Canon Selling Well in Japan, and Three New EOS R Cameras Confirmed

[Exploreshootshare]

I still hope Canon will break their rules that better camera needs to be bigger and only top cameras have certain features. I think that the original EOS R had the perfect body size and design, top LCD, bigger display than the R6.

The R has/ had beautiful ergonomics which were flawed by omitting a joystick (maybe a scroll wheel, but I could do without). With that/ those item(s) it would have been perfect.

Most importantly, the weight was absolutely manageable for one-hand shooting and caring it around for an entire day.
The R5 imo has perfect ergonomics concerning button placement, joystick, scroll wheel and how the camera is being held. I did realize while shooting last year, that the R5 is a bit too heavy. I do realize that the difference between 651 gr and 738gr is only 87 gr, but it really has a huge impact on how I receive the weight. 650gr or even 600gr should a sweet spot for a reasonable sized camera and weight. If it is lower it quickly misbalances the camera when attached to certain lenses.

I think there are quite some people who would spend the money on the R5 but it is too heavy for them. And people who just want something nice but not necessarily big and heavy. Enthusiasts, travellers, young people,...

So, kind a like a R8 with a joystick, scroll wheel and 1/8000 shutter speed.

I for myself have now purchased the R8. It matches the needs derived from the R5 perfectly. It is small (great for hiking/ family dinners e.g.) and weighs only 481 gr although having a FF sensor. AF is faster than on the R5, which is nice as well. The controls are a little different and not as comfortable, but as long as I´m not shooting fast paced scenes (sports/ wildlife/ running kids) I´m perfectly fine with it.

If a R8ii can integrate a joystick and still keep the weight (or not go over 500gr), I'd switch the R8 for it as soon as discounts are granted.

 

[Canon Rumors]

The R has/ had beautiful ergonomics which were flawed by omitting a joystick (maybe a scroll wheel, but I could do without). With that/ those item(s) it would have been perfect.

Most importantly, the weight was absolutely manageable for one-hand shooting and caring it around for an entire day.
The R5 imo has perfect ergonomics concerning button placement, joystick, scroll wheel and how the camera is being held. I did realize while shooting last year, that the R5 is a bit too heavy. I do realize that the difference between 651 gr and 738gr is only 87 gr, but it really has a huge impact on how I receive the weight. 650gr or even 600gr should a sweet spot for a reasonable sized camera and weight. If it is lower it quickly misbalances the camera when attached to certain lenses.

So, kind a like a R8 with a joystick, scroll wheel and 1/8000 shutter speed.

I for myself have now purchased the R8. It matches the needs derived from the R5 perfectly. It is small (great for hiking/ family dinners e.g.) and weighs only 481 gr although having a FF sensor. AF is faster than on the R5, which is nice as well. The controls are a little different and not as comfortable, but as long as I´m not shooting fast paced scenes (sports/ wildlife/ running kids) I´m perfectly fine with it.

If a R8ii can integrate a joystick and still keep the weight (or not go over 500gr), I'd switch the R8 for it as soon as discounts are granted.

The R8 is such a great camera. I'll get one when the sequel comes and it's way less money. It's a camera that I'd use a lot of manual focus lenses with.

 

[Del Paso]

Maybe I'm oldschool (OK, I am...)
But to me, smaller often stands for poor ergonomics (Sony), more plastics than metal for the camera's structure.
I know plastics have some advantages too, especially Toray carbon fiber reinforced ones. But I doubt these will be used in cameras for cost reasons. Still, I far prefer a heavier rigid body chassis to a weight optimised one. There is a limit to weight reduction: Cost!
I agree on my reasoning being partly subjective, yet I feel better with a bit of weight in my hands.
Though, when I drop a lens, I prefer it being partly made of shock absorbing "engineering" plastics than metal. Partly! But rather see individual lens elements positioned in a magnesium/aluminium/brass tube than in flimsy plastics.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Maybe I'm oldschool (OK, I am...)
But to me, smaller often stands for poor ergonomics (Sony), more plastics than metal for the camera's structure.
I know plastics have some advantages too, especially Toray carbon fiber reinforced ones. But I doubt these will be used in cameras for cost reasons. Still, I far prefer a heavier rigid body chassis to a weight optimised one. There is a limit to weight reduction: Cost!
I agree on my reasoning being partly subjective, yet I feel better with a bit of weight in my hands.
Though, when I drop a lens, I prefer it being partly made of shock absorbing "engineering" plastics than metal. Partly! But rather see individual lens elements positioned in a magnesium/aluminium/brass tube than in flimsy plastics.

