The Canon EOS R6 Mark II will be announced on November 2, 2022

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
Pricing of high end items are determined by "Value Marketing". Not raw material cost. The price of the device doesn't have anthing to do with the individual component material prices. If it did, the camera would cost about $400. Stacked sensors are cheaper to manufacture than plan BSI CMOS sensors. Why? Because the supporting electronic componentes that must be included. CMOS sensor don't operate in a vacuum. Stacked sensors have the supporting electronics in the layer beneath. The electronics layer. Manufactured in the the second layer run.
You keep claiming this, and never cite any sources (other than your own purported vast experience). While ILCs, like other high-end goods, are priced based on value marketing, parts replacements are generally based on the cost of goods and the labor to replace them. Since the labor to replace a sensor is unlikely to be significantly affected by whether or not that sensor is stacked, BSI or standard CMOS, how do you explain the 10-fold cost difference charged by multiple manufacturers for stacked sensors?

Your assumption seems to be based on the logic that it must be cheaper to include the DSP/ADC/DRAM in a second die fabricated and bonded to the photodiode-containing die. Here's the main board of the R5, where the DSP/ADC/DRAM are all independent chips that are off-sensor and located on the main PCB. I have no idea which of those chips are which, but clearly none of those chips are anywhere near the size of a FF sensor over which that circuitry must be spread in a stacked sensor. The individual, dedicated ICs would seem to use much less silicon, and be much easier to fabricate.

R5chips.jpeg

Here's simple question – Sony has been using stacked CMOS sensors in a few of their cameras since 2015. If they're so much cheaper to make, why don't they use them in all their cameras?
 
Upvote 0

USMarineCorpsVet

Bird/Wildlife Photography
Jul 2, 2021
33
68
The R3 is a fantastic camera. I would have no issues using it instead of a Nikon Z9. The major differences between them is if you want more pixels or less pixels... personally I would have preferred the Z9 stuck with the 24 MP range too.
I think the idea that we shouldn't want a higher resolution camera is antiquated. This isn't 2010 anymore. The R3 is underwhelming and expensive compared to the A1 and Z9. At this point Canon probably holding off on a competitive mpx camera because they know that the R3 will be a complete after thought, especially at that price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

USMarineCorpsVet

Bird/Wildlife Photography
Jul 2, 2021
33
68
Canon has sold more ILCs than any of their competitors every year for the last two decades. Last year, they sold more than twice as many ILCs as #2 Sony, and more than Sony, Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic combined.

Oh, you mean falling behind in making the camera you personally want. No one but you cares. Go buy a camera from one of the competitors you think are so far ahead. Then go troll their rumors forum instead.
There are plenty of people who care about that segment. You sound like an angry bitter person who probably forked over 6K for an R3 and is realizing buyer's remorse. You can quote sales of cheap cameras all you want, it still has no bearing on Canon not having a worthy competitor in that segment. What you want to say is, "I don't care about your opinion", because it's outright nonsense to say no one cares about the release of an R1.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
At this point Canon probably holding off on a competitive mpx camera because they know that the R3 will be a complete after thought, especially at that price.
So you’re saying the R3 is an afterthought and that’s why Canon is holding off on releasing a higher (than 45) MP camera? Let me introduce you to a concept known as logic, it’s clear of the two of you have never met.
 
Upvote 0

USMarineCorpsVet

Bird/Wildlife Photography
Jul 2, 2021
33
68
It doesn't seem that "strange" to me. The R5 is still a solid camera in both the R lineup and against it's competition. Despite some FW bungling of late, Canon has continued to update it to keep it relevant. It can easily go another year, year and a half, before getting an update -- which I think it will. I doubt we'll see the R5 II until well after the R1 ships because the R5 II will likely borrow a lot from the R1. As an R5 user and probably not an R1 buyer, I'm happy w/ not seeing an R5 until 2024, assuming this is the case.

The R6, OTOH, became little lost in both the R lineup and the competition as a lower resolution body when the R7 was released. A lot of R6's initial buyers were enthusiasts that wanted more than an R but just didn't want to, or could not plunk down $3700 for the R5. Of course, there were also pros that were perfectly happy with lower resolution because it aided in processing and keeping storage costs reasonable.

But with the R7's intro, enthusiasts had the new choice of a MP $1500 body. Sure, crop sensor, but in many genres that's even desirable or a non-factor. And even for the pros who initially bought into the R6, 20mp these days for a mid-level body is low. (Not to mention that Nikon is rumored to be reading the Z6 III, presumably with AF borrowed from the Z9). So the R6 II will address that issue to rejuvenate it and also spread some distance between the R7 and R6 choices.
Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you repeat the often quoted myth that "pros" don't want a high mpx camera because it requires too much storage and processing, and then lament that 20mpx is too small for a mid level body. This is not 2010 anymore. The advantages of higher mpx severely outweigh any perceived disadvantage. But you can always spend 6K for the low mpx R3 if you want...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
There are plenty of people who care about that segment. You sound like an angry bitter person who probably forked over 6K for an R3 and is realizing buyer's remorse. You can quote sales of cheap cameras all you want, it still has no bearing on Canon not having a worthy competitor in that segment. What you want to say is, "I don't care about your opinion", because it's outright nonsense to say no one cares about the release of an R1.
Lol, almost spit out my coffee over that post. :ROFLMAO:

I’m sure the R1 will be along eventually. If another system meets your needs and Canon doesn’t, why are you here complaining? Go out and buy what you need. Too lazy? Can’t afford to? Well, at least complaining is easy and free.

The point is that Canon is going to prioritize cameras to maximize their ROI, and to increase their MILC market share (which they told investors they would do). Relatively inexpensive bodies are key to the latter, the R1 is not.

The 1-series has also been on a 4-year cycle lately, meaning an R1 in 2024 makes sense. Canon could choose to launch one earlier, and I suspect if the R3 was merely a poorly-selling ‘afterthought’ they’d likely have done so already. But they haven’t.

I did spend $6K on an R3 and more than that on RF lenses (and even more on EF lenses that work perfectly on the R3), and overall I’m thrilled, especially with the R3. If I thought another system would be better for me, I’d switch because I’m not lazy and I can afford it.

Oh, and it shouldn’t need to be said but I’ll be explicit because you sound like a confused person who has difficulty understanding subtlety – I don’t care about your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
786
759
It also seems strange to be updating the "baby brother" without a similar bump to the R5 - weren't they were originally released together?



True, but remember that the R6 included a 'reused' sensor, being a version of the 20MP sensor from the EOS-1D X III. Between the R5 and the R6, it probably made sense to go with an R6 II first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
1,638
1,308
True, but remember that the R6 included a 'reused' sensor, being a version of the 20MP sensor from the EOS-1D X III. Between the R5 and the R6, it probably made sense to go with an R6 II first.
Plus there is the R5 C and arguably the R5 was made better by firmware updates than the R6 was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,504
17,254
True, but remember that the R6 included a 'reused' sensor, being a version of the 20MP sensor from the EOS-1D X III. Between the R5 and the R6, it probably made sense to go with an R6 II first.
Yes, and if you have used other high resolution top-rated sensors you will realise how good the R5's is. It is one of the fastest non-stacked and has an AA-filter that is highly effective but seems to lose very little resolution over its counterparts without filters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
786
759
... and arguably the R5 was made better by firmware updates than the R6 was.
Yes, it's easy to forget the moral outrage at the time the R5 was released when it became clear that it couldn't defy the laws of thermodynamics and take unlimited 8K video. :D These days most people just think of it as a stunning allrounder - but the firmware changes were a big part of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0