TimS said:

Are we missing the obvious here?
Nikon do the same camera, one in a normal body, the other on a gripped body with the Z8 and Z9. So Canon could put the R5 II in a gripped body and call it R3 II...

Click to expand...

Agreed... Canon would know the number of grips for R5ii sold but I believe that a Z8/Z9 style versions of the R5ii would have been a better option.
High mp gripped and ungripped options would have muted the objections to the perceived low res R1.
Integrated grip should have better heat management and of course battery life and less inventory items to manage vs 3 different grips for BG-R20 (base model), the BG-R20EP (with Ethernet port), and the CF-R20EP (fan cooling + ethernet) especially with the incremental price of USD460 for the last grip.

Tirmite said:

Why not a High MP gripped camera? Just because it has a grip doesn't mean it's exclusively for sports photographers.

Click to expand...

no but, the gripped body only helps handheld operation. as soon as a tripod/slider or gimbal is involved, the grip doesnt have much value. I am not sure how much high resolution work is hand held. that said, if r52 had the r3 body and some faster readout that would have been great.

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...

Indeed. Some people conflate MP count and resolution, and some people think a 20-30% increase in MP count makes a big difference.

Tirmite said:

Why not a High MP gripped camera?

Click to expand...

Time will tell, but I doubt we'll see a high MP integrated grip body from Canon in the future. It limits the market, in that an accessory grip can be added and an integrated grip cannot be removed.

FWIW, I am in agreement with your position. When I got my first DSLR (a T1i/500D), I got the battery grip for it, and then for the 7D and 5DII. When the 1D X integrated speed, FF and the gripped form factor, I got that and stuck with it until the R3 then the R1. I far prefer the ergonomics of an integrated grip. But market realities seem to disagree.

neuroanatomist said:

Some data (with rounded numbers):

• 150,000 US professional photographers (BLS)
• 620,000 YouTube channels with 100k subs (Google)
• 6,600,000 ILCs shipped in 2024 (CIPA)

Extrapolate the US number to maybe 1,000,000 global professionals (big grain of salt, but the US represents ~25% of the population of the 'developed' world).

So if every professional photographer and every 'successful' YouTuber (as defined by a silver play button) bought a new ILC in 2024 (which didn't happen, of course), then that's about 25% of the market. So maybe the 'pro/creator' bucket accounts for 10% of the ILC market. Fully acknowledge there are many assumptions in the above, but even with those it's apparent that someone suggesting that professionals account for the majority camera sales is way off base.

The bottom line is that the market comprises a range of buyers, as Canon puts it they, "...offer a lineup that satisfies both demand for still image photography from professional photographers and camera enthusiasts, and for diverse video recording from social media users."

Click to expand...

I'll add 2 points for professional photographers (without data)....
- The cruise line industry is ruthless for minimising cost and maximising profitability for items besides cabin costs and their photography department would be one of those. They are still using DLSRs which surprised me but they have reasonable lighting. This avoids the need for high ISO sensors and no need for high mp sensors when printing to average sizes.
- In "developing" countries (think China/India/Indonesia etc) there are massive markets for weddings with middle class roughly defined as USD500-5000/month salary. India = ~10m weddings/year with Indonesia 1.5m and China = ~8m. The wedding segment can be a relatively big spend and "professional photographers" need to look professional. Having a "professional" ILC - even a DLSR - is a big differentiator compared to everyone having a phone with camera on it.

I am suggesting that volume professional photographers exist at the low cost end of photography.
With baby boomers retiring and living longer plus expanding middle class in all geographies allow them to have greater disposal income. All OEMs are chasing this more profitable growing segment.

EOS 4 Life said:

I am not sure how Canon or Sony would even know what the other was going to come out with.
Each camera was a reasonable upgrade.
The only advantage that Sony had is that they knew the Canon price ahead of setting theirs.

Click to expand...

Industrial Espionage is rife, it’s amazing what information financial bribes can yield.

gdanmitchell said:

"The only segmentation that made even a little sense to me was making it a high-resolution camera body. I mean well beyond the 45mp we see in the EOS R5 Mark II."

Canon's continuing inability or unwillingness to produce a high-resolution successor to my 5DsR is the reason that I'm almost certain to move to a different platform during the next year — most likely Sony.

(I don't care if it is "gripped," in fact I prefer that it not be for my purposes — in the same way that the 5DsR was largely the same body as the other 5D series bodies.)

Click to expand...

The R5 (and mark II) reportedly has roughly the same resolving power as the 5DsR, even if it has a slightly lower MP count.

Brown said:

If it was then they would have used a non-numerical name, like the R, Ra or the RP.

Click to expand...

They have done it that way too. But I think the name harked back to the EOS-3, at least in part.

Great Cormorant and Egyptian Geese in flight today (R5ii RF200-800mm).

Tirmite said:

But what IS great about a "gripped" camera like the R3 is this: one big battery that lasts a long time and is quick and easy to change.

Click to expand...

I wish the Li-Ion packs were longer and occupied the entirety of the vertical grip, like the Ni-MH predecessors.
Then, one battery would be enough for any job, even after the cells began to degrade.

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.

