Official announcement of the Canon EOS R1 is now expected in July

[EOS 4 Life]

1 series is for the photographer that cannot afford to miss a shot because of either camera malfunction in the field (ruggedness) or missed photo because of focus or fps

There was a 1DS.
Canon can decide to make the 1 series whatever they want.
I can't think of any 1DX users who scoffed at the R3.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The Z9 sold like hotcakes and the Z8 obviously.

The Z 9 stopped selling well once the Z 8 came out.
The R5 II looks better than the Z 8.

 

[john1970]

It's certainly situationally dependent. A brightly lit scene with a wide-normal focal length where there's no fast motion and a deep DoF is wanted, sensor size really doesn't make much difference. But there are plenty of situations where the difference is more than obvious.

An excellent and fair point to make.

 

[Karm]

Although, it does not make much sense to have the R1 and R3 targeting the same market either.
On the other hand, the R3 is now the more affordable alternative for pros who pay for their own gear.

Yes, that's the main weird thing for me. That they both are in pretty much the exact same category in terms of resolution, focus (fast AF, high FPS), form factor, and special features (eye control). The R1 will be better at all of them, which makes the R3 just inferior in all categories except price. If anything, the placement of the R1 into that exact same category does make it feel like the R3 was supposed to be the R1.

I keep thinking back of the quote that was mentioned to Canonrumors a while back, saying that the R1 would be "a jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything."
The current leaked specs of the R1 feel more like "the ultimate sports camera" than a "master of everything". I would have expected more flexibility (i.e. a higher resolution) and less tunnelvision-focus on speed and AF from a "master of everything" body.

 

[P-visie]

I keep thinking back of the quote that was mentioned to Canonrumors a while back, saying that the R1 would be "a jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything."

That statement was not made by Canon, but is a quote from a Canonrumors source (see here for the post).

Apparently Canon thinks that the market is best served by a high speed 24mp camera (if the rumors about the R1 are correct) and a somewhat less high speed camera with 45mp (if the rumors about the R5 Mk II are correct).

 

[Del Paso]

If you are incapable in distinguishing the difference in using a cellphone to a 35mm full frame camera for your photo's, bravo, save some money and use a cellphone

+1 !

 

[amorse]

It's certainly situationally dependent. A brightly lit scene with a wide-normal focal length where there's no fast motion and a deep DoF is wanted, sensor size really doesn't make much difference. But there are plenty of situations where the difference is more than obvious.

I'd agree with that within reason, but I've found that in a lot of cases where a cell phone should be sufficient, the phone's baked in processing has a habit of ruining things when examined closely in an effort to overcome some of the limitations of a smaller sensor. I'd add if the conditions are favourable for a small sensor (as you described above) and the scene won't be examined extremely closely or blown up, then certainly cell phone images are pretty comparable.

 

[Billybob]

The Z 9 stopped selling well once the Z 8 came out.
The R5 II looks better than the Z 8.

I agree with your first assertion. Of course Nikon got 18 months of Z9 sales--which clearly captured the lion share of lifetime Z9 sales--so the Z8 cannibalized only a small percentage of lifetime Z9 sales because there weren't many left to be taken.

As for your second assertion, do you have inside information or are you basing the claim on rumored specs or wishful thinking?

 

[koenkooi]

I'd agree with that within reason, but I've found that in a lot of cases where a cell phone should be sufficient, the phone's baked in processing has a habit of ruining things when examined closely in an effort to overcome some of the limitations of a smaller sensor. I'd add if the conditions are favourable for a small sensor (as you described above) and the scene won't be examined extremely closely or blown up, then certainly cell phone images are pretty comparable.

I've mitigated that a bit by setting my iPhone to use ProRAW (which is neither 'pro' nor RAW) by default and that removes the most egregious processing. That makes the images "good enough" for day to day things and pretty good for scenes as described above.

And since my R8 and 28mm don't have any electronic stabilization, in low light situations the phone will be less frustrating to use as well.

 

[Quack]

Yes, that's the main weird thing for me. That they both are in pretty much the exact same category in terms of resolution, focus (fast AF, high FPS), form factor, and special features (eye control). The R1 will be better at all of them, which makes the R3 just inferior in all categories except price. If anything, the placement of the R1 into that exact same category does make it feel like the R3 was supposed to be the R1.

I keep thinking back of the quote that was mentioned to Canonrumors a while back, saying that the R1 would be "a jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything."
The current leaked specs of the R1 feel more like "the ultimate sports camera" than a "master of everything". I would have expected more flexibility (i.e. a higher resolution) and less tunnelvision-focus on speed and AF from a "master of everything" body.

