Let’s Talk EOS R3 Mark II

[Canon Rumors]

The original Canon EOS R3 was a “stop-gap” for lack of a better term until Canon could develop what they considered a true 1 series flagship. The EOS R3 certainly resembled Canon's gripped DSLRs like the EOS-1D Mark III, that was and is extremely popular among professionals in various disciplines. The EOS R3 has a […]

See full article...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:

 

[blackcoffee17]

R3 could be a special camera in the lineup, the mentioned high resolution and high megapixel or maybe an experiment like the Sony A9 with global shutter.

 

[SeanS]

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:
View attachment 227083

While I agree that an additional gripped body doesn't necessarily make sense in Canon's lineup, an R3 II could be used to introduce/test new features (like eye-controlled AF) that need to be refined before introduction into the 1-series.

 

[Red Dog]

I shoot freelance sports with both the R3 and R5 Mkii. However I use them for specific sports. The R3 can handle basically everything thats thrown at it, particularly at higher ISO's whereas the R5mkii I tend to use for motorsport that occurs at relatively lower ISO's and it gives me the option of much larger file sizes. However once the ISO goes above 12,800 it sits in the bag. The other big advantage of the R3 is the larger battery. I absolutely detest the smaller battery in the R5mkii even with the battery grip.
An R3 MKii would be interesting, but only if Canon could increase the MP and maintain clean files at high ISO. Will it happen, I suspect not, but I live in hope.

 

[Tom R5R7]

I can think of one other approach to the R3 II, but I'm almost certain that Canon would not do it - a pro-level crop body. A stacked or semi-stacked low-noise 32 mpx APS-C sensor on a fast body with a huge battery, built for birding, wildlife, and such for those with a bit of a budget constraint. Who can afford a 600 f/4 and a couple of teleconverters? How about a 400 f/4 instead with a couple of teleconverters. Or the fabled 200-600 f/5.6....

There would be a market for such a camera, although it may be somewhat small. A crop R3 with a couple or 3 fast zooms like a 15-55 f/2.8 or 15-85 f/4 L quality available.

 

[TimS]

Are we missing the obvious here?
Nikon do the same camera, one in a normal body, the other on a gripped body with the Z8 and Z9. So Canon could put the R5 II in a gripped body and call it R3 II...

 

[scyrene]

I feel like naming conventions are quite a good insight into Canon's reasoning. If they change the concept radically then it would surely have a different name. I think they chose 3 in the first place knowing it was likely a one off, as the earlier 3 was. Most of the rest is wishful thinking.

 

[amorse]

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:
View attachment 227083

Absolutely. I struggle to see the demand for a higher than R5II resolution body with a grip, especially given what Fuji did with the GFX 100 - GFX 100 II. I could see them putting the 45mp sensor from the R5ii into a gripped body to appease those who wanted a higher-resolution R1, but going higher than that R5 mark ii and you're starting to mix the use cases I feel.

If I think of which use cases would be open to compromises (maybe low light performance, burst speed) to get more resolution than an R5 ii, my guess would be landscape photographers, architecture photographers, and maybe fashion photographers? I'm not sure wildlife, or sports would be willing to sacrifice some low light or maybe burst speed for the extra resolution. Landscape and architectural photographers are more likely to work on a tripod, and at least from a landscape perspective (speaking selfishly here) a smaller body is often advantageous to reduce carry weight and size. A grip seems counter intuitive in those instances to me.

 

[roby17269]

Absolutely. I struggle to see the demand for a higher than R5II resolution body with a grip, especially given what Fuji did with the GFX 100 - GFX 100 II.

They would sell at least 1 of those cameras... to me

I could see them putting the 45mp sensor from the R5ii into a gripped body to appease those who wanted a higher-resolution R1, but going higher than that R5 mark ii and you're starting to mix the use cases I feel.
If I think of which use cases would be open to compromises (maybe low light performance, burst speed) to get more resolution than an R5 ii, my guess would be landscape photographers, architecture photographers, and maybe fashion photographers? I'm not sure wildlife, or sports would be willing to sacrifice some low light or maybe burst speed for the extra resolution. Landscape and architectural photographers are more likely to work on a tripod, and at least from a landscape perspective (speaking selfishly here) a smaller body is often advantageous to reduce carry weight and size. A grip seems counter intuitive in those instances to me.

Fashion photography for sure: it has long been the territory of slow and high-res medium format backs. There's no such thing as too much resolution in fashion photography.

For me the downsides of higher res are:

• the need for better shooting discipline
• bigger file sizes
• longer processing time in post
• lower FPS (the latter not being a factor in some use cases).

Noise is less and less of an issue with modern AI NR and one can always downsize in low light and still enjoy the higher level of details when the light is good.
And after using a 1D X, I had come to love the ergonomics of gripped bodies.

As others I do not see the logic of an R3 II being a fast low(ish)-res body since that would cannibalize the R1 which has some time to go before a R1 II appears.

 

[gdanmitchell]

"The only segmentation that made even a little sense to me was making it a high-resolution camera body. I mean well beyond the 45mp we see in the EOS R5 Mark II."

