2022 is scheduled to ‘The Year of the Camera Body’ [CR3]

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,041
1,224
UK
I'm not sure though there is a huge number of photographers who prefer a DSLR to a MILC per say. It probably depends on their experience with a MILC. A MILC has alot of advantages but the quality of the view finder is key. Newer ones are quite excellent. Silent shutter and seeing what the exposure actually is are huge advantages with MILC, maybe you have to use a DSLR to see what you are missing.
Speaking just for myself, I've owned many DSLRs and the viewfinders on many of the APS-C modes have been abysmal, like looking at a dark window at the end of a tunnel. But the same can be said of the EVFs in many budget MILCs - often small, coarse, contrasty and generally unpleasant. I actually think that the "WYSIWYG" aspects of EVFs is overrated. For me, the real advantages of MILCs lie in the faster and more accurate AF and tracking systems.

Currently I have a 5DMkiv and an R5. Although the R5 has many advantages over the DSLR (quieter, lighter, faster, better sensor, more precise AF etc), I still very much prefer the optical viewfinder on my 5DMkiv. I love the fact that the viewfinder works the same way as my own eyes - seeing light levels as they exist in reality. To me it's a bit like comparing the experience of looking through a window, to looking at a TV screen. I also love the way that an optical viewfinder is always "on" - I can raise the camera to my eye and it's instantly available, whereas with even the best MILCs there is a brief time lag before the EVF springs into life.

The truth is that each type of camera has a different "feel", and while most people nowadays seem to prefer an EVF, there are many who just feel much more comfortable with an optical viewfinder. It's also equally true that the viewfinder experience with either DSLR or MILC varies considerably according to how much you spend - Rebel viewfinders are pretty awful compared e.g. to those on a 5DMkiv or 1DXiii.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

bergstrom

Photographer
Feb 23, 2015
443
289
First thing to do with theR P2 or maybe RX is rip out that Goddam lp-e17 and stick in a Lp-e6. Make the body bigger if you have to and a silent shutter
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,635
3,039
Higher quality evf is what sold me on my R6. Using an Oly m43 Pen F was a cute but all in all horrid experience, next up was the M5 which had a good ergonomic feel and pleasant menu system albeit Powershot based not EOS style. However the evf still wasn't matured enough at that point for me to leave my 5D3. The R6 is nearly perfect and the sensor blows my mind as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
59
91
Using the R6/1DxIII sensor in the RP-II would be a huge improvement. I shot the 1DxIII and RP side-by-side and the 1DxIII pictures had a lot more fine detail and much less noise when taking pictures of dragonflies at dawn, even with less megapixels than the RP.
I hope that using the same sensor across 3 or more models would make it cheaper to produce which would keep the RP-II and the same price as the original RP.

That's the thing though, 1DX iii came out in 2020 with this new sensor and it is a $6500 camera. It is already quite surprising that Canon was willing to use it in a $2500 camera just 6mo later (to grab milc marketshare no doubt, which worked to great effect). If they stick the same sensor on a sub $1000 camera just 2 years after release I think it will jade a lot of old 'loyal pros' who bought the 1DX iii and kill its value.

Having said that though, if they did use it as a RP mk ii sensor and priced it at sub $1000, that would be an autobuy as a second body for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,678
6,114
That's the thing though, 1DX iii came out in 2020 with this new sensor and it is a $6500 camera. It is already quite surprising that Canon was willing to use it in a $2500 camera just 6mo later (to grab milc marketshare no doubt, which worked to great effect). If they stick the same sensor on a sub $1000 camera just 2 years after release I think it will jade a lot of old 'loyal pros' who bought the 1DX iii and kill its value.

Having said that though, if they did use it as a RP mk ii sensor and priced it at sub $1000, that would be an autobuy as a second body for me.
That just sounds like you aren’t a 1 series user. The sensor isn’t everything, processors make a huge difference to output and cost. AF, build quality, durability, etc are the hallmarks of the 1 series and they can all be reduced or eliminated to reduce costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
520
1,138
That's the thing though, 1DX iii came out in 2020 with this new sensor and it is a $6500 camera. It is already quite surprising that Canon was willing to use it in a $2500 camera just 6mo later (to grab milc marketshare no doubt, which worked to great effect). If they stick the same sensor on a sub $1000 camera just 2 years after release I think it will jade a lot of old 'loyal pros' who bought the 1DX iii and kill its value.

