roby17269 said:

I think you're still making some assumptions. I'd argue that the hobbyist market is going upmarket and that hobbyist are a larger population compared to professionals. While many professionals either rent gear or are given gear by manufacturers / agencies.
Admittedly my evidence is anecdotal: I know quite a few pros who told me so.

Click to expand...

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.

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.
Source: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/digital-camera-market

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.

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.

In this thread particularly (and due to the A7V lack of features) I was arguing that because innovation is slowing new features are getting trickled out to keep the appearance of progress even though progess is stalling.

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?

So if you are buyng a camera to use occaisionally and that camera doesn't break and there is nothing substaintially better 5 years from now there will be no reason to upgrade.

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.

As mention in the report the Chinese have increase compact shipments by 213%. At some point they will move up to larger sensor cameras. I'm not sure what they are going to do at that point.

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.

CJaurelius said:

Sure you'll have the occassional hobbyis that can afford a Hasseblad or Leica. But the vast majority of non professional's just don't have the income to spend on a $2500+ camera body and $2000 lens.

Click to expand...

That is entirely backward.
Being behind a camera is not the way to earn the highest money.
It is much easier to get a job on Wall Street and buy a room full of cameras.

roby17269 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.
On the other hand, I agree that hobbyists spend more money.
I think that is because they have higher-paying jobs and have more money to spend.

Another nice series, ISv. Thanks for the info on the Black-Tailed Godwit.

StaffordPrVa said:

I agree with all that said. Concerning trying to predict the market size, I would hope that Canon is monitoring the sales of all grips sold per year to determine potential market size and if it would be worth the effort. My intention was to put something on the record indicating that it would be a no brainer for me to purchase a high MP R3 and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others. Canon may be testing the market with the three R5II grip variants to sort out video users verses potential camera users.

Click to expand...

An item like a battery grip is not going to be a loss leader, Canon will set the price to achieve a reasonable ROI based on expected demand. That practice is obvious from the R5II grips, adding an ethernet port and wiring it to the connection terminals does not add $170 to the cost of goods (clearly, since the variant with the ethernet port and a cooling fan is much cheaper).

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.

neuroanatomist said:

The question is not whether or not there’s a market…it’s how big that market is, and whether that is sufficient to make such a camera profitable for Canon. I’d buy one. Presumably so would you, and maybe a few other forum members who have expressed interest. Selling a handful of cameras constitutes ‘a market’…but it’s not a very big one.

Since the market is so obvious to you, would you care to state the projected size of that market? Canon originally estimated the R1 would sell about 45,000 units per year. How would this hypothetical R1s or R3s compare? On what data would you base your projection?

Canon is far more likely than us to know the size of the market for such a camera. As pointed out earlier in this thread, Fuji made a high MP gripped body and when they upgraded it they eliminated the grip. That seems like a clue about the market demand for such a camera (though Canon and Fuji are at opposite ends of the market share spectrum with a different customer base).

Click to expand...

I agree with all that said. Concerning trying to predict the market size, I would hope that Canon is monitoring the sales of all grips sold per year to determine potential market size and if it would be worth the effort. My intention was to put something on the record indicating that it would be a no brainer for me to purchase a high MP R3 and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others. Canon may be testing the market with the three R5II grip variants to sort out video users verses potential camera users.

South Saskatchewan River at the weir in Saskatoon SK...

A 300/2 would have tempted me pretty significantly when I was hoping for an RF 300/2.8. The level of temptation would much lower after the 100-300/2.8, which is a great lens. The patent example lens is about ~1 cm shorter than the RF 100-300 (and ~6 cm longer than the EF 300/2.8 II), but given that it would have the same front element diameter as the 600/4 it's going to be a bulky lens, though lighter.

The patent example 200/1.8 is about the same length as the EF 200/2, and would presumably be much lighter.

A 300mm f/2 and a 200 f/1.8 would look great in Milan next Feb.. just thinkin'

StaffordPrVa said:

It’s obvious to me that there seems to be a market for a high MP body with built-in grip (and a longer lasting battery life).

