (both with cameras and phones) but I haven't followed this rule recently with drones. I tell myself that the newer ones are a clear improvement (they are!), but the reality is that my drone flying / filmmaking skills are such that the previous generation was not limiting me But I wanted the new ones, so...

CJaurelius said:

Contrast that with the prosumer/professional where they are beating the crap out their equipment and can benefit from minimal new feautures as they are getting paid for the content they produce. As a result they are going to cylcle through equipment at a faster rate through either upgrade or replacing worn out items.

Click to expand...

While I do not shoot day in and day out, the main reason I am looking at a X2D II is that my H5X is about to give up the ghost. The X2D II also has a CMOS sensor and ok AF, which make me overlook the painful (to me) fact that I will be downgrading sensor size (from 54x40mm to 44x33mm ).
But apart from mileage, most pros I know are more sensitive to workflow improvements than camera-specific improvements (like resolution, AF, etc.) so they are more interested into accessories, software etc.
Just saying that there are different dynamics that may affect photographers in different ways.

CJaurelius said:

Now of course the future always throws something crazy at you. I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out how to put AI and some other software in the camera and then tie it to a subscription.

Click to expand...

Well color me uninterested I'm all in for smart AF, but call me old-fashioned, I want to be in control of the photos I take.

CJaurelius said:

By end user, content creators registered the fastest growth trajectory with a 6.8% CAGR through 2030, whereas professional photographers retained 35.6% revenue share in 2024.

Click to expand...

So Content creators grew, Professonals retained and therefore the hobbyist is probably what decreased a bit. This is as a precent of revenue and since revenue increased its possible that each group made more money its just the mix that is shifting.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware that CAGR has a fixed denominator, such that different segments must sum to 100% and if one segment grows then another must shrink. I also wasn't aware that predicted future growth (I think growth is the G in CAGR, right?) and current revenue share are the same type of information, such that they can be readily compared and/or added together.

Just goes to show, we're presented with new information every day. I guess the trick is to determine what information comes from a reliable source, and what information comes from someone talking out of their nether orifice. Fortunately for me, I am able to make that determination.

EOS 4 Life said:

I disagree that pros need to justify their investment.
They, of course, need to make more money than they spend, but I know plenty of pros who pay for things they like more than I need.

Click to expand...

As I know pros that had to downsize since they cannot afford expensive gear anymore...
Agreed that individuals will do what they want and not all pros will limit their gear to the bare minimum that guarantees them an income.

I am into fashion photography and so the pros I know are in that field as well. Fashion used to be the realm of medium format but nowadays most fashion pros use medium format only when they are sponsored by Hassy / P1 / Fuji. If they still own cameras at all they will have Canon / Sony / Nikon / Fuji crop.
Obviously there are the ones at the top of the food chain who make millions, and those will have expensive gear, but those are the exception, not the rule.

I really liked the x70 as a pocketable companion to my x100f but it was slooooooow. Would be nice to get another small format camera from Fuji that had just a few of the contemporary features of the x100 line

Bob Howland said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yet again, I present the same argument as before: When having the same lens bionet, the "M" is just a name, call it R100 or R50 and you have the same "M" concept, having no EVF, allowing it to mount RFs lenses to the same 2/3 sized sensors. So why keep the "M" with separate line of lenses? It is much more economical to have one line of lenses (bionet) than keep two lines, the developmet of two lines of lenses is not the right commercial way, cause you spend double the reseouces, while the difference between the M5 and the R100 is negligible.

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...

In history, Canon used the "3" for thier exerimental camera where new features were brought up in a "lesser than flagship" camera. In the R3 they brought what was once used on the "3" the eye controlled focus as the "new exciting feature". I think that they can "bring up" in the 3M2 smoethign like the stack sensor into reality, before implementing it into the "1" or "5"

riker said:

They should make a statement with their hairstyle and let us have proper cameras
Statement...pffff....

Click to expand...

Offered for your consideration, the Leica Q2 "Ghost".