Having said that though, if they did use it as a RP mk ii sensor and priced it at sub $1000, that would be an autobuy as a second body for me.
There is very little difference in any sensor since they all (except for the RP ) have the newer architecture. Despite the outcries on forums and Youtube reviewers, using older sensors going back to the 5DIV generation would give almost identical results as a brand new sensor. The 1DX III is $6500 and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
59
91
That just sounds like you aren’t a 1 series user. The sensor isn’t everything, processors make a huge difference to output and cost. AF, build quality, durability, etc are the hallmarks of the 1 series and they can all be reduced or eliminated to reduce costs.
Correct, I am a R6 user. I agree that many other factors work together to differentiate the 1D series, but the difference in pricing is just too stark to be using the heart of 1DX iii in entry level camera. Now that there is no longer separate AF modules, it is all about algorithm and processor. Canon's next RP ii won't continue to use Digic 8, so with a Digic X the AF will be brought up to R6 standards as it would be cheaper to copy paste algorithms than to intentionally write and test additional code to cripple the AF. RP getting that sensor and AF would be like Ferrari sticking the engine and transmission of their 812 in a tiny car and selling it for $50k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,407
1,118
Yorkshire, England
Correct, I am a R6 user. I agree that many other factors work together to differentiate the 1D series, but the difference in pricing is just too stark to be using the heart of 1DX iii in entry level camera. Now that there is no longer separate AF modules, it is all about algorithm and processor. Canon's next RP ii won't continue to use Digic 8, so with a Digic X the AF will be brought up to R6 standards as it would be cheaper to copy paste algorithms than to intentionally write and test additional code to cripple the AF. RP getting that sensor and AF would be like Ferrari sticking the engine and transmission of their 812 in a tiny car and selling it for $50k.
Although Canon use the “same” sensor in the 1DXIII and R6 there is certainly at least one difference and that it the AA filter. I guess it’s possible for Canon to use the “same” sensor in a RPII, but if the likes of the architecture and micro lenses are changed / cheapened does that make it the same sensor ? I guess if you are Canon’s marketing department the answer is ‘yes’ and if you’re Sporgon the answer’s ‘no’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,407
1,118
Yorkshire, England
First thing to do with theR P2 or maybe RX is rip out that Goddam lp-e17 and stick in a Lp-e6. Make the body bigger if you have to and a silent shutter
I disagree. True the RP is the current budget FF but it is still one of the smallest and lightest FF cameras. It’s due to the latter specs that I bought one. (Those that know me on CR will now be smirking in the knowledge that it’s really the former spec). The larger battery would increase the size and weight of the camera; I’d rather have the smaller camera and a spare battery or two and budget that into the initial purchase cost.
It’s the same situation with the G1XIII; that camera’s battery is dire but it does mean that camera is small enough to genuinely fit in a coat pocket. The original G1X would not. But you have to accept that you need spare batteries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
519
780
Orewa , New Zealand
Still hoping for an R7 with BSI stacked sensor to replace my 7Dii , I'm tempted to buy an R5 instead as it's very good for bird photography (and a vast improvement over my 7Dii) but the rolling shutter is off putting when I see the very similar (but much more expensive) Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 with the improved sensors which eliminate this and I'd be pretty frustrated if the R7 came out after I bought an R5 but losing hope of Canon ever making my dream camera

Ideally from my point of view (my dream camera but not very likely Canon will make it) an R7 would be based on the R3 body with new aps-c BSI stacked sensor and priced about the same as the R5 or a bit higher (even similar price to the R3 would be tempting at least for me as it would be the ultimate birding camera)

Far more likely the R7 would be based on the R6 with again new aps-c BSI stacked sensor and priced similarly to the R6 or perhaps slightly less.

