Is a New Flagship Level Camera Coming from Canon?

[Ozarker]

Looks like your wife and mine are twins...

I need an ass whooping now and then. I didn't want my wife to be the one doing the whooping.

 

[PinholeR5]

I too miss the "exciting new lenses", though 2025 has been quite an expensive year for me (2X R5 II, 4 lenses). But I know my 14 TSE and 24(20)-70 f/2 will come in spring or some other season or year...

I like where your head is at. Even the possibility of a 20-70mm F2 gets me extra excited.

I've given up the hopes of a high res Canon camera and took the plunge into GFX system. And I have to say - zero regrets. The GFX 100II with those 16 bit raw files is delicious! I kept my whole Canon set and I still do use it for anything action-wise (sports, events, animals) but I have to say, even if Canon came out with a 65 mpix camera now, I don't think I'd be interested. The 100 mpix files from Fuji are incredible and a joy to work with.

I've come close to getting a GFX 100s (II) a few times. But haven't yet because of the difficulty of having two systems.

The standout features are it's build, ruggedness, integrated grip / sports orientated ergonomics and buffer size. As you said it's increadible value vs the current R1. There was a time when I seriously considered an R3 to sit alongside my R6ii. I chose an R5 instead because of my my current shooting needs, I'd rather add a high megapixel option to my arsenal than a stacked sensor.
I agree with others (it's wishful thinking) that when the R3 has stopped selling well and Canon don't want to discount it any further, moving the R3 into R5 resolution territory makes sense from a line up point of view. The question is how much? It would cost a LOT more than the current R5ii, for what is essentially a R5ii in a Rx Series body shape. Would there be many photographers who would pay a 30% premium over the current R5ii? Probably not.
I suspect that if Canon is developing a R3ii, then the current R6iii would indicate sensor resolution. 33mp seems to be the new 24mp.

I feel like a 33MP R3 II could make sense, but at the same time I appreciate the difficulty in fitting it price and feature wise between the R1 and R5.

 

[PerKr]

Me reading up on the R1, R3 and Z9, realising now that in some areas, the R1 is priced sort of reasonably. Here, the R3 is $5.5k, somewhat matching the Z9, and the R1 is $9k (matched by the Sony A1). Not sure what Canon and Sony were thinking with those prices.

 

[Baywoof]

R5 S? Yes!!!

 

[illadvisedhammer]

M. 6. mark. III.

 

[DSB]

I've come close to getting a GFX 100s (II) a few times. But haven't yet because of the difficulty of having two systems.

Running two systems does have it's challenges. Mainly having to deal with more bags, managing two different sets of chargers and batteries and obviously there's the financial aspect of it.

For me, it's worth the effort. I really could not be happier with GFX when it comes to architecture, landscape and product shots - and that's exactly why I bought it. For everything else I still need my Canon R5 and R5II and again - could not be happier with it when it comes to action, sports, tracking animals and people etc. Unfortunately, I've come to the stage in my career where I was felt it's time to make the next step and Canon didn't have what I needed. Once the R1 came out, I knew I would be getting the GFX.

 

[kaihp]

Firstly - would love some clarity. The WiFI functionality of the R5 II and R1 is tri-band WiFi 6E, so 2.4GHz, 5GHz and 6GHz. If it is, then it's likely a significant overhaul of an existing product, so could be an R7 II given the speculation of the market positioning for a budget professional sports camera use-case. The R7 II at a high frame rate would make a very useful camera for additional remotes, as a fleet of R1 bodies would be costly, but would definitely be a viable use case and would demand good network connectivity, eg, 6GHz to overcome loaded 2.4 and 5GHz bands in stadiums or performance venues.

The trouble with the 6GHz band is that battery operated equipment are in the outdoors limited to very low RF power output in the US in order to protect existing 6GHz systems (incl ENG setups) .
So while the 6GHz band is nicely uncongested, it is of less interest.

Otherwise I agree with a previous poster about the natural progress of 'higher end' WiFi capabilities migrating downwards in the market. There's already a Wi-Fi 7 standard and Wi-Fi 8 in on the way, and they provide general benefits that all products can use. Increasing the available bandwidth so you don't hog the channel is a Good Thing(TM) IMHO.