I think that the R3 was just like the Canon R. A one-off that filled a niche while Canon was still developing the mirrorless replacements. The R came out in 2018, filling the niche until the R5 and R^ were ready in 2020. Same with the R3, it filled the niche while the R1 was in development. I doubt there will be an R3 II, unless it has a different MP count and/or significantly different price.

As far as a jack of all trades...certainly you should know better than to believe all you read on a RUMORS site?

 

[koenkooi]

I think that the R3 was just like the Canon R. A one-off that filled a niche while Canon was still developing the mirrorless replacements. The R came out in 2018, filling the niche until the R5 and R^ were ready in 2020. Same with the R3, it filled the niche while the R1 was in development. I doubt there will be an R3 II, unless it has a different MP count and/or significantly different price.

As far as a jack of all trades...certainly you should know better than to believe all you read on a RUMORS site?

As a counterpoint: I thought the RP was a one-off as well, but then the R8 was announced. So we might see another gripped body that is targeted below the R1.

 

[amorse]

I've mitigated that a bit by setting my iPhone to use ProRAW (which is neither 'pro' nor RAW) by default and that removes the most egregious processing. That makes the images "good enough" for day to day things and pretty good for scenes as described above.

And since my R8 and 28mm don't have any electronic stabilization, in low light situations the phone will be less frustrating to use as well.

I honestly haven't played with ProRAW yet as much as I should. I often use my iPhone to frame up shots before getting my tripod out and committing to a composition/scene, but comparing the before test shots to the after full camera shots is always an entertaining experience. The thing that always drives me nuts is the flare performance when shooting into the sun compiled with the phone trying to do a multi-exposure to manage dynamic range, resulting in a big 'ol streak of flare across the frame from movement between the shots.

 

[koenkooi]

I honestly haven't played with ProRAW yet as much as I should. I often use my iPhone to frame up shots before getting my tripod out and committing to a composition/scene, but comparing the before test shots to the after full camera shots is always an entertaining experience. The thing that always drives me nuts is the flare performance when shooting into the sun compiled with the phone trying to do a multi-exposure to manage dynamic range, resulting in a big 'ol streak of flare across the frame from movement between the shots.

The internal reflections in iphone lenses are crazy, any specular highlight will show up twice in a picture!

 

[davidhfe]

I've mitigated that a bit by setting my iPhone to use ProRAW (which is neither 'pro' nor RAW) by default and that removes the most egregious processing. That makes the images "good enough" for day to day things and pretty good for scenes as described above.

And since my R8 and 28mm don't have any electronic stabilization, in low light situations the phone will be less frustrating to use as well.

+1 to this. I left my R5 at home when I went to Europe a month ago and RAW really helped in tough lighting. Images also don’t fall apart when zoomed in to be same degree. The workflow on device sucks though so there’s way more of a hassle tradeoff.

 

[John Wilde]

The Z9 sold like hotcakes and the Z8 obviously. Nikon figured it out and is leaving Canon in the dust if the R1 is 24mp as reported.

In their financial documents, Nikon forecasts that this fiscal year, their market share will be (850/6100) 14%. That's 1% more than last fiscal year. Poor Canon. Canon is stuck at a market share of 49%.

 

[AUGS]

Although, it does not make much sense to have the R1 and R3 targeting the same market either.
On the other hand, the R3 is now the more affordable alternative for pros who pay for their own gear.

Note: The following makes sense to me, but I do not have any evidence to support this post.
I'm now thinking the R3 series (R3m2) will become the "high" megapixel, slower frames per second camera. Great for studio and landscape work, weather sealed, high battery life, mixed media types (SD and Cfexpress), and new hardware and firmware to support the new lenses such as RF35f1.4L (and todays noted Tilt-Shifts). And, the R3 is slightly smaller than the rumoured R1, and only 100grams heavier than the 5D4.
I just don't think Canon would use a "numbered" camera for one cycle only. They could have gone the path of the same naming convention as the "RP" if it was a one and done.
The R3 series can then sit mid-cycle of the R1 series.

 

[frankchn]

Note: The following makes sense to me, but I do not have any evidence to support this post.
I'm now thinking the R3 series (R3m2) will become the "high" megapixel, slower frames per second camera. Great for studio and landscape work, weather sealed, high battery life, mixed media types (SD and Cfexpress), and new hardware and firmware to support the new lenses such as RF35f1.4L (and todays noted Tilt-Shifts). And, the R3 is slightly smaller than the rumoured R1, and only 100grams heavier than the 5D4.
I just don't think Canon would use a "numbered" camera for one cycle only. They could have gone the path of the same naming convention as the "RP" if it was a one and done.
The R3 series can then sit mid-cycle of the R1 series.