Yes, some plastics can be more durable than metal. However, a camera is the sum of its parts and you can feel it. That matters to some... I'm part of the some. Muscle memory as well, the Sony's are so cramped and not built for the natural placement and movements of the hand.

Cameras like the OM-3 and Leica MP.... the plastic on the MP iso dial annoys me and it doesn't even matter! The OM feels rock solid, it just needs a joystick where the CP button/dial is.

 

[Traveler]

The R has/ had beautiful ergonomics which were flawed by omitting a joystick (maybe a scroll wheel, but I could do without). With that/ those item(s) it would have been perfect.

Most importantly, the weight was absolutely manageable for one-hand shooting and caring it around for an entire day.
The R5 imo has perfect ergonomics concerning button placement, joystick, scroll wheel and how the camera is being held. I did realize while shooting last year, that the R5 is a bit too heavy. I do realize that the difference between 651 gr and 738gr is only 87 gr, but it really has a huge impact on how I receive the weight. 650gr or even 600gr should a sweet spot for a reasonable sized camera and weight. If it is lower it quickly misbalances the camera when attached to certain lenses.

So, kind a like a R8 with a joystick, scroll wheel and 1/8000 shutter speed.

I for myself have now purchased the R8. It matches the needs derived from the R5 perfectly. It is small (great for hiking/ family dinners e.g.) and weighs only 481 gr although having a FF sensor. AF is faster than on the R5, which is nice as well. The controls are a little different and not as comfortable, but as long as I´m not shooting fast paced scenes (sports/ wildlife/ running kids) I´m perfectly fine with it.

If a R8ii can integrate a joystick and still keep the weight (or not go over 500gr), I'd switch the R8 for it as soon as discounts are granted.

Based on reactions, this topic seems to be more difficult than I thought.
I understand that Canon needs to differentiate cameras and the R8 will never get all the features from the R5-ish cameras. My point was that one of the differentiators is size: better (and more expensive) camera is always bigger. And I'd like to have something like the R8 (or eos R) with the features of a high end camera and I'm willing to pay for it (unlike other people who complain that the R8 has one slot, is not water resistant etc – I know that there must be some trade off).

I also know that the camera physically can't be too small. I'm sure that the R8 body wouldn't fit large display, joystick, all the wheels and arrows all together. I guess it needs to have certain size. But I'm sure they could come up with some solutions that would solve it (thinner bezels, more clever controls etc). I'd be even fine with polycarbonate body if it shaves off the weight. My camera doesn't need to withstand falling from a rock. Weather sealing would be important though.

I don't deny that for a lot of people, bigger size is better and I noticed that it really depends on the lens used more than on the hands. The R8 feels great in the hands when using the 1.8 primes or the RF 28-70 f/2.8. But with the f/4 zooms (24-105, 70-200) it feels uncomfortable. R6 feels well-balanced with the f/4 zooms and it's comfortable to use it all day (same as with the R). And when using the f/2.8 zooms or lenses like 135 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2 then it needs R5 or higher. I also tried some of the long lenses (100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) and those really need R3 or R1.