Click to expand...

The question is not whether or not there’s a market…it’s how big that market is, and whether that is sufficient to make such a camera profitable for Canon. I’d buy one. Presumably so would you, and maybe a few other forum members who have expressed interest. Selling a handful of cameras constitutes ‘a market’…but it’s not a very big one.

Since the market is so obvious to you, would you care to state the projected size of that market? Canon originally estimated the R1 would sell about 45,000 units per year. How would this hypothetical R1s or R3s compare? On what data would you base your projection?

Canon is far more likely than us to know the size of the market for such a camera. As pointed out earlier in this thread, Fuji made a high MP gripped body and when they upgraded it they eliminated the grip. That seems like a clue about the market demand for such a camera (though Canon and Fuji are at opposite ends of the market share spectrum with a different customer base).

Thank you to everyone for information about tripods!

Regardless of commercial success (relatively speaking) or not, I would love to see those materialize.
They would bring some "sparkle" to Canon's RF lens lineup, showing that Canon still dares to be bold.

Or just give me my 35 1.2 darn it!

mimbu said:

I'm sure Sigma will bring something similar to mirrorless, it would pair well with their 300-600/4.

Unfortunately with both Canon and Nikon apparently terrified of Sigma, Sony limiting everything 3rd party to 15fps, and Panasonic still without tracking AF, there isn't any camera that can take full advantage of either lens. At least not yet.

Click to expand...

Wild guess: Sigma is more than "thinking" about introducing a professional L-mount camera. I think they are actively working on it and it'll (update: be FF, )cost about $3000, and have about 30MP and world class focusing. Will they also introduce a cheaper version with an APS-C sensor? Who knows but they should.

How coincidental! I was just dreaming about this yesterday!

I really like the stream. Nicely done, dpc.

P-visie said:

It was even better tan 300mm f2, it was f1.8. The lens was used for photo finishes in horse races

See: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Been a while!

I've seen both the EF 1200/5.6 and the Nikkor 1200-1700/5.6-8, and several of the Nikon 300/2 lenses (with their special TCs), and oddball stuff like the Reflex-Nikkor 2000/11, but have not seen one of the 300/1.8Ls. Pretty rare beast.

Bob Howland said:

Any word about a built-in TC plus taking an external 1.4X TC? Sigma made three generations of 120-300 f/2.8 zooms for DSLRs and I'm surprised they haven't made one for mirrorless cameras.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Sigma will bring something similar to mirrorless, it would pair well with their 300-600/4.

Unfortunately with both Canon and Nikon apparently terrified of Sigma, Sony limiting everything 3rd party to 15fps, and Panasonic still without tracking AF, there isn't any camera that can take full advantage of either lens. At least not yet.

The Englishman River, Vancouver Island...

Any word about a built-in TC plus taking an external 1.4X TC? Sigma made three generations of 120-300 f/2.8 zooms for DSLRs and I'm surprised they haven't made one for mirrorless cameras.

I guess I would be one of the few who would trade my R5II with grip for a R3II with high MP. My R5II is backup to my R1…. with two different body configurations and different batteries. For those who do not like grips on their high MP cameras, they have the R5…. so why are there three variants of grips for the R5? It’s obvious to me that there seems to be a market for a high MP body with built-in grip (and a longer lasting battery life). I’m currently considering purchasing a Hasselblad X2D II for the high MP (more than 45 MP), but would rather purchase a R3II with high MP instead (more than 45 MP)….. but would settle for 35 MP. That’s my two cents.

I’m am always looking for a high MP Canon. 45MP is perhaps enough but I’d be stupid enough to buy a higher MP model. Maybe it’s a hangover from 10 to 12 MP days . There was never enough. I think some commentators said they expected a higher MP R5 version. I’d be fine with that. Would it not be easier in an R3 body, more space for chips, more heat dissipation, more rugged body. If they did do a high MP R3 I’d buy it. I might be alone but it would be perfect for me. I love detail.