I think it is unlikely:

From a marketing perspective, it would be a big shift for the "3" brand to go from fast sports camera to slow studio camera. Canon already has a marketing name for their high resolution cameras -- adding an "s" behind the model it is based on (1Ds, 5Ds) and I think they will continue to use that for future high resolution cameras.

From an engineering perspective, it would make more sense to put a different (e.g. higher MP and slower) sensor into the R1 platform and call it an R1s if they want to make a flagship high resolution camera. They already engineered the R1 and I am sure it is improved over the R3, might as well make full use of it rather than designing a new R3 Mark II and have to spin up a new manufacturing line for this.

Finally from a historical perspective, the original EOS 3 was a one-and-done camera, so there is precedent of them launching and then retiring a camera (with a "3" model number!) with no successors.

Thus, I think if Canon is going to make a 60-90 MP camera, it would be either an R1s or an R5s, based on either the R1 or the R5 Mark II, with I think an R5s being more likely.

 

[AUGS]

Also, think about the psychological effect, if 90% of sports shooters are Canon and the other 10% are Nikon (or whatever the numbers are) and all these Nikon people have had the 45mp for 2 years and then Canon flops a 24mp… imagine being heckled every day by the Nikon guys (and gals and others). With all those people having to change Mount systems anyway, they are going to be in a position to make a decision and it’s a reason to switch camps to Nikon. Why would you stick to Canon if they aren’t keeping up.

Heckled. I dream of being heckled. "Your camera is a hamster, and your lens smells of elderberries!"

But, the answer to your question is in your own response. 90% Canon, 10% Nikon (or whatever the numbers are). Its been like that for 2 years, so why haven't people already switched if that is really needed? Who is winning there? Who isn't keeping up? I think Canon has done far more market research to answer your question.

 

[AUGS]

I think it is unlikely:

From a marketing perspective, it would be a big shift for the "3" brand to go from fast sports camera to slow studio camera. Canon already has a marketing name for their high resolution cameras -- adding an "s" behind the model it is based on (1Ds, 5Ds) and I think they will continue to use that for future high resolution cameras.

From an engineering perspective, it would make more sense to put a different (e.g. higher MP and slower) sensor into the R1 platform and call it an R1s if they want to make a flagship high resolution camera. They already engineered the R1 and I am sure it is improved over the R3, might as well make full use of it rather than designing a new R3 Mark II and have to spin up a new manufacturing line for this.

Finally from a historical perspective, the original EOS 3 was a one-and-done camera, so there is precedent of them launching and then retiring a camera (with a "3" model number!) with no successors.

Thus, I think if Canon is going to make a 60-90 MP camera, it would be either an R1s or an R5s, based on either the R1 or the R5 Mark II, with I think an R5s being more likely.

Can't argue with anything you have said.
Only thing I can say is that a few Canon authorised dealers here in Sydney were saying that the "family" series were confusing for some people. Maybe the R cameras have a chance to clarify or simplify that. Time will tell.

 

[Billybob]

Heckled. I dream of being heckled. "Your camera is a hamster, and your lens smells of elderberries!"

But, the answer to your question is in your own response. 90% Canon, 10% Nikon (or whatever the numbers are). Its been like that for 2 years, so why haven't people already switched if that is really needed? Who is winning there? Who isn't keeping up? I think Canon has done far more market research to answer your question.

Emphasis added, and...

In their financial documents, Nikon forecasts that this fiscal year, their market share will be (850/6100) 14%. That's 1% more than last fiscal year. Poor Canon. Canon is stuck at a market share of 49%.

And therein lies the problem. Of course, not a problem for Canon, but potentially a problem for Canon photographers. Big companies with locked-in user bases have little incentive to innovate. Just evolve the products ever so slightly to keep users from jumping ship. I'm not claiming this is happening with Canon. I would be quite pleased if the R5II is release with all--or even 75% of the rumored features especially the stacked sensor. But this would simply be playing catchup or maintaining serve with Nikon. Meanwhile Nikon--who many honestly thought was doomed--is the hungrier company. Having already lost huge chunks of market share, it needs to swing for the fences and, so far, it's hit a few homeruns mostly in the long-lens segments but I'd also include the Z9, which few saw coming. Now most photographers don't need cutting-edge technology. I would/will be fine for the foreseeable future with my R5. But for serious birders and wildlife shooters, having access to Nikon pf lenses would be a tremendous boon. But what incentive does Canon--who pioneered DO lenses, the same tech as pf, years ago--have to produce competitive lenses at competitive prices? Especially considering how sticky that near-50% market share is?