Again – I understand why the cameras are bigger and why cheap cameras don't get all the functions. I just wish there is a camera for an enthusiast (not a pro) who wants lightweight but packed camera that would be used mainly with f/4 zooms or f/1.4 primes and budget is not that important.
I didn't mention resolution. That one is also not important to me (20-24Mpix is perfect for me) but I guess if it's a packed camera than people would want higher resolution.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, some plastics can be more durable than metal. However, a camera is the sum of its parts and you can feel it. That matters to some... I'm part of the some. Muscle memory as well, the Sony's are so cramped and not built for the natural placement and movements of the hand.

Cameras like the OM-3 and Leica MP.... the plastic on the MP iso dial annoys me and it doesn't even matter! The OM feels rock solid, it just needs a joystick where the CP button/dial is.

Sorry, but, unfortunately, I must correct what you wrote.
The Leica M ISO dials have a known tendency to break or to get stuck. There would have been many better ways to fit the M with an ISO dial, sadly, Leica chose the cheapest one. But what can you expect of an inexpensive $9000 camera? M3 times are long forgotten...

 

[Hector1970]

I’m just a minority of 1 but I’d buy a high MP R3. Something great than 45MP. The R5 has been so good I haven’t upgraded to the R5II. I’d have thought given heat dissipation & required room for extra chips and R3 body would suit. It’s debatable that more MPs are really required but at this point room for improvement is slim. More FPS is almost not necessary (even a disadvantage), ISO improvement has stalled, dynamic range is hard to increase (and is pretty decent). MP and tracking ability are two areas left to improve. I love detail.
The R3 may be more focused on convenience of sports photographers getting their images to media sites. For that 20MP is sufficient.
Canons risk is making it better than the R1. The R3 probably has to remain worse than it in many ways.
We will see. I’ll keep saving away for a successor to my R5. It continues to impress even though it’s years old. It’s close to perfection. If it could track better BIF would be it’s only necessary improvement. Its eye tracking is great. Image quality is excellent. I’d recommend it to anyone wanting to upgrade on a budget. A second hand version is worth picking up.

 

[IvanMuller]

I really do wonder how much any of that matters. I remain unconvinced there is real 'competition' between brands at anything other than the entry level. Someone with a smartphone who wants to get 'a real camera' will be looking at different systems and comparing the ones they can afford. Mostly, they'll be looking to not spend more than they spent on their smartphone (the average price of a MILC shipped in 2025 is $714), which means they'll be comparing at the entry level. Once they make a choice, if they later decide to upgrade they will most likely be looking at the brand they already have so they can use the same lenses, etc.

I think the transition from DSLR to MILC is a somewhat different situation, where users with more gear were looking at switching not just bodies but lenses, too, and that led to more system switching (mainly from Nikon to Sony, based on the market data). That transition is still ongoing, meaning some higher-end MILC sales are to people replacing a DSLR.

Those of us engaged more on the gear side (e.g., the self-selected group of people who choose to follow rumors of upcoming cameras and lenses) and those who produce content for them (DPR, etc.) love to compare across brands. That drives a lot of discussion and more importantly ad views and clicks (i.e., revenue) but at the end of the day only a relatively small number of users with anything other than a body and a kit lens actually switch from one system to another.

I believe that the primary target market for cameras above the entry level are in-brand buyers, so Canon (in particular, as the dominant market leader) is looking to attract owners of older Canon cameras or 'lower' Canon cameras. For example, the R6III is spec'd to attract owners of 5- or 6-series DSLRs, owners of an R6 that's now 'getting old' and owners of an R7/R10 who are looking to go to FF. The situation is a bit different for Sony and Nikon, because they don't have something like 70% of the installed base using their brand so they have to try and poach Canon users with specs, price, or both.

I've just 'upgraded' from a R to a 6Dmk2 - my only reason was that my R was getting on in years -I got it when it was released - with the shutter count north of 300k - and a pesky spirit level that cant be fixed....the drop in pixels was a bit of a concern but as a working photographer 90% of my work is for social media and websites etc... My R7 is mostly for birding and I'm eagerly awaiting to see what version 2 will look like. The 6Dmk3 was almost double the price of a black friday mk2 so ito roi it was a no brainer ... maybe I will keep the R as a backup and when my ego really needs 6 more megapixels....

