Possible R3 Firmware with R6 II, R8, R7 AF improvements?

[Hytvvs]

I know the R3 has many features that make it more appealing to several types of photographers compared to the new R6 Mark II and R8, but it seems like the AF system on the R6II and R8 and even R7 (perhaps having both a better AF algorithm as well as having more options) seems to have been improved over the R3. New features such as pre shot buffer RAW (not exact name I know) also seems more advanced.

Given that the R3 is the current top of the line Canon camera, what are people’s thoughts about the likelihood of Canon adding those new features and newer AF system to the R3 via firmware update given they are all using the same DigicX processor? Would they allow an entry level R8 to have a better AF system than an R3 given that the R3 is only a little over a year old?

Thoughts?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I suspect we'll see some of those added to the R3. For example, they added in-camera depth compositing with a firmware update.

It's also important to define 'better AF'. There is AF spec, and there is AF performance. The very high readout speed of the R3's stacked sensor isn't part of the AF spec, but in practice means the R3 will track a fast subject better than a camera with the same AF spec but a non-stacked sensor.

 

[koenkooi]

I suspect we'll see some of those added to the R3. For example, they added in-camera depth compositing with a firmware update.

It's also important to define 'better AF'. There is AF spec, and there is AF performance. The very high readout speed of the R3's stacked sensor isn't part of the AF spec, but in practice means the R3 will track a fast subject better than a camera with the same AF spec but a non-stacked sensor.

Don't forget the extra voltage for the AF motors the R3 can deliver, so it has a double hardware advantage: faster readout and faster potential AF drive speed.

 

[Hytvvs]

Thanks for the replies Neuroanatomist and Koenkooi. You both make very valid points about the helpful role of a stacked sensor and higher voltage in AF performance. Very good and helpful points to make. Thank you. I am more than pleased with the speed of the R3 (even though I will never turn down it always improving in that department). I guess I was more thinking along the lines of accuracy and in particular how the R6II, and purportedly the R7 and the upcoming R8 seem to have better algorithm for more sticky eye tracking and such. That to me more often is potentially more helpful than merely raw speed. I am hoping that Canon will consider adding those improvement (if it is shown to be an improvement that is) to the R3 via firmware. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be able to do it given the same processor and current flagship status of the R3 and given that it is only about a year old. If the camera were several years old that might be understandable. So yeah I guess I was looking to see what others thought about that likelihood. Again great points about the voltage and stacked sensor and its helpful role in AF

 

[koenkooi]

It is certainly possible for Canon to get the R7/R6II/R3 to use the same exact software for AF, I'm sceptical that Canon will actually choose to do the work for that.
For 'regular' cameras Canon almost never does that, but the R3 might be close enough to flagship status to get proper updates.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is certainly possible for Canon to get the R7/R6II/R3 to use the same exact software for AF, I'm sceptical that Canon will actually choose to do the work for that.
For 'regular' cameras Canon almost never does that, but the R3 might be close enough to flagship status to get proper updates.

The R3 got a 195 fps burst via firmware update, as well. I suspect we'll keep seeing features updated/added to the R3, until the R1 comes out.

 

[koenkooi]

The R3 got a 195 fps burst via firmware update, as well. I suspect we'll keep seeing features updated/added to the R3, until the R1 comes out.

That update was very interesting, since it changed the sequence from (meter-AF-expose-save)repeat to meter-AF-expose-expose-expose-...-expose-save. That shows that if you have enough RAM, you can gain a lot of performance. Not doing AF gets you double the fps and surprisingly: processing the data to save it to card also impacts the speed.
The downside is that you can't do anything while the buffer clears.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the replies Neuroanatomist and Koenkooi. You both make very valid points about the helpful role of a stacked sensor and higher voltage in AF performance. Very good and helpful points to make. Thank you. I am more than pleased with the speed of the R3 (even though I will never turn down it always improving in that department). I guess I was more thinking along the lines of accuracy and in particular how the R6II, and purportedly the R7 and the upcoming R8 seem to have better algorithm for more sticky eye tracking and such. That to me more often is potentially more helpful than merely raw speed. I am hoping that Canon will consider adding those improvement (if it is shown to be an improvement that is) to the R3 via firmware. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be able to do it given the same processor and current flagship status of the R3 and given that it is only about a year old. If the camera were several years old that might be understandable. So yeah I guess I was looking to see what others thought about that likelihood. Again great points about the voltage and stacked sensor and its helpful role in AF

My R5 tracks better than my R7 and has more accurate AF. I must have missed the reports that the R7 is better. Can you point me to them. Or is it the R7 has a wider range of recognition and AF areas?

