The “3 Series” to continue after the EOS R3?

[AlanF]

I have always liked this Steve Jobs Quote:

” if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.”

Long Pig?

 

[Loswr]

Anyone here who owned an R3 last year think it wasn't the flagship?

My 1D X could focus on the horizontal rail at a racetrack. Heck, even my old Rebel T1i/500D could do that. My R3? Not so much. The R1 will be able to do so. Flagship.

Plus, you know, Canon said it wasn't and they're the ones who get to decide. You can call the R3 a pink bunny if you want, but that won't be the canon (little 'c') according to Canon, nor is it canon to call it a flagship, according to Canon.

 

[frankchn]

My 1D X could focus on the horizontal rail at a racetrack. Heck, even my old Rebel T1i/500D could do that. My R3? Not so much. The R1 will be able to do so. Flagship.

I don't think I have much issues focusing on horizontal (or vertical) lines on my R3. In general, I think the R3's AF is a substantial upgrade from even the 1DX3 for sports and event use cases, worthy of it being called a flagship sports camera in the same category as the 1DX line.

 

[David - Sydney]

The smaller but integrated grip is the defining feature of the R3.
Dual CFe cards/full sized HDMI/ new eye AF controller and co-processor (or maybe just a consolidated more powerful Digic) would be the obvious upgrades
If we leave speed to the R1 then we are left with

Sensor choice
- 24mp => global shutter
- 30mp => the mythical "24mp" isn't enough but 45mp is too much" segment
- 80+mp => R7 replacement for pixel density + high res body in lieu of R5s. Would need to have minimum 30fps shutter for R7 replacement. Seems a long time for high res body to be released though.

 

[Loswr]

I don't think I have much issues focusing on horizontal (or vertical) lines on my R3. In general, I think the R3's AF is a substantial upgrade from even the 1DX3 for sports and event use cases, worthy of it being called a flagship sports camera in the same category as the 1DX line.

Perhaps you're automatically compensating (I learned to do so, e.g., by focusing on the upright support not the horizontal rail). Point your R3 (in portrait) at a set of louvered closet doors, the AF simply won't lock. DPAF means all the pixels are split horizontally, they are insensitive to horizontal lines. Rotate the camera 15-20° and the camera can lock on. There are workarounds, but it's a technical limitation of DPAF. IMO (not even worth 2¢), the lack of cross-type AF points was enough to disqualify the R3 as a flagship in Canon's mind, and enough to earn the R1 that designation.

 

[Loswr]

Sensor choice
- 24mp => global shutter

That's about the only reason I can see for an R3II. The R3 was the test for eye-controlled AF, an R3II could be the test for global shutter. Hopefully Canon can deliver one that doesn't cost DR at low ISO.

 

[john1970]

The smaller but integrated grip is the defining feature of the R3.
Dual CFe cards/full sized HDMI/ new eye AF controller and co-processor (or maybe just a consolidated more powerful Digic) would be the obvious upgrades
If we leave speed to the R1 then we are left with

Sensor choice
- 24mp => global shutter
- 30mp => the mythical "24mp" isn't enough but 45mp is too much" segment
- 80+mp => R7 replacement for pixel density + high res body in lieu of R5s. Would need to have minimum 30fps shutter for R7 replacement. Seems a long time for high res body to be released though.

Interesting speculation, but I personally do not see enough differentiation between a 24 and 30 MP sensor, but time will tell.

 

[PawelW]

If they want to release R3 in 2026 then I think... it will be just upgraded R1, because at that time everyone who wants R1 will have it already. ). All R1 owners will start looking for new shiny, tiny toy like R3mk2. Then 2 years later in 2028 we will have R1mk2 which will be... upgraded R3 mk2, because Canon just needs money and users new body.

 

[David - Sydney]

Interesting speculation, but I personally do not see enough differentiation between a 24 and 30 MP sensor, but time will tell.

Agreed but there is a gap between 24 and 45mp that seems to have some pundits clutching their pearls about which to choose.
The 5Div's 30mp was seen as a step up from the 5Diii but still just a spec sheet number vs spacial resolution difference with low pass filter etc eg in the R3.
Of course, it could be a 30mp global shutter to combine option 1 and 2

 

[Dragon]

The history of the 3 series is a history of experimentation, clearly focused on eye AF for the first two rounds, but that is now mainstream, so the logical question is what will be the next area of experimentation that deserves a product that can be tested in the marketplace. High resolution is is one, but that is in the category of incremental improvement, so not so bold. Another would be global shutter, maybe with a different approach than Sony took. I still haven't seen a clear description of how the cross type AF works on the R1, but if the sensor were actually fully QPAF (i.e. 96 MP), I think Canon would be making big noises about that, so true QPAF may be another experiment path for a future R3. QPAF could possibly be combined with high res in such a way as to limit the total number of pixels along the line of the Quad Bayer approach used in phones. There are many avenues for experiment with such a camera and these are only a few, but my best guess is that the next R3 will incorporate something very new and and still somewhat experimental.

