Canon EOS R3 Mark II planned for 2025

[kaihp]

It should be possible with a prism separating the light after exiting the lens. You would still have to choose which parts of each photo to use, so it's hard to think some direction or motion blur wouldn't be good enough, all things considered.

It was meant as a joke

 

[EricN]

It was meant as a joke

I thought so, but decided it's a nice thought experiment.

 

[tvexecutive]

Has implications, not only for the R3 line, but also for the specifications of the forthcoming R1. Is Canon is going back to the old 1D/1Ds type arrangement?

 

[tvexecutive]

R1 / R3 II ? Nikon Z9 Z8 and Sony as a whole have both done an amazing job. Canon faces real headwinds. Will the the R3II be as good as the Z9 before the Z9II is out? Will the R1 be as good on the fashion runway as in the studio or on the Olympic fields? Canon has a lot to prove, I just don't have faith after shooting the GFX 50's and 100's, Nikon Z9 and the SONY A9 etc.... Our agency hopes the R1 will keep us with Canon, time will tell.

 

[john1970]

R1 / R3 II ? Nikon Z9 Z8 and Sony as a whole have both done an amazing job. Canon faces real headwinds. Will the the R3II be as good as the Z9 before the Z9II is out? Will the R1 be as good on the fashion runway as in the studio or on the Olympic fields? Canon has a lot to prove, I just don't have faith after shooting the GFX 50's and 100's, Nikon Z9 and the SONY A9 etc.... Our agency hopes the R1 will keep us with Canon, time will tell.

It will be interesting to see how Canon divides up their EOS R system relative to Nikon and Sony. Personally, I do not find the R3 lacking in any respect to the Sony A9II or Nikon Z9 (expect in resolution). Of course, the A9 III has a global shutter, but it is not available until the end of Q1 2024.

 

[scyrene]

Canon faces real headwinds.

Why? Or more specifically , why now as opposed to at any previous time?

Canon has a lot to prove

They really don't.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Why? Or more specifically , why now as opposed to at any previous time?

They really don't.

I am not sure why an agency would go with who is ahead at a particular moment in time but it does sound like Canon has something to prove to that agency.
I can understand why someone working for that agency would be concerned.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Jared Polin has published a video (link) in which he compares the R3 with the A9 III (with firmware 1.0). The title is : “High ISO review: Not what I expected”.

His video provides links to photos comparing the image quality of the R3 with the A9III and it is SAFE TO SAY with anyone that has eyeballs that the image quality of the A9III at ISO 6400-25600 is unacceptable for a lot of us with modern camera capabilities. Borderline worse than modern APS-C. The color reproduction of the A9III in the shadows at ISO 12800-25600 is...I'll just say it here - it's absolute trash. Reds and oranges (think skin tones) look horrendous and flat. I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but there's not a chance in hell I would make this my main camera because of this limitation. I shoot at ISO 12800 very often at motorsports events. I really hope that if Canon comes out with a global shutter camera it's significantly improved at higher ISO.

 

[john1970]

His video provides links to photos comparing the image quality of the R3 with the A9III and it is SAFE TO SAY with anyone that has eyeballs that the image quality of the A9III at ISO 6400-25600 is unacceptable for a lot of us with modern camera capabilities. Borderline worse than modern APS-C. The color reproduction of the A9III in the shadows at ISO 12800-25600 is...I'll just say it here - it's absolute trash. Reds and oranges (think skin tones) look horrendous and flat. I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but there's not a chance in hell I would make this my main camera because of this limitation. I shoot at ISO 12800 very often at motorsports events. I really hope that if Canon comes out with a global shutter camera it's significantly improved at higher ISO.

Thank you for your feedback. For my genes of photography (wildlife and landscapes) I have very little if any need for a global shutter and much prefer a wide native ISO range with a solid base ISO. Stacked sensors are fine until the technology addresses the lISO limitations with global sensors.

 

[john1970]

I've been telling people the same things. I think Global shutter needs to be more for video than photography. I hope when Canon comes out with their video centric Mirrorless camera (like the FX3 for Sony), that they use a Global Shutter! I also hope the FX3 mark ii (whenever it comes out) uses a global shutter. I can see benefits for video, but for photography stacked sensors are going to be the better option (or just using your mechanical shutters assuming that your brand still has one).

I definitely see the benefits for video as well and I believe that Canon did offer a Super 35 global sensor in the C700 cinema camera several years ago, but this cost $30K+ at the time.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

it's absolute trash

It might be a fair tradeoff but Sony is completely misrepresenting the camera.
It seems fine for flash photography where it gets plenty of light.
The 1/80,000 shutter speed is not really useful but that can be said about the highest shutter speed on most cameras.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think Global shutter needs to be more for video than photography.

As a hybrid shooter, I disagree.
Video tends to have much slower shutter speeds.
Also, banding is not really a problem in video at the correct framerates.
The reason the Komodo is so popular is that it is by far the cheapest modern RED.

