The auto-level is great, I think until the R5ii/R1 the R7 was the only Canon camera with the feature. It could use some improvement for video however; right now if it's active and your pans aren't completely straight it rocks back and forth, hampering handheld use.
Apparently it disables EFC (electronic first curtain) too!
Been using the R7 exclusively since early 2023 (and exclusively ES since Early 2025), the shutter shock and rolling shutter are vastly overstated IMO, I pretty much only notice the latter with hummingbirds and clearwings. Auto-level is fine in stills, but in video it can wreck footage. I forgot to turn it off in the linked video and the rocking was quite unsightly, especially around 1:29
Just the normal amount of cripple
www.adorama.com
Thanks for sharing this. I asked the wrong question. What I hope to learn is the reason for this statement: "There is marginal benefit with pixel sizes of <3 µm and meaningful benefit with pixel sizes of <2 µm." I am guessing that above 3µm, the light gathering ability of FSI and BSI sensors does not have a significant difference, and that this difference becomes 'meaningful' below 2µm. If so, what are the main reason(s) for this dependence on pixel size?What is a BSI Sensor (Back Side-Illuminated Sensor)? - 42West
Digital photography took a digital step forward in reducing digital noise and improving image quality with the first BSI Sensor.
There’s a finite minimum amount of space taken up by the photodiode circuitry, so as the pixel gets smaller that circuitry takes up a greater fraction of the pixel area, meaning more light lost when that circuitry is in front. The 3 and 2 µm sizes aren’t specific cutoffs, the benefit with decreasing pixel size is continuous.
My guess is that the camera you are describing is a $3000 tp $3500 camera. All the evidence from the way Canon and Nikon have been reluctant to upgrade or even make a high level crop sensor camera makes me think it is unlikely. Nor will Canon care if the R3 mark II infringes on the R1 sales, as long as the R3 mark II sales are adequate. Either way they sell a profitable camera.
I could see the R3 model number being used for a high mp beast. I’d have thought that from a marketing position this should be more attractive than introducing a R5S
That depends on how much Canon wants to charge for it. The 21MP Canon 5d2 made the 21MP 1ds3 virtually unsellable. The 24MP Nikon D3X was replaced after 4 years by the D800, with 50% more pixels, a less rugged body and a 60% price reduction. People who want lots of pixels don't seem willing to pay for extreme ruggedness
Indeed that’s what history tells us so far. I’d see an ultra high mp R3ii as basically a ‘R5S’ configuration.
These day's Canon have really mapped their customer's shooting requiremens. Professional photographers is a very wide category of shooters. Sports and press photographers have very different requirements to say landscape, wildlife or even wedding photographers. Camera bdoies sales also are not indicative of the buying populace, not eveyone who has a R1 sells their frames for a living.
Canon knows how much profit they made from 5Ds/5DsR bodies, compared to the 1Ds series. If we see another 'high MP' body (i.e., significantly more than the R5 line) from Canon, I strongly suspect it will be in the R5-series body type and not the R3.
I prefer it to be in the 5-series. At least one of us will be happy if they do make a higher resolution sensor in one of the series!