Click to expand...

It could serve dual purposes, if the resolution was high enough and the sensor had dual outputs.
The full sensor could record at modest speeds and a 30MP+ APS-C crop mode could run faster that the R7.
EVFs have eliminated the losses of crops due to their scalable nature.

TimS said:

Are we missing the obvious here?
Nikon do the same camera, one in a normal body, the other on a gripped body with the Z8 and Z9. So Canon could put the R5 II in a gripped body and call it R3 II...

Click to expand...

Just put the R5's sensor in the R3's body.

Why not a High MP gripped camera? Just because it has a grip doesn't mean it's exclusively for sports photographers.
And it's not like they have to design a completely new body. Stick a 45MP or hight sensor in the R3 body. Done!
Some of us don't like "small" camera bodies. I have always purchased the accessory grips because it makes the camera much more user friendly. The second battery is a benefit, but not the sole reason I've always preferred a grip.
There are fashion, portrait, architectural, technical, wedding, (I could keep going) photographers who shoot vertically and like having the grip and controls to duplicate the normal (horizontal) grip's buttons. I have a 100PM medium format (GFX) but I rarely need that much resolution. I have NEVER had a client in 40 years EVER ask for a huge file. Just doesn't happen. We shooters decide that and it's just not necessary 90% of the time. But what IS great about a "gripped" camera like the R3 is this: one big battery that lasts a long time and is quick and easy to change. You don't have to open a door on the bottom of the camera while you turn your rig upside down. You slide it in or out from the side. And you don't have to fumble with changing TWO batteries if you're dealing with a grip battery tray like on the R5. You can standardize on ONE battery and ONE charger instead of carrying one type for you R3 and another for your R5, R7, etc. Less gear to travel with. Les weight. The form factor is relatively small. My R3's are noticeably more compact than my 1Dx's were. It's a great szie. Not too small, not too big. It makes the camera more solid as well as good looking. I hate that "add-on" look. Kind of like converting your garage into another room. Sure it works, but it will always look modified and not as aesthetically pleasing as something integrally designed from the start. If you disagree with having nice looking gear then I question why you're a photographer: we are ALL ABOUT visuals. Looks matter as well a form and function and strength. Adding an external grip to an R5 or other model not only looks kind of stupid and cheap, it's one more area for dirt and dust to enter the camera and it's not going to be as rigid as a one-piece unibody. It's not about Gripped or No-Gripp bodies. It's about engineering a professional piece of equipment that performs at a professional level and does so in a right-sized package. There was the 1D and 1Ds as noted in the article. Just offer an R3S that has a sensor at least twice as large as the 24MP one. Charge another $500 and the only thing they need to do is change the badge on the outside. I wouldn't need or expect a 50+MP body to shoot as fast as the R1. It doesn't have to be a speed demon. Just get me a body built like a tank that doesn't weigh as much as a tank and gives me the option for large files that have more detail or allow more cropping but doesn't require me to also pack my medium format kit on a job or vacation. I just need one more slot in my camera case for that one extra body. It'll use the same lenses, battery, charger, eyecup and my muscle memory will love that it's exactly like my other R3's on the outside except for that "S" on the front.

Richard CR said:

Amusingly, I used the 18-150mm for those same use cases as you mention. have you tried it? I would use it with DLO though, as it needs to clean up it's mess in the corners and whatnot.

Click to expand...

No, I have not tried it. The 18mm in the wide end just sounds a bit boring to me...

osakawayne said:

The Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f2.8 is pretty much a perfect travel, all around compact and sharp lens. It's my main lens for my aps-c setup. Not sure Canon even needs to make anything to match it unless they add IS.

Click to expand...

And pairing it with 50mm in the long end doesn't make it any more interesting - at least not as a replacement for the 15-85mm.
As I said, I already have the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 and Sigma RF-S 17-40/1.8 to cover fast zooms - and btw also Sigma 10-18/2.8, 12/1.4 and 56/1.4. But for me, neither of those offers the everyday versatility of the 15-85mm zoom.

On paper, the closest thing I have seen looking like an alternative, must be the Sigma RF-S 16-300mm. I have always considered the 15-85mm to be of very high optical quality. But there's no denying that it is a 16 years old optical design. A superzoom always have some optical compromises, but considering the age difference, maybe the practical difference isn't so big afterall? I hear the biggest comprimise is in the long half of the 16-300mm range, and that is what matters least to me as a replacement for the 15-85mm. Anybody got any experience with the 16-300mm? It is probably difficult to find reviews of those two lenses head to head? (But I guess, after having found a very nice new (old) 15-85mm, changes are very little to switch unless Canon/Sigma comes up with a direct replacement for my favorite lens)

The R50V doesn't have active cooling (the Powershot V1 introduced at the same time does) and it's actually thinner than the M6 II.
It's a pretty good alternative, especially if you do video. If only thr screen were more visible in bright light.
Im still a big M fan, mostly using the M6 II and 22 as a compact.
I miss the 22 for sure, but I've never used the 32 much because the 50mm full frame equivalent just doesn't do much for me.
I bought into M during the original Fire Sale, and have owned most of the bodies since. I still have various original Ms, one full spectrum, and 3 others with various IR conversions. I've all the Canon EF-.lenses, and various others. I don't see myself abandoning it completely for some years, if at all
But these days, my favourite travel kit is R8, R50V, 10-20 f4L, 18-150, 24-240 and either 28mm f2.8 pancake or 24mm f1.8 - double the value on two formats.
If just using the R50V, the tiny RF-S 10-18 is great. I actually prefer it to the 11-22.
In all honesty, with my usage, the RF/RF-S lens range actually works perfectly fine for me.

scyrene said:

I think they chose 3 in the first place knowing it was likely a one off.