An eventual R5 mark ii with an updated BSI stacked sensor would be great too but I suspect we'll be waiting 'till about 2024 for that

Another cool possibility would be an R2 based on the R3 with a full frame 50mp BSI stacked sensor which would be great for wildlife and especially birding , a lot of people are hoping the R1 will be speced like this but I doubt that Canon will go high resolution on their flagship replacement for the 1DXiii sports body. An R2 based on the R3 would be relatively cheap to develop and manufacture though and not upset the Pro sports market.

A line up of 3 cameras sharing the R3 body architecture would make sense I think:
  • R1 : very much successor to 1DX line with modest resolution of 24-30mp , much improved focus acquisition and uber tough body and freakish speed with dual digic X processors and twin CFe card slots and launch date 2024 with pricing about $6,500-7,000 USD
  • R2 : wildlife/landscape high resolution of about 50-60mp and very similar otherwise to the R3 and pricing similar to R3
  • R3 : pro/enthusiast sports camera and testbed for R1.
Lots of possibilities and it'll be interesting to see what Canon chooses to develop
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

John Wilde

EOS RP
Jan 2, 2021
230
386
Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
In unit sales, Canon's mirrorless Rebel (M50) is their best selling mirrorless camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,820
4,801
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
Only professional and enthusiast cameras still sell reasonably well now
I'm not going to pile on. Others have pointed out that Rebels and M series still sell quite well. But, I do agree that the handwriting is on the wall for low end interchangeable lens digital cameras and I think Canon (along with other camera companies) are well aware of where the market is headed. In fact I've said as much in other threads.

I doubt they will disappear, but I also don't expect Canon to make any major investments in the sector. All camera companies are chasing the enthusiast market today (The professional market has also been fading for the past several years). The market for Rebels and M series is shrinking. It may never disappear, but it certainly isn't where Canon is investing their R&D dollars, which is a good signal of where they think the market is headed. Canon may see a niche for compact APS-C bodies like the M series and may transition the remaining amateur interchangeable lens camera market to M and low-cost R bodies.

They will continue to make Rebels for the time being, but it isn't where the investment is going.

Long-term though, I don't know what camera manufacturers do, as the enthusiast market skews older and it may also die out eventually (at a minimum the replacement rate doesn't seem sufficient to offset the mortality rate).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

esglord

EOS RP
May 9, 2019
66
83
I disagree. True the RP is the current budget FF but it is still one of the smallest and lightest FF cameras. It’s due to the latter specs that I bought one. (Those that know me on CR will now be smirking in the knowledge that it’s really the former spec). The larger battery would increase the size and weight of the camera; I’d rather have the smaller camera and a spare battery or two and budget that into the initial purchase cost.
It’s the same situation with the G1XIII; that camera’s battery is dire but it does mean that camera is small enough to genuinely fit in a coat pocket. The original G1X would not. But you have to accept that you need spare batteries.
I also just carry two spare batteries, and it’s no big deal. That said, for me, the camera is actually a bit too small or more accurately too short, so I leave an L bracket on it at all times to give my pinky somewhere to rest. I’d take a bigger size to get better battery life. Still very happy with the camera. Only jealous of the DPAF II on R6 and R5
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
520
1,138
I'm not going to pile on. Others have pointed out that Rebels and M series still sell quite well. But, I do agree that the handwriting is on the wall for low end interchangeable lens digital cameras and I think Canon (along with other camera companies) are well aware of where the market is headed. In fact I've said as much in other threads.

I doubt they will disappear, but I also don't expect Canon to make any major investments in the sector. All camera companies are chasing the enthusiast market today (The professional market has also been fading for the past several years). The market for Rebels and M series is shrinking. It may never disappear, but it certainly isn't where Canon is investing their R&D dollars, which is a good signal of where they think the market is headed. Canon may see a niche for compact APS-C bodies like the M series and may transition the remaining amateur interchangeable lens camera market to M and low-cost R bodies.

They will continue to make Rebels for the time being, but it isn't where the investment is going.