David_B said:

Do you meant to say that the RF 45mm doesn't need software to correct its image? Otherwise I'm perplexed about what's special about lenses from the 1990s-2000s.

Click to expand...

I was not praising the 45mm

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...

Hmm sort of, and not quite. The R5ii and all of the stacked sensors from Canon seem to be resolving detail from the sensor at a lower level than their previous non stacked version yeilded, for the same megapixel count.
If we compare sensor resolution tests from https://www.optyczne.pl/testy_aparatów.html, we can see the R1 and R3 resolve less detail than R6mkII.
The R6II and R5 resolved detail far higher than their DSLR counterparts. With the R5, it;s sensor out resolves both the 5DS, and the 5DSR. The R5's 45mp sensor gives a score of 82 against the 5DSR's score of 79, the 5Ds with a score of 67. So the R5 does resolve slightly more detail for it's lower pixel count than the mighty R5sr.
The R6ii yields a suprisingly high score of 64, which means the R6ii's 24mp sensor is resolving nearly the same level of detal (but not quite) than the 5Ds's 50mp....that's a stunning result and shows that there is more to resolving power than it's pure pixel count.
45mp in the R line up seems to trump 50mp from the older EF lineup and is the current highest detail resolver of any full frame Canon camera. The R7 is the highest Canon resolver of MFT50 charts at a stunningly high 92 value.
We have yet to see the sensor test results for the new R6iii, with it's 33.5mp non stacked sensor. It should theoretically close the gap between the R5 original and the R6ii. I'm predicting a score of around 72 (matching the Sony A7 IV's 33mp score). This easily out resolves the 5Ds but not quite the 5Dsr.
However, things seem to go a bit awry with Canon's stacked sensors. The R5ii's sensor yeilds a suprisingly low value of 76. Which is suprisingly lower than the R5's value of 82.
It means that the projected R6iii's value is very close to the current R5ii. It is quite likely that the real world detail resolution for the R6iii matches the R5ii. 33mp non stacked sensor matching the detail of the 45mp stacked sensor. Meaning that the only virtue of the R5ii is it's stacked sensor.
The R1 has a value of 59 and the R3 a very low 53, both lower than the R6ii's value of 64. The R3 by a significant amount.
So disgregard anyone saying that the R1 and R3's files are better than the R6ii...clearly (pun intented) they are not.

Summary of findings:
The highest resolving camera by Canon: R7 by some margin.
The highest resolving full frame camera by Canon: R5
A suprising result from the low pixel count R6ii (this has validated something I've been saying for a while)
A dissapointing result from the R5ii, R3 and R1 cameras, which all carry a stacked sensor.

I suspect that Canon can mitigate this lower stacked sensor detail resolution but designing a new breed of AA filters that are fine tuned for the stacked sensor depth and not re-using the same spec / design of AA filter employed on their non stacked sensor cameras. It's this AA sensor that allows the 45mp R5 to eclipse the higher 50mp 5Ds in it's MFT50 score.

However, in the past we all managed to produce customer happy professional images on cameras giving MFT50 results in the 45 scores....so take these results with a pinch of salt, becuase a good photo is always a good photo regardless of how much detail it's resovled.

It also means that have have clear detail MFT chart guidance to lens MFT chart paring. A RF 200-800mm lens will be soft at the long end on a R7, slightly soft on a R5, but banging sharp on a R5ii. The R5ii's Sensor will be less resolved than the lens.
This is food for thought if Canon ever makes a 60+ mp Sensor, depending on the AA filter...we might have a camera that out resolves all of the current RF lenses except for the big whites, the RF 135L and the two Z lenses. If that hyperthetical camera ever came out, then we would need to stop down all of our lenses by at least a stop to optically out resolve the sensor...or really spank up our post production sharpening routines to compensate.

I permanently check on Laowa's EF 200mm f/2 lens pricing, as their lenses are occasionally on massive sale, however, perhaps that particular lens is yet too new for that. The original RF Canon variant would likely be over $6K.