Click to expand...

If it was then they would have used a non-numerical name, like the R, Ra or the RP.

If it were $1500 and essentially an R8ii with more resolution but minus some video features, it’d make a nice second camera for me. $2000 would be a bit steep. You can get a new R5i for only $350 more right now

amorse said:

Sure, but the widest I think you can get on medium format for Fuji or Hasselblad X series is 20mm which is going to be around a 16mm full frame equivalent, and I'm using 10mm so it is a ways off of what I'm using a lot at the moment. Absolutely limited on the long end as well - my 100-400 has no real equivalent on either. I don't really want to be running two systems, so I'd rather stick with a higher resolution option in Canon's full frame ecosystem.

Click to expand...

Personally, I have the 10-20 and I rarely use it at 10 because I find it difficult to compose at 10mm: too much stuff in the frame

While it is true that most MF systems are limited at 16mm-equiv, more or less, I find it better because the lenses have a longer fl and behave in a way that I prefer.

Fuji has a GF 500mm lens (~400mm in 35mm equiv) but yes, that's a rarity and MF is not for applications heavy on tele lengths.
In the end, medium format systems are not a jack-of-all-trades. They are used for specific applications and that's why my R5 does the many things my Hassy can't or is ill-suited for

roby17269 said:

To be clear, resolution is more important than grip to me... if I had to choose / vote then higher res it would be for me.

Remember that MF bodies have different crop factors (<1) and lenses behave a bit differently so there is a bit of a learning curve. I was (very pleasantly) surprised by the way lenses behaved with my H5X. Having said that, it depends on your needs, as long tele is where MF bodies have the most limitations.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the widest I think you can get on medium format for Fuji or Hasselblad X series is 20mm which is going to be around a 16mm full frame equivalent, and I'm using 10mm so it is a ways off of what I'm using a lot at the moment. Absolutely limited on the long end as well - my 100-400 has no real equivalent on either. I don't really want to be running two systems, so I'd rather stick with a higher resolution option in Canon's full frame ecosystem.

Some data (with rounded numbers):

• 150,000 US professional photographers (BLS)
• 620,000 YouTube channels with 100k subs (Google)
• 6,600,000 ILCs shipped in 2024 (CIPA)

Extrapolate the US number to maybe 1,000,000 global professionals (big grain of salt, but the US represents ~25% of the population of the 'developed' world).

So if every professional photographer and every 'successful' YouTuber (as defined by a silver play button) bought a new ILC in 2024 (which didn't happen, of course), then that's about 25% of the market. So maybe the 'pro/creator' bucket accounts for 10% of the ILC market. Fully acknowledge there are many assumptions in the above, but even with those it's apparent that someone suggesting that professionals account for the majority camera sales is way off base.

The bottom line is that the market comprises a range of buyers, as Canon puts it they, "...offer a lineup that satisfies both demand for still image photography from professional photographers and camera enthusiasts, and for diverse video recording from social media users."

Be very careful, you're likely going to be disappointed. Even if it's high MP the spec list will still be far less than the R1. People always fall into that trap.

ddixon said:

FYI - for those that use DXO PhotoLab, they have now posted an update that supports the R6mIII.

Click to expand...

Finally!!

neuroanatomist said:

Oh, ok. That totally explains why you stated earlier this year that mirrorless camera prices are exploding and posted a graph that stopped in 2022, even though the data from 2023 and 2024 showing that prices had flattened out were readily available. And now you’re relying on AI to support your claims. I’m not surprised that you’re a former analyst. Nice to see that incompetence is not rewarded with continued employment.

Click to expand...

Were on an interent forum discussing cameras. This is not that serious. Have you ever heard of people getting promotions? Regardless let's agree to disagree. The fact that you interact with people like this says a lot about your character.

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. Expecially when for the most part they don't have the skill to take advantage of the more expensive equipment.

Meanwhile if you are a professional, having precapture can be the differnce between getting the shot or not. Who cares if you spend $3000 more for a camera body you are going to use for 3+ years? One good paid job justifies the cost.

Click to expand...

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.

foda said:

Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying the photos. The Hummingbirds are probably my favorite avian family (and among the most difficult to photograph well).

Click to expand...

Yes, hummers are a challenge to capture well. I have settled on the RF 200-800mm on an R7 as my best choice of gear. Faster glass is not helpful because as I am sure you have found, anything faster than f/8 puts half the bird out of focus if you are close enough to get decent magnification. I suspect your work is more challenging in that you are clearly photographing fully in the wild, whereas my backyard birds are pretty tame.