Long-term though, I don't know what camera manufacturers do, as the enthusiast market skews older and it may also die out eventually (at a minimum the replacement rate doesn't seem sufficient to offset the mortality rate).
I agree that the investment dollars are definitely in the higher-end products. But as far as long term strategy - I think camera companies are pretty much screwed. As far as economics are concerned, I think it is not even long term, but medium term where camera companies need to realize that to survive, they will have to drastically cut back on R&D spending. DSLRs had already reached a point where there was little that could be done to improve the cameras from one generation to the next, but luckily for the camera companies, mirrorless gave them an opportunity to make advances in FPS, AF with eye, vehicle and other tracking abilities, and a few other things. But how much farther can they go without further advances being more about hype than actual improvements? If birders are already getting 80-90% of shots in focus, and sports shooters are getting 30 FPS with buffers that don't fill up, it seems like todays generation of cameras will quickly (within perhaps one more generation) reach a point where the vast majority of photographers will be happy with what they have and won't upgrade until they need to. That, of course, is what the camera business was all about before digital. You bought a camera as a tool and used it until it needed to be replaced. Much like the computer business is today where we are now long past is the time where you felt the need to upgrade a home computer because newer models were faster and more efficient and there were real improvements. The computer I have today (not being a computer geek) is essentially the same as the computer I had 2 computer ago (10 to 15 or more years ago?) aside from having a larger hard drive. I get a new computer now when the old one starts having real issues and needs repair.

As sales continue to plummet, camera companies (I believe) will be forced into the same business model or will go under. Each new generation of camera will be only very marginally improved (if at all) and will be aimed at new customers - not up-graders. Far less R&D money will need to be spent. It might be 5 to 10 years between generations. That would work...except...The YouTubers, the forum dwellers, the online reviewers and influencers would kill any company that tries it. The marketing fallout would be disastrous. (Or maybe not...Canon's M50 II was roasted online for being a very minimal upgrade, but consumers don't seem to mind, but I think the enthusiast market would be outraged.) Look how companies get ridiculed today if they use a 4 year old sensor, even when that sensor performs just as well as a newer sensor.

Camera companies will be in a real bind - a bind they may already be feeling when it comes to improving their products with each generation or facing the online wrath. Since sensors have not really improved in a number of years, we now see companies adding a little noise reduction to their RAW files so they "appear" to be improving. Companies hype a certain number of FPS, but in the fine print you find out there are numerous caveats, such as battery life, only certain lenses, etc. Canon, who I believe historically has been reluctant to play that game, now seems to have realized that they have to join the "hype" party to compete with Sony - the leaders of Spec hype for many years now. Sony has understood that bigger numbers mean bigger publicity and better reviews, regardless of actual performance. One recent example is EVF resolution. I've seen a few reviewers faulting the Nikon Z9 for having a lower resolution than Sony (the A1, I would imagine without looking it up). And yet, I've now seen multiple photographers who have experienced both cameras say that the EVF of the NIkon Z9 is better. Most likely, because Nikon is using better glass in their EVF. In my brief experience with Sony, their EVFs were definitely inferior. But as long as the "number" of dots is higher, they seem to win the spec (and hype) battle - and that's where it counts in today's sound bite, YouTube review world. So, the question will be, how can a company survive the spec wars, when the amount of R&D money necessary to continue to try improve products that are already mature will drive them out of business. Don't have an answer to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,820
4,801
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I agree that the investment dollars are definitely in the higher-end products. But as far as long term strategy - I think camera companies are pretty much screwed. As far as economics are concerned, I think it is not even long term, but medium term where camera companies need to realize that to survive, they will have to drastically cut back on R&D spending. DSLRs had already reached a point where there was little that could be done to improve the cameras from one generation to the next, but luckily for the camera companies, mirrorless gave them an opportunity to make advances in FPS, AF with eye, vehicle and other tracking abilities, and a few other things. But how much farther can they go without further advances being more about hype than actual improvements? If birders are already getting 80-90% of shots in focus, and sports shooters are getting 30 FPS with buffers that don't fill up, it seems like todays generation of cameras will quickly (within perhaps one more generation) reach a point where the vast majority of photographers will be happy with what they have and won't upgrade until they need to. That, of course, is what the camera business was all about before digital. You bought a camera as a tool and used it until it needed to be replaced. Much like the computer business is today where we are now long past is the time where you felt the need to upgrade a home computer because newer models were faster and more efficient and there were real improvements. The computer I have today (not being a computer geek) is essentially the same as the computer I had 2 computer ago (10 to 15 or more years ago?) aside from having a larger hard drive. I get a new computer now when the old one starts having real issues and needs repair.