 

[David - Sydney]

That's about the only reason I can see for an R3II. The R3 was the test for eye-controlled AF, an R3II could be the test for global shutter. Hopefully Canon can deliver one that doesn't cost DR at low ISO.

The only ways I can see that happening is either SPAD, moving the storage well to behind the wafer (not taking half of the pixel space) or some micro lens magic to direct all the light on the remaining half diode that has the same depth as a current full pixel diode.

 

[Loswr]

The history of the 3 series is a history of experimentation, clearly focused on eye AF for the first two rounds

The EOS 3 was not the first Canon camera to have eye-controlled AF.

 

[Dragon]

The EOS 3 was not the first Canon camera to have eye-controlled AF.

Yes, but a big step from the previous rather rudimentary examples with very few AF points. I do think any R3 successor will have some new and somewhat experimental tech, but only time will tell (if there even is a successor).

 

[frankchn]

I still haven't seen a clear description of how the cross type AF works on the R1, but if the sensor were actually fully QPAF (i.e. 96 MP), I think Canon would be making big noises about that, so true QPAF may be another experiment path for a future R3.

From the descriptions, it sounds like it is DPAF just with some pixel halves oriented at 90 degrees from standard.

 

[Loswr]

From the descriptions, it sounds like it is DPAF just with some pixel halves oriented at 90 degrees from standard.

They patented QPAF, but before that they patented DPAF with alternating pairs of orthogonally oriented pixel rows.

 

[Billybob]

Nikon could make the Z7 a higher resolution camera and give it a 61 MP sensor or choose an even higher pixel count. Voila, new room found for the Z7 and it might attract a lot of buyers.

I tend to agree that this is the likely direction of a Z7III. However, anything less than 80MP (and preferably, 90-100MP) would be insulting to Nikon users at minimum, and an incredible sales disaster at worst. Less than twice the resolution of current "high-res" bodies offers very little perceptible gain. But, as I mentioned earlier, regardless of the (high) pixel count, I won't be buying. 40-50MP is plenty for my purposes. I'm not producing billboard-sized images to be viewed from less than 15-feet away.

 

[Richard CN]

A high MP R3 doesn't make sense, IMO. Canon has walked themselves in to a weird corner. They can't cohesively price the R3 under an R1, because... all things equal, the high MP body will be the more desirable body. It would be odd to have a high pixel count and effectively a better camera for less than the R1 (it will almost certainly be better in most ways because of its age). Sure, the R1 may have better noise handling, but largely, the R3 will be the flagship in that scenario and we all know how little Canon liked that moniker even before the R1 was announced.

On the flipside, they could reorganize in 2026 and make the R3 the de facto sports body, and basically make an R1 replacement and move the R1 II to the high pixel count body and clean up the line.

If I'm honest, both seem like weird decisions, in light of their current stance. Personally, I still find it hard to believe the R3 will continue. I think the more likely direction will be the dropping of the R3, and the continuance of a single 1 Series body. But I can also see the dropping of the R3 and the introduction of a second 1 Series body, like in the past.

you know there are no laws or rules to this. they can do what they please. and if that's making an R3 II with a high MP but slower performance (as it would be) than so be it.

MP's don't define a flagship. for Canon it's always the 1

 

[Richard CN]

I feel they missed the mark creating a true flagship camera as a worthy successor to the 1Dx Mark III.

it's superior to the 1Dx Mark III in almost every way. But you carry on thinking that.

 

[Chig]

Global sensor 24mp (of course) or crop sensor (but that's a long shot).
Maybe an R3C hybrid?
For a high MP integrated body surely it would be called an R1s rather than an R3ii ?

 

[Richard CN]

That's about the only reason I can see for an R3II. The R3 was the test for eye-controlled AF, an R3II could be the test for global shutter. Hopefully Canon can deliver one that doesn't cost DR at low ISO.

it will unless it's prohibitively expensive.