Canon USA: The R3 line will continue
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Is it not that they do no deserve one.
Would a pro body really serve them better?
If anything the GFX 100 II is less of a pro body than the GFX 100.
Although, I do know portrait photographers who constantly shoot in portrait mode and would prefer a built-in grip.
As anything with markets, it depends on, how many of them there are, how much they are willing to spend, whether Canon notices them, and whether that market would be profitable enough for Canon to serve.
Upvote
0
Canon has a contract with Getty that they need to fulfill.
You do realize that the only reason Canon added video to the 5D II is because the "journos" requested it.
Where would Canon be without that?
Upvote
0
They mean what they say they are.
There are many of them.
We just need to know how to interpret them.
Upvote
0
Two questions come to mind: "At what cost?" and "What are the alternatives?"
Upvote
0
Oh come on, let's not call up Canons' marketing department and their lingo. We all know they have a history of making all sorts of claims...
It's simply a fact that R5 body is not at the same level as R1. It's just not. And it's not only about weather sealing, it's also about buttons, switches, dials, backlighted buttons, the construction, the battery system etc.
I'm not saying R5 mk II body is bad. I'm not saying it's plastic or that you can't use it in professional environment. But it is a step below R1 and R3.
Upvote
0
It would certainly serve me better.
I hate having to buy screw on grips for the R5, just as I hated buying screw on grips for the 5D series.
The issue I have with this is that Canon doesn't have anything to offer to this market, so how can we know? The sport shooters got their shiny toy. In fact they got two of them - R1 and R3. Everybody else is expected to settle for R5.
Now, off the top of your head, what do you think how many R5 cameras are sold vs. R1 or R3? I'm certain that the R5 sales are several orders of magnitude higher than R3 or R1, so it's safe to assume that among those buyers, there is in fact a market for a professional full size body.
Upvote
0
Yes, they mean what they say, but many folks see an IP rating and assume it covers what they want it to cover without having read the definition or even having any idea that there are many different IP ratings.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
it's about 5:1 according to our presale numbers. but it's always been this way, the 1 series was never a volume seller.
your assumption is flawed, it's not safe to assume - the R5 / 5D offers a compact camera with excellent performance and comes in around $2000 less than the 1 series.
you have no data to back up the fact that people don't buy the 1 series bodies because of simply size and cost, and you are equating it to some reason that because it doesn't match your expectations it's the reason why it isn't a volume seller.
it's MUCH easier to travel with a 5D camera body than it is a 1 series camera body - not to mention they have the choice whether or not to go light or to go big. a lot of the problems with the 5D from your posts seems to be a you problem. tons of working pros have and will use the 5D series. That's why it's there, and that's why it got the majority of the 1 series AF, etc. specifications as well.
Upvote
0
It really baffles me why people post things that, if they possessed a modicum of intelligence, they’d realize make them look foolosh. Off the top of my head, I’m certain that your suggestion is idiotic.
Canon said they’re producing 45,000 units per year of the R1. If R5 sales are even two orders of magnitude higher, that’s 4.5 million cameras. Canon forecasts their entire global sales of ILCs next year at 2.8 million, so obviously sales of the R5 being ‘several orders of magnitude higher’ than the R1/R3 is ridiculous.
A far more reasonable estimate is that R5 sales are somewhere on the order of at most 10% of Canon’s total ILC sales, 6-7 times higher than R1/R3 sales (i.e., less than one order of magnitude). Even that might be too high, as @Richard CR suggests a 5:1 ratio (though I doubt CR site viewers represent Canon’s overall customer base very well).
Canon projects ILC revenue for 2024 to be about US$4B, and they project selling 2.8M ILCs. That means an average selling price of ~$1430, thus most of the cameras are in the R50 - R7/R8 range, with a reasonable number of R6II’s and a smaller number of R5’s.
Given that you’re basing your assumption about the market size for a high MP gripped body on your ‘certainty’ about something that’s patently false, your assumptions are worthless.
Pro tip: think, then post. Note that the order of operations matters for that process.
Upvote
0
The market is likely to be smaller than you think:
- Nikon introduced the Z8, without integrated grip, less than 2 years after the Z9. Would they have done this if the Z9 was selling well?
- Fujifilm removed the integrated grip when they introduced the GFX 100-II.
- Sony A1 and A9 have no integrated grip.
Upvote
0
I'm late to the party, but just a thought on the off-hand remark the low-level staffer at a Canon USA event said to a Youtuber...
All the camera makers have shamelessly misled customers into thinking that existing lines would continue. It appears to be the default behavior. Some great stories from the past ten or so years. Canon's M series; Samsung's everything; Pentax; Nikon's action cam; and Sony's strange case. Sony was the one that wasn't exactly misleading when it said a line would continue. We just didn't realize for a while that what they meant by that was that they were going to just keep selling the old versions forever to stratify the pricing. Why would anyone ask a Japanese camera company if they were going to continue a line? I can't recall a time they've said no until well after it was already established that the line was dead.
I think Richard's extremely creative ideas for a renewed R3 are fantastic. Would by 2 of the hi-res versions immediately. More likely, it would be the global shutter test bed. But, if precedent holds, it'll just be dead for the next five years, and then a low-level, non-Japanese staffer will happen to mention to a nearby Youtuber that they don't intend to make any more versions.
All the camera makers have shamelessly misled customers into thinking that existing lines would continue. It appears to be the default behavior. Some great stories from the past ten or so years. Canon's M series; Samsung's everything; Pentax; Nikon's action cam; and Sony's strange case. Sony was the one that wasn't exactly misleading when it said a line would continue. We just didn't realize for a while that what they meant by that was that they were going to just keep selling the old versions forever to stratify the pricing. Why would anyone ask a Japanese camera company if they were going to continue a line? I can't recall a time they've said no until well after it was already established that the line was dead.
I think Richard's extremely creative ideas for a renewed R3 are fantastic. Would by 2 of the hi-res versions immediately. More likely, it would be the global shutter test bed. But, if precedent holds, it'll just be dead for the next five years, and then a low-level, non-Japanese staffer will happen to mention to a nearby Youtuber that they don't intend to make any more versions.
Upvote
0
Actually my point. They never went as far as saying the M line itself is dead, at least I couldn't find a quote anywhere. In fact they said the opposite just a few months prior to discontinuing everything. Maybe they would admit it now if asked?Canon added all the M bodies to the list of discontinued products.
We'll see if they introduce a R3 Mk II before putting the R3 on the discontinued list. If not, then the line is dead but Canon will never say so upfront.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