 

[EricN]

Yup We agree! and yes they (Canon) did (you can now pick it up for under $5K lol). I have been using the C700 GS on posts to piss off Sony people who keep saying "Sony was the first to do it and how Canon is falling behind and can never catch up". I bring up how Canon did it in 2016, copy and paste sites that used to sell the original C700 GS and highlight the date. Then I say; "but Sony was the first to go it in a compact full frame ICL (inter changeable lens). So Sony's marketing team did a remarkable job in the semantics of the a9 iii. It's really been making those Sony people angry for some reason lol! I find it strange that people think any of these companies are far behind the other. Nikon was the first to say hey we put 120 FPS in the Z9 (after everyone said the Sony A1 was blowing away the competition), Then Canon did 195FPS in the R3 and everyone was talking about the blackout and the fact that you were stuck with the original AF point, then Sony comes out with the a9iii and YouTubers are taking about it, when it faces the same issues as both of the cameras before it even though the AI AF is great, hearing comments from YouTubers about all the images it misses is the same issues that Nikon and Canon had with the Z9 and R3, the only benefit is no rolling shutter at that speed, but most photographers only need the 30 FPS max (really most professional sports and wildlife photographers only really need 12-15 FPS with that speed being constant speed and no blackouts, but that's neither here nor there). so that's not the issue. Stacked Sensors have been shown to reduce motion blur when shooting electronically (and if you shoot mechanical, you don't have motion blur issues), so that's not an issue. for Strobes there are so many ways you can shoot to get similar effects of shooting 1/80,000 of a second, so that's not an issue (plus if you use a camera that requires a leaf shutter, you're getting up to 1/20,000 of a second and that doesn't have a global shutter). So really, from a photography perspective, what is global shutter really offering? Video!

Beyond marketing, these technical specs aren't important for most people. We can't get away from the ISO / Aperture / Shutter Speed and Price / weight / quality triangles.

 

[TheRealUnfocused]

Has implications, not only for the R3 line, but also for the specifications of the forthcoming R1. Is Canon is going back to the old 1D/1Ds type arrangement?

We've discussed this before. While the R1 will certainly be a great camera for professionals, that market is shrinking fast. I expect the R1 will focus on features that serious enthusiasts with disposable income want (primarily a high megapixel count). You might be the target audience. The R3 could be targeted to what remains of professional sports and news photographers, who are satisfied with a little less resolution in exchange for a large buffer. The lower cost of the R3 would also be appealing since more and more news and sports photographers are independent contractors who have to supply their own equipment. Canon has to follow the dollars and the dollars are just not in news and sports anymore.

 

[john1970]

We've discussed this before. While the R1 will certainly be a great camera for professionals, that market is shrinking fast. I expect the R1 will focus on features that serious enthusiasts with disposable income want (primarily a high megapixel count). You might be the target audience. The R3 could be targeted to what remains of professional sports and news photographers, who are satisfied with a little less resolution in exchange for a large buffer. The lower cost of the R3 would also be appealing since more and more news and sports photographers are independent contractors who have to supply their own equipment. Canon has to follow the dollars and the dollars are just not in news and sports anymore.

Maybe Canon would differentiate between the R3 and R1 similar to the Sony A9 vs. A1? Both will be expensive cameras (i.e. Sony A1 is $6500 and Sony A9III is $6000). R3 will be the fastest and best low-light performance at native resolution. R1 will be a bit slower, but still fast like the Nikon Z9, and ~twice the number of pixels.

Of course, this assumes that the rumored R3 MkII is correct, which it may not be.... Time will tell.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The R3 could be targeted to what remains of professional sports and news photographers, who are satisfied with a little less resolution in exchange for a large buffer

The R3 does not have a large buffer.
It is definitely not the mirrorless 1DX III even though it replaced that camera for a lot of us.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Of course, this assumes that the rumored R3 MkII is correct,

I hope so.
I do not think Canon will take the a9 III lying down.

 

[john1970]

I hope so.
I do not think Canon will take the a9 III lying down.

I agree. I could see a R3 Mk2 being Canon's first global sensor camera. For myself, I typically do wildlife photography / landscapes so for me more pixels and a stacked sensor are good enough until a high resolution (45 MP) global sensor with solid ISO range becomes a reality in the next product cycle.

 

[koenkooi]

I hope so.
I do not think Canon will take the a9 III lying down.

That frames it as Canon reacting to Sony releases and shortening the whole development pipeline of a camera to 12 months or shorter.

While there certainly is an element of reacting to Canons process, the product development timelines don’t work out. I doubt that a year before the release a completely different sensor will get put in a camera.

 

[john1970]

That frames it as Canon reacting to Sony releases and shortening the whole development pipeline of a camera to 12 months or shorter.

While there certainly is an element of reacting to Canons process, the product development timelines don’t work out. I doubt that a year before the release a completely different sensor will get put in a camera.

Very true, but Canon had global sensor in C700 cinema camera so it could make sense that R3 could be global. Frankly, no one knows Canon's 4-5 year plans except Canon.