Canon PowerShot V3 is Coming Later in 2025

[Canon Rumors]

Canon will announce another PowerShot camera in the second half of 2025 if all goes to plan. We’re told that it will be called the PowerShot V3 and it will be the “superzoom” for the PowerShot lineup.

Read the Full Article

 

[domo_p1000]

Please squeeze a few extra mm: 24-600mm... an updated G3X - yes please!
That said, 24mm-480mm with DIGIC X and sensor based on the R7 32mp sensor will more than compensate for 600mm on a 1" 20.2MP (DIGIC 6) sensor.

 

[hoodlum]

Since this sensor is approx 2x, the lens would need to be 12-250m. If it has good IQ then this camera will definitely be well over $1k, regardless of aperture.

To provide some perspective this is the Sigma 16-300mm f3.5-6.7 for APS-C (600g + camera weight for $700 lens only) which was announced this week. The 2x crop version wouldn’t be much smaller/lighter since the front element would be similar

 

[neuroanatomist]

I prefer the faster 16-50 equivalent, personally. Don’t really need the active cooling of the V1 (but I may end up using this instead of my HF G60 camcorder sometimes).

 

[John Wilde]

A superzoom that doesn't have an extreme range accompanied by crappy image quality sounds good.

Canon model numbers leave room for a mysterious V2 in the future.

 

[Swissbob]

Please squeeze a few extra mm: 24-600mm... an updated G3X - yes please!
That said, 24mm-480mm with DIGIC X and sensor based on the R7 32mp sensor will more than compensate for 600mm on a 1" 20.2MP (DIGIC 6) sensor.

16-800mm would be perfect.
That’s a PowerShot which I really like.

 

[DhlcadR6]

If Canon made a 24/28-70 using the same CMOS as V1. Keep the ND and make it thinner/smaller. Ricoh needs to up their game.

 

[Navism]

so V is not for video?

waiting R50c, V1 size with R mount!!!

 

[Skux]

V2 photography version let's goooooo

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Interesting. The V1 is not for me because it focusses more on video than on stills. The V3 with the rumored specs appeals more to me. I´m particularly glad it won´t have this rediculous zoom range because the images look like s*** and it makes the camera heavy. Let´s wait and see how it turns out, but I'm almost kinda excited.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Well, I will be waiting for the V5 with 24-100mm equivalent zoom-range and a popup(?) EVF.
CP+ 2026 announcement?

 

[AlanF]

16-800mm would be perfect.
That’s a PowerShot which I really like.

A 1.4" 20 Mpx sensor has the same pixel density/pixel size as the 32 Mpx R7 sensor, and hence the same resolution/reach. A 240mm lens on the V3 gives the FF equivalent of 480mm (for a 20 MpxFF sensor) which is touted so you are getting no more resolution than putting a 240mm lens on the R7. Put an RF 100-400mm on the R7 and you have the equivalent of a 200-800mm zoom range on the V3. If I was going out birding.I'd take the R7 + RF 100-400mm, which would be far better for the longer ranges.

 

[snapshot]

A 1.4" 20 Mpx sensor has the same pixel density/pixel size as the 32 Mpx R7 sensor, and hence the same resolution/reach. A 240mm lens on the V3 gives the FF equivalent of 480mm (for a 20 MpxFF sensor) which is touted so you are getting no more resolution than putting a 240mm lens on the R7. Put an RF 100-400mm on the R7 and you have the equivalent of a 200-800mm zoom range on the V3. If I was going out birding.I'd take the R7 + RF 100-400mm, which would be far better for the longer ranges

i havent gotten super sharp pics at "280" in my pana zs100 which has a 20 MPix 1" sensor and some sort of stabilization. Maybe the autofocus will be better in the V3 and there is a stop more light. Is there a reason i would expect better performance than I see with the zs100? The good thing about this style of camera is the portability aspect and people react less to it than they would to an R5 + L lens

 

[AlanF]

i havent gotten super sharp pics at "280" in my pana zs100 which has a 20 MPix 1" sensor and some sort of stabilization. Maybe the autofocus will be better in the V3 and there is a stop more light. Is there a reason i would expect better performance than I see with the zs100? The good thing about this style of camera is the portability aspect and people react less to it than they would to an R5 + L lens

I used to travel with the Sony RX10iv which has a 1” sensor and an FF equivalent 24-600mm fov from a 2.7 crop factor with a true max focal length of 220mm. It’s a nice piece of kit and gives acceptable results throughout its range, and I know a lady who uses one to get some good bird shots. The Panasonic zs100 has only a 100mm or so lens and won’t be in the same league at longer focal lengths as the Sony or a new Canon with the larger sensor and longer lens.

 

[bn5fg]

This actually makes some sense. The R7 is an okay-ish camera, but it always lacked a proper lens. Even the 100-400mm f5.6-8 is too limiting on the R7 due to noise and the diffraction limit (which is around f/5.2 for the R7). Meanwhile, the 100-500mm is expensive and still not optimal at the long end.

Right now, the new Sigma 16-300mm f3.5-6.7 seems like the only technically viable option—but it’s short, and the actual iris is just a tiny 44mm.

At 3.20μm, we're already at Micro Four Thirds pixel size, so Canon might as well embrace it and create a product with a proper, dedicated lens.

