Let’s Talk EOS R3 Mark II

[GMCPhotographics]

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

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.

 

[Hector1970]

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.

 

[StaffordPrVa]

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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).

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).

 

[StaffordPrVa]

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).

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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.

 

[Chig]

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/

 

[masterpix]

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...

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"

 

[montyproductions]

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]

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

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.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

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?

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Like, an R30?

 

[Dragon]

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

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.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

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.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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

Makes sense, but at the time the R3 was released the naming scheme with numbers was already in place. It would have been really, really awkward going back to non-numerical name such as RS (sports).

 

[Sporgon]

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:
View attachment 227083

By the same logic a ‘high resolution’ R3 ii may not be a gripped body, just new naming for what would essentially be an R5S

 

[Sporgon]

The R5's 45mp sensor gives a score of 82 against the 5DSR's score of 79, the 5Ds with a score of 67.

Have you personally compared the 5Dsr and 5DS for ‘resolution’ ? I have, and after adding just 0.2 of a pixel USM there is naff all difference. Makes me suspicious of the quoted scores of ‘79’ and ‘67’.
From a practical photography perspective I now see mp figures as native output size rather than resolution.

 

[scyrene]

they should have put all the bells and whistles into the R1

That's not been their approach to the 1-series for a long time, if it ever was. It's not had the highest MP count of the lineup for several generations. Foremost seems to be robustness and reliability in a set of professional situations, like sport.

 

[mimbu]

I could see Canon using the 3 series to respond to the A9III, and maybe bring a global shutter sensor to RF. Probably not particularly soon, but at some point.

 

[snapshot]

I could see Canon using the 3 series to respond to the A9III, and maybe bring a global shutter sensor to RF. Probably not particularly soon, but at some point.

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