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".

Perhaps Canon might make a new APS-H stacked sensor in an R3ii ?
Maybe it will be a global shutter but better low light performance than Sony's A9 iii ?
A medium MP count of 30-35MP ?
They might go crazy and put their 250MP APS-H sensor in it https://petapixel.com/2024/10/25/ca...ensor-front-and-center-at-chinese-trade-show/

sanj said:

It will have a flipping LCD. 100 per cent. And I doubt if it will be 'cheap'. It is meant for people who want to make a statement. They will pay.

Click to expand...

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

roby17269 said:

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!

Click to expand...

I've been waiting for the 35 1.2 too!!!

EOS 4 Life said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that. In the US, BLS lists the median annual income for a professional photographer as $53K. Dentists, lawyers and doctors have median annual incomes 3-5x higher.

Of course, for a subset of photographers someone else is buying the gear. I use lots of expensive scientific equipment that I didn't buy with my own money. In those cases, it's Getty, SI, etc., buying the gear in bulk based on negotiated prices (and that's why 'Getty is switching to Sony' says nothing about the quality of the gear or photographer preferences). But that subset is shrinking as staff photographer positions are progressively eliminated.

Also, for a photographer (or anyone running an independent business) the income is not revenue, it's what is taken out after expenses. But with a median annual income of $53K, most business owners taking those amounts out of their business are going to be looking to minimize expenses to the greatest extent possible. That's why there are a lot of professional photographers still using DSLRs.

CJaurelius said:

With the A7V having an increase in both speed and dynamic range I think this will be a pretty good seller.

Click to expand...

It would have been a good seller regardless.
Sony fanboys are just salty that it is unimpressive compared to the competition.

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.