 

[Hytvvs]

My R5 tracks better than my R7 and has more accurate AF. I must have missed the reports that the R7 is better. Can you point me to them. Or is it the R7 has a wider range of recognition and AF areas?

Hi AlanF, yeah I don't have any reports that I can point to that conclusively proves (if that is even possible) that the R7 is better at AF than say an R5. Most of the stuff out there are antidotal of course. And these things are always so difficult to judge given that so much depends on each person's AF settings and each person's skills and such. It is very possible that the R7 IS NOT any better than an R5.

The reason why I included the R7 in my post is that I have both the R3 and R6 Mark II and from what I am seeing the R6 Mark II is a fair bit more sticky and accurate when it comes to things like eye tracking than even the R3 with pretty much the same AF settings. That and the R6II and R8 and R7 all have helpful new AF features like auto subject, auto and manually selectable eye (left right or auto) as well as a few other nice AF additions. Given that it seems that the R7 uses the same AF system as the R6 Mark II and the new R8 I was mostly making the leap (possibly wrongly) that it would perform similarly to the latter cameras. The antidotal reviews of the R6 Mark II and the early reviews of the R8 seem to suggest what I have seen myself in that these newer cameras seem to have a more refined AF system (again things like more accurate eye tracking and other AF functions) even over the R3 (which is supposedly even better than a R5). Hope that makes sense. So I would love to see Canon add all of those performance changes to bring the R3 in parity with the newer cameras given that it is their current flagship and only about a year old.

Also things like pre-shot buffer raw or whatever it is called where it takes photos 0.5 seconds before hitting the shutter button would be a really nice feature and would love to see that added to the R3 as well

 

[AlanF]

I wonder if canon will be forced to have a firmware upgrade for the R3 and R5? Sooner or later it might start biting into the sales of the R5 if it is seen to have fewer features than the R6 II that deter buyers. Who knows.

 

[HikeBike]

I wonder if canon will be forced to have a firmware upgrade for the R3 and R5? Sooner or later it might start biting into the sales of the R5 if it is seen to have fewer features than the R6 II that deter buyers. Who knows.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I was also wondering about the original R6, since the R8 got the updated subject/eye detection features of the R6 Mark II, which don't seem to be dependent upon new hardware. I'd normally assume the R6 is out of luck, but considering the Mark II came out so soon after the original, there might be a shot.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I was also wondering about the original R6, since the R8 got the updated subject/eye detection features of the R6 Mark II, which don't seem to be dependent upon new hardware. I'd normally assume the R6 is out of luck, but considering the Mark II came out so soon after the original, there might be a shot.

I would think the original R6 is out of luck. There will probably be an update for the R3, and possibly the R5 (unless an R5II is relatively imminent).

 

[AlanF]

I would think the original R6 is out of luck. There will probably be an update for the R3, and possibly the R5 (unless an R5II is relatively imminent).

I'd prefer an update to an R5 II, it's so good I fear the II will be only an incremental upgrade.

 

[unfocused]

I'd prefer an update to an R5 II, it's so good I fear the II will be only an incremental upgrade.

That’s why I’m hoping the rumor of an R5II this year is wrong. Another year keeps it on the traditional schedule, adds time for more improvements and gives me more time to save up.

 

[Hytvvs]

I am hoping that the rumors of a major R5 firmware update in the near future makes it more likely that the R3 will get some or all of the new features that we have been writing about in this thread. Fingers crossed, but of course nobody knows except for the people involved with these matters