Canon's continuing inability or unwillingness to produce a high-resolution successor to my 5DsR is the reason that I'm almost certain to move to a different platform during the next year — most likely Sony.

(I don't care if it is "gripped," in fact I prefer that it not be for my purposes — in the same way that the 5DsR was largely the same body as the other 5D series bodies.)

 

[padam]

If we suppose the R6 II used an "economy" version of an R3 sensor, an R3 II could use a "premium" version of the R6 III sensor.
So it would be the readout speed of an R3 with 32MP, and it would slot in right between an R5 II and R1. It wouldn't have cross-type points, dual CFe slots and EVF of an R1, but it would be lighter while better in low light than an R5 II.

 

[amorse]

They would sell at least 1 of those cameras... to me

Fashion photography for sure: it has long been the territory of slow and high-res medium format backs. There's no such thing as too much resolution in fashion photography.

For me the downsides of higher res are:

• the need for better shooting discipline
• bigger file sizes
• longer processing time in post
• lower FPS (the latter not being a factor in some use cases).

Noise is less and less of an issue with modern AI NR and one can always downsize in low light and still enjoy the higher level of details when the light is good.
And after using a 1D X, I had come to love the ergonomics of gripped bodies.

As others I do not see the logic of an R3 II being a fast low(ish)-res body since that would cannibalize the R1 which has some time to go before a R1 II appears.

Fair! If I'd be a potential buyer, but the grip would turn me off of it. I would move to the Fuji system, but the lenses just aren't there for me. I'm really loving the 10-20 f/4 right now, and would be very sad to lose that.

 

[Chig]

I would think that Canon would produce a new stacked sensor with a faster read out speed than the R5ii if they want to make a high res R3ii and it's unlikely to be higher than 45MP and quite likely a bit lower: say 30-35MP or perhaps a global shutter sensor but better low light performance than the Sony A9iii

 

[roby17269]

Fair! If I'd be a potential buyer, but the grip would turn me off of it. I would move to the Fuji system, but the lenses just aren't there for me. I'm really loving the 10-20 f/4 right now, and would be very sad to lose that

To be clear, resolution is more important than grip to me... if I had to choose / vote then higher res it would be for me.

Remember that MF bodies have different crop factors (<1) and lenses behave a bit differently so there is a bit of a learning curve. I was (very pleasantly) surprised by the way lenses behaved with my H5X. Having said that, it depends on your needs, as long tele is where MF bodies have the most limitations.

 

[Hellish]

Given the C50 + R6 Mark III basically competes FX3 + A7S III to go head to head with Sony, I can see them going head to head with Nikon here with the Z8/Z9 and sharing sensors between the R5II and R3II (if one ever actually goes beyond concept), this way they compete and maintain the lower MP, higher speed, higher iso, higher dr sports body, while giving everyone else the high MP flagship they want.

 

[Maximilian]

I loved the form factor when the R3 was released.
For some time I played with the thought that this would be my first R.
Then the R6m2 delivered almost the same sensor performance for half of the money. So I went that way.
If there's an R3m2 and it's not an MP monster I will get triggered again to get it as an upgrade from my R6m2.
I would love the Idea of an R3m2, but I don't see the market segment for it between the R5m2 and the R1.
I don't believe that Canon will do another "Baby R1".

 

[Pixel]

Be very careful, you're likely going to be disappointed. Even if it's high MP the spec list will still be far less than the R1. People always fall into that trap.

 

[amorse]

To be clear, resolution is more important than grip to me... if I had to choose / vote then higher res it would be for me.

Remember that MF bodies have different crop factors (<1) and lenses behave a bit differently so there is a bit of a learning curve. I was (very pleasantly) surprised by the way lenses behaved with my H5X. Having said that, it depends on your needs, as long tele is where MF bodies have the most limitations.

Sure, but the widest I think you can get on medium format for Fuji or Hasselblad X series is 20mm which is going to be around a 16mm full frame equivalent, and I'm using 10mm so it is a ways off of what I'm using a lot at the moment. Absolutely limited on the long end as well - my 100-400 has no real equivalent on either. I don't really want to be running two systems, so I'd rather stick with a higher resolution option in Canon's full frame ecosystem.

 

[roby17269]

Sure, but the widest I think you can get on medium format for Fuji or Hasselblad X series is 20mm which is going to be around a 16mm full frame equivalent, and I'm using 10mm so it is a ways off of what I'm using a lot at the moment. Absolutely limited on the long end as well - my 100-400 has no real equivalent on either. I don't really want to be running two systems, so I'd rather stick with a higher resolution option in Canon's full frame ecosystem.

Personally, I have the 10-20 and I rarely use it at 10 because I find it difficult to compose at 10mm: too much stuff in the frame

While it is true that most MF systems are limited at 16mm-equiv, more or less, I find it better because the lenses have a longer fl and behave in a way that I prefer.

Fuji has a GF 500mm lens (~400mm in 35mm equiv) but yes, that's a rarity and MF is not for applications heavy on tele lengths.
In the end, medium format systems are not a jack-of-all-trades. They are used for specific applications and that's why my R5 does the many things my Hassy can't or is ill-suited for