 

[AlanF]

This actually makes some sense. The R7 is an okay-ish camera, but it always lacked a proper lens. Even the 100-400mm f5.6-8 is too limiting on the R7 due to noise and the diffraction limit (which is around f/5.2 for the R7). Meanwhile, the 100-500mm is expensive and still not optimal at the long end.

Right now, the new Sigma 16-300mm f3.5-6.7 seems like the only technically viable option—but it’s short, and the actual iris is just a tiny 44mm.

At 3.20μm, we're already at Micro Four Thirds pixel size, so Canon might as well embrace it and create a product with a proper, dedicated lens.

Once you are up to long telephoto lengths, you have to have the same size lens for FF, APS-C and micro 4/3. You can't make a dedicated telephoto lens for the R7, M4/3 etc because at the long focal lengths the image circle is large enough for FF, and you can't miniaturise it for the smaller sensors. For example, the dedicated Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO for OM Systems micro 4/3 weighs 1.875 kg, much heavier than the RF 100-500mm, and costs 2-3x more. Similarly, the Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f5-6.3 IS II lens is much heavier and more expensive than the RF 100-400mm. The RF 100-500mm is very sharp at 500mm, by the way, and the Zuiko at 500mm with its TC switched in is f/7.9, narrower than the RF 100-500mm's f/7.1. (The RF 100-500mm is f/6.3 at 400mm and so on FF and APS-C covers a wider range than the dedicated M4/3 lens.)

 

[bn5fg]

Once you are up to long telephoto lengths, you have to have the same size lens for FF, APS-C and micro 4/3. You can't make a dedicated telephoto lens for the R7, M4/3 etc because at the long focal lengths the image circle is large enough for FF, and you can't miniaturise it for the smaller sensors. For example, the dedicated Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO for OM Systems micro 4/3 weighs 1.875 kg, much heavier than the RF 100-500mm, and costs 2-3x more. Similarly, the Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f5-6.3 IS II lens is much heavier and more expensive than the RF 100-400mm. The RF 100-500mm is very sharp at 500mm, by the way, and the Zuiko at 500mm with its TC switched in is f/7.9, narrower than the RF 100-500mm's f/7.1. (The RF 100-500mm is f/6.3 at 400mm and so on FF and APS-C covers a wider range than the dedicated M4/3 lens.)

The RF100-500mm is in the same price tier as the R5, and I’d rather pair it with a proper R5—or even the R5 II. They feel like a perfect match.

The Olympus ecosystem has questionable value, but I’m thinking more along the lines of a Sigma 100-400mm or 150-600mm—shorter but faster alternatives to the RF100-500mm or RF200-800mm. Most importantly, they’re more affordable. But they don’t exist in Canon’s current RF lineup, and DSLR versions go crazy on the R7 due to its slow sensor and dated AF, making them frustrating to use.

And by the way, it’s not like I really care. Canon’s current full-frame lineup works perfectly fine for me, especially since I have access to some great-value wildlife lenses when I want a break from shooting portraits. I just wanted to point out that a hypothetical V3 with a long-range zoom would at least make some sense—unlike the V1, which feels completely useless to me.

 

[AlanF]

The RF100-500mm is in the same price tier as the R5, and I’d rather pair it with a proper R5—or even the R5 II. They feel like a perfect match.

The Olympus ecosystem has questionable value, but I’m thinking more along the lines of a Sigma 100-400mm or 150-600mm—shorter but faster alternatives to the RF100-500mm or RF200-800mm. Most importantly, they’re more affordable. But they don’t exist in Canon’s current RF lineup, and DSLR versions go crazy on the R7 due to its slow sensor and dated AF, making them frustrating to use.

And by the way, it’s not like I really care. Canon’s current full-frame lineup works perfectly fine for me, especially since I have access to some great-value wildlife lenses when I want a break from shooting portraits. I just wanted to point out that a hypothetical V3 with a long-range zoom would at least make some sense—unlike the V1, which feels completely useless to me.

I have the R7, R5 and R5ii as well as the RF 100-400, 100-500 and 200-800, so I have no axes to grind and plenty of experience. The RF 100-500mm works beautifully on the R7 and is a good alternative to the RF 200-800mm on the R5/R5ii. The AF on the R7 is not dated, it's actually newer than the AF on the R5 and has additional features. The Sigma lenses you mention are also slow focussing on the R5, and it's nothing to do with the speed of the R7 sensor.

 

[scyrene]

A superzoom that doesn't have an extreme range accompanied by crappy image quality sounds good.

Canon model numbers leave room for a mysterious V2 in the future.

On the other hand there's no R2, nor was there a 2D, so maybe Canon has an aversion to that number.

 

[scyrene]

A 1.4" 20 Mpx sensor has the same pixel density/pixel size as the 32 Mpx R7 sensor, and hence the same resolution/reach. A 240mm lens on the V3 gives the FF equivalent of 480mm (for a 20 MpxFF sensor) which is touted so you are getting no more resolution than putting a 240mm lens on the R7. Put an RF 100-400mm on the R7 and you have the equivalent of a 200-800mm zoom range on the V3. If I was going out birding.I'd take the R7 + RF 100-400mm, which would be far better for the longer ranges.

Presumably the compact camera would be cheaper overall, though?