 

[Del Paso]

Based on reactions, this topic seems to be more difficult than I thought.
I understand that Canon needs to differentiate cameras and the R8 will never get all the features from the R5-ish cameras. My point was that one of the differentiators is size: better (and more expensive) camera is always bigger. And I'd like to have something like the R8 (or eos R) with the features of a high end camera and I'm willing to pay for it (unlike other people who complain that the R8 has one slot, is not water resistant etc – I know that there must be some trade off).

I also know that the camera physically can't be too small. I'm sure that the R8 body wouldn't fit large display, joystick, all the wheels and arrows all together. I guess it needs to have certain size. But I'm sure they could come up with some solutions that would solve it (thinner bezels, more clever controls etc). I'd be even fine with polycarbonate body if it shaves off the weight. My camera doesn't need to withstand falling from a rock. Weather sealing would be important though.

I don't deny that for a lot of people, bigger size is better and I noticed that it really depends on the lens used more than on the hands. The R8 feels great in the hands when using the 1.8 primes or the RF 28-70 f/2.8. But with the f/4 zooms (24-105, 70-200) it feels uncomfortable. R6 feels well-balanced with the f/4 zooms and it's comfortable to use it all day (same as with the R). And when using the f/2.8 zooms or lenses like 135 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2 then it needs R5 or higher. I also tried some of the long lenses (100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) and those really need R3 or R1.

Again – I understand why the cameras are bigger and why cheap cameras don't get all the functions. I just wish there is a camera for an enthusiast (not a pro) who wants lightweight but packed camera that would be used mainly with f/4 zooms or f/1.4 primes and budget is not that important.
I didn't mention resolution. That one is also not important to me (20-24Mpix is perfect for me) but I guess if it's a packed camera than people would want higher resolution.

The one camera for all doesn't exist. Just like hand-sizes and preferences can never be standardised, fortunately.
Where I'd like to contradict you is about the relationship between camera size and lens size. While it's obvious that an R1 and a 400mm tele are a much better match than the 400mm on an R8, I still dislike the tiny 28mm f/2,8 on an R or R8. But enjoy it on the R5 II.
It's all a matter of preferences, this is why there are so many different cameras.
To conclude: I once bought the Leica M 240, although it got criticised by most for being too "fat". And this is what I liked about it, and disliked when the slimmer M 10 was released...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I really do wonder how much any of that matters. I remain unconvinced there is real 'competition' between brands at anything other than the entry level.

Canon does not have a lot of competition at the entry level.
I do not think camera companies really try to compete model to model, but the R6 III obviously drew a lot from the a7 III, Z6 III, and S1 II.
Those could just all be features that customers were asking for though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A big market for all OEMs to address if they can get the pricing and feature set right and still be profitable.

True, but it is not so easy to address.
See Olympus.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's inevitable that Canon will release a photocentric PowerShot with their 1.4" sensor. You don't make a new sensor and a new sensor size for just one camera model.

They might use it for a camcorder, so I would not call it inevitable, but you are probably right.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I've just 'upgraded' from a R to a 6Dmk2 - my only reason was that my R was getting on in years -I got it when it was released - with the shutter count north of 300k - and a pesky spirit level that cant be fixed....the drop in pixels was a bit of a concern but as a working photographer 90% of my work is for social media and websites etc... My R7 is mostly for birding and I'm eagerly awaiting to see what version 2 will look like. The 6Dmk3 was almost double the price of a black friday mk2 so ito roi it was a no brainer ... maybe I will keep the R as a backup and when my ego really needs 6 more megapixels....