As sales continue to plummet, camera companies (I believe) will be forced into the same business model or will go under. Each new generation of camera will be only very marginally improved (if at all) and will be aimed at new customers - not up-graders. Far less R&D money will need to be spent. It might be 5 to 10 years between generations. That would work...except...The YouTubers, the forum dwellers, the online reviewers and influencers would kill any company that tries it. The marketing fallout would be disastrous. (Or maybe not...Canon's M50 II was roasted online for being a very minimal upgrade, but consumers don't seem to mind, but I think the enthusiast market would be outraged.) Look how companies get ridiculed today if they use a 4 year old sensor, even when that sensor performs just as well as a newer sensor.

Camera companies will be in a real bind - a bind they may already be feeling when it comes to improving their products with each generation or facing the online wrath. Since sensors have not really improved in a number of years, we now see companies adding a little noise reduction to their RAW files so they "appear" to be improving. Companies hype a certain number of FPS, but in the fine print you find out there are numerous caveats, such as battery life, only certain lenses, etc. Canon, who I believe historically has been reluctant to play that game, now seems to have realized that they have to join the "hype" party to compete with Sony - the leaders of Spec hype for many years now. Sony has understood that bigger numbers mean bigger publicity and better reviews, regardless of actual performance. One recent example is EVF resolution. I've seen a few reviewers faulting the Nikon Z9 for having a lower resolution than Sony (the A1, I would imagine without looking it up). And yet, I've now seen multiple photographers who have experienced both cameras say that the EVF of the NIkon Z9 is better. Most likely, because Nikon is using better glass in their EVF. In my brief experience with Sony, their EVFs were definitely inferior. But as long as the "number" of dots is higher, they seem to win the spec (and hype) battle - and that's where it counts in today's sound bite, YouTube review world. So, the question will be, how can a company survive the spec wars, when the amount of R&D money necessary to continue to try improve products that are already mature will drive them out of business. Don't have an answer to that.
Well said. You raise an interesting point about reviewers that I hadn't thought about. An entire eco system has been created that relies heavily on an unending stream of new products. Not sure what those folks will do as the improvements from one generation to another become more marginal and are stretched out for longer cycles.

Years ago, Thom Hogan wrote some columns about the "last camera," essentially arguing that the quality of cameras had reached a point where most people didn't need to upgrade. Still, that was like 8-10 years ago and the upgrades keep coming and people keep buying.

Companies do seem very good at introducing new features that become "must haves." (Eye Control autofocus anyone?) I'm as bad as anyone in terms of buying into the desire to upgrade. But, a bigger threat may be the aging out of the market. I don't think there is any question that the enthusiast market skews older and, as the saying goes, in the long run we will all be dead.

For several years I've argued that the market is headed back to the old film days, where cameras lasted at least 10 years and lenses much longer. The cycles might not be quite that long, but I suspect maturing technology and aging customers will catch up to the manufacturers and to the people who are making their living off the continuous introduction of new products.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
690
624
As is often pointed out, the Rebel series and M series bodies will continue for as long as they are profitable - and they seem to continue to be so. I think the upcoming lower-$ R series bodies (and also the APSC 'R7') will be an insight into the future. It's hard to see (I agree) any significant investment in the APSC DSLRs or M series going forward, so assuming that introductory and mid-range ILCs remain profitable, they will have to be transitioned into the R series. But over what time period? If people keep buying Rebels or Ms (especially in kits with 1 / 2 lenses) the way they seem to at the moment, there is no reason to move those lines on, from Canon's point of view. People moving 'up' from smartphones will still see a big jump in IQ with ILCs and even kit lenses. But, yes, surely at some point there will be a convergence of the mounts.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

PhotoGenerous

R5/R6 + GAS
CR Pro
Apr 11, 2017
66
90
So, the question will be, how can a company survive the spec wars, when the amount of R&D money necessary to continue to try improve products that are already mature will drive them out of business. Don't have an answer to that.