You surely meant R6mkii, didn't you?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I don't deny that for a lot of people, bigger size is better and I noticed that it really depends on the lens used more than on the hands. The R8 feels great in the hands when using the 1.8 primes or the RF 28-70 f/2.8. But with the f/4 zooms (24-105, 70-200) it feels uncomfortable. R6 feels well-balanced with the f/4 zooms and it's comfortable to use it all day (same as with the R). And when using the f/2.8 zooms or lenses like 135 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2 then it needs R5 or higher. I also tried some of the long lenses (100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) and those really need R3 or R1.

Again – I understand why the cameras are bigger and why cheap cameras don't get all the functions. I just wish there is a camera for an enthusiast (not a pro) who wants lightweight but packed camera that would be used mainly with f/4 zooms or f/1.4 primes and budget is not that important.
I didn't mention resolution. That one is also not important to me (20-24Mpix is perfect for me) but I guess if it's a packed camera than people would want higher resolution.

I do get what you mean and I agree with. I wish there was a line between R8 (481 gr) and R5 (738 gr) with the great tech and gimmicks in a body that weighs less. The R6ii is way closer to the R5 (I believe it comes in somewhere around 690-700gr). If the mkiii would hit 650gr, it would be awesome. I wish for a 600gr pro body as well, but it won't happen. The caveat of the 481 gr R8 is the smaller battery, but I can absolutely live with it

 

[David - Sydney]

True, but it is not so easy to address.
See Olympus.

Leica found their profitable niche with low volume/market share but you are right that other OEMs with good products don’t have good market share. Being profitable is the only long term solution.
Canon still dominates and makes their own ff sensors but there is the argument that losing market share would push them harder on price and features

 

[DhlcadR6]

R100 mark ii probably is R50 with DIGIC 8.....

 

[Traveler]

The one camera for all doesn't exist. Just like hand-sizes and preferences can never be standardised, fortunately.
Where I'd like to contradict you is about the relationship between camera size and lens size. While it's obvious that an R1 and a 400mm tele are a much better match than the 400mm on an R8, I still dislike the tiny 28mm f/2,8 on an R or R8. But enjoy it on the R5 II.
It's all a matter of preferences, this is why there are so many different cameras.
To conclude: I once bought the Leica M 240, although it got criticised by most for being too "fat". And this is what I liked about it, and disliked when the slimmer M 10 was released...

Sure there is no camera for all and everyone has different requirements. My complaint was that people who like bigger cameras get more features. But we who like smaller cameras don't.
Again, I'm aware that not all features can be put in a small body due to physical limitations.

 

[Traveler]

I do get what you mean and I agree with. I wish there was a line between R8 (481 gr) and R5 (738 gr) with the great tech and gimmicks in a body that weighs less. The R6ii is way closer to the R5 (I believe it comes in somewhere around 690-700gr). If the mkiii would hit 650gr, it would be awesome. I wish for a 600gr pro body as well, but it won't happen. The caveat of the 481 gr R8 is the smaller battery, but I can absolutely live with it

The R also had bigger battery. But I don't know how much weight IBIS ads. I guess the main weight difference comes from how much metal the body contains. I'd be totally fine with modern plastic, doesn't need to be full of magnesium alloy (even thought it sounds good in marketing materials).

BTW I'm also surprised how little weight difference there is between the R6 and R5 but it feels really a lot.

 

[Del Paso]

Sure there is no camera for all and everyone has different requirements. My complaint was that people who like bigger cameras get more features. But we who like smaller cameras don't.
Again, I'm aware that not all features can be put in a small body due to physical limitations.

I fully understand your complaint, but isn't it logical that those who bitterly suffer more under a heavier load also get the benefit of more cute little features?

 

[Canon Rumors]

Sorry, but, unfortunately, I must correct what you wrote.
The Leica M ISO dials have a known tendency to break or to get stuck. There would have been many better ways to fit the M with an ISO dial, sadly, Leica chose the cheapest one. But what can you expect of an inexpensive $9000 camera? M3 times are long forgotten...

I hope it doesn't get stuck! It was only €5950.... budget Leica.