I feel like that current answer was stuff that Canon has been doing for years that is always touted in those reviews. From DPAF to eye-autofocus R5/R6, Canon reviews are always praising how good Canon's autofocus features are top of the line. Focusing on video as well as photography despite all the outcry from online photographers about paying "extra" for features that keep the consumer base wider are part of that answer, and features that they'll "never" use. (Way too many photographers on reddit would raise hell when articulating screens were introduced and touch screens, and how features like those better stay in the Rebel cameras only and not come to their 6D, 5D, 1D cameras. That just never made any sense to me.)

Making almost all non-L RF primes 1:2 macro lenses so people aren't confused why their phones can take close up photos but their new cameras can't eliminates some confusion and frustration. So good job there continuing to reduce minimum focus distance. Making all those lenses have smooth STM motors for video, and the new cameras treat autofocus different when in photo mode vs video mode help keep the cameras relevant to more people.

Canon's set up with the full range of body price points and quality/feature set, with the cheaper end getting yearly releases and the more "professional" you go the less frequent the release (but more expensive), seemed like a good strategy. And that's probably why they want this year to be the year of the body. The lenses are there, they need to fill out the body price point range now.

Looking at the long view of Canon's release history, it seems like they've clearly known where they wanted to go and at what speed, and were always thinking several steps ahead.

One thing I think they could do better at for the lower end consumer is do a better job at making photos easier to share and do a better job advertising it. When I went to a Christmas gathering with friends, I was happy to let everyone take group photos with their phones because they want to then immediately mass text/share it with everyone. That's what low end consumers want.

Back to some praise, while most consumers might never know why shutter speed mode is called Tv, Canon does at least have nice little one or two page tutorials and reminders when switching modes on M6II to explain what the modes do. Improvements like that to lower the barrier in using more camera features is a great thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,118
2,147
[..]One thing I think they could do better at for the lower end consumer is do a better job at making photos easier to share and do a better job advertising it. When I went to a Christmas gathering with friends, I was happy to let everyone take group photos with their phones because they want to then immediately mass text/share it with everyone. That's what low end consumers want. [..]
Not just low end consumers, I would appreciate faster sharing as well. The Camera Connect app has improved a lot and recent Canon bodies handle wifi a lot better, but it still takes way too many steps to get a picture on to a phone.
I would love to see something that behaves like apples Airdrop: press ‘share’ during image review and you get a list of devices you can send the picture to, select the device and done!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
143
50
57
italy
Hello, I own a R5 and very happy with it. I do documentary and street people portraits, events, street life, landscape, travel, astrophotography (including northen lights, strar trails and milky way). I have several RF lenses and I feel that often a second camera body will be handy. So I am not sure which one to get? An R6 (maybe better for low light/night photography) or wait for the R7 or R5s? I do NOT need a bigger file size than current R5's 45 megapixels (maybe smaller is better for certain photo genre as reported above) and so not sure btw the R7, R5 and R6 which one might the right choice. Any help appreciated.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,924
15,568
Hello, I own a R5 and very happy with it. I do documentary and street people portraits, events, street life, landscape, travel, astrophotography (including northen lights, strar trails and milky way). I have several RF lenses and I feel that often a second camera body will be handy. So I am not sure which one to get? An R6 (maybe better for low light/night photography) or wait for the R7 or R5s? I do NOT need a bigger file size than current R5's 45 megapixels (maybe smaller is better for certain photo genre as reported above) and so not sure btw the R7, R5 and R6 which one might the right choice. Any help appreciated.
I bought the R6 to accompany my R5. It's competitively priced, has the same great AF as the R5 but just at lower Mpx. The sensor itself is a good one.