Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[EOS 4 Life]

If I had to put down a bet, I would bet we will see an R5s in the same time frame as the new Tilt-Shift lenses. My sense is that a full-house R7 any time soon is unlikely, both because of the history of the 7 series and the market shrinkage the higher price point would cause.

The R7 is more of a 90D than the R10 is.
I do not think the history of the 7D has much bearing.

 

[Dragon]

Your analysis about the R7 pricepoint is probably right.

For me the R7 is a 90D replacement, not a ‘true’ 7D replacement. I suspect that a fair number of 7D photographers bought the R5 rather than the R7 to replace their 7D Mk II.

Personally I would prefer to use a mirrorless 7D Mk II successor for bird and macro (insect) photography above a 80-100 mp full frame camera since such a high mp ff camera will be slower (e.g fps) than the equivalent APS-C camera. The need for/ use of teleconverters is also less with an APS-C camera than with a ff camera.

Canon’s marketing data probably shows that the market for current R7 type camera is larger than the market for a ‘higher end’ R7 type camera.

You are likely correct re the relative speed, but if the FF camera has the same pixel density as the crop frame camera, then the real need for teleconverters is no different (just crop as necessary). Also, at 32-40 MP crop = to 80-100 MP FF, teleconverters are essentially useless because the camera is already extracting all the detail the lens is capable of for 99% of lenses.

 

[CJaurelius]

I think (as in my opinion) the disconnect here is that the crowd here skews older. Which makes sense as forums aren't really where young folks go. With that being said as neuroanatomist points out our personal view may not be the view of the wider market.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1...stry-according-to-the-people-who-make-cameras

The state of the camera industry, according to the people who make cameras​

"If there's a single theme virtually every leader in the industry can agree on, it's that video is a significant growth driver for the market. Video content is everywhere, and the expectation is that video – whether used by TikTok creators or international media brands – is the best hope of driving the market."

"Every company is placing a considerable emphasis on attracting hybrid users who shoot both stills and video and, in some cases, only video. We're going to see camera companies focusing more on video features and capabilities and probably many more products explicitly targeting that audience. It's why a company like Nikon, which isn't historically known as a go-to company for video products, put so much emphasis on video features in a camera like the Z9."

"In a nutshell, every manufacturer I spoke with said the data tells them that video is where the growth opportunities will be found, and we can expect them to act accordingly."

VIdeo seems to be the future, and thats not coming from random people on a forum that is from industry leaders at camera trade shows. But yet here most people don't even seem to bring up video. This plays a lot into how people outside here see things differently.

R5mii - The upgrades from the previous camera are overwhelmingly on the video side. The big problem with the realease of the R5 was the overheating issue. None of these camera overheat due to taking pictures. So clearly the problem was video related. They addressed it with a firmware update. Then in the R5mii to get out in front of it they introduced the vents plus a grip that includes a fan. Again, this has really nothing to do with photgraphy as a photographer would only need a battery grip and not a fan grip. The R5mii's readout speed has increased and is just below the R3's readout spead around 6 ms (increase from around 16 ms on the original R5). This allows for less rolling shutter which is extremely helpful for video. It helps with wildlife but not much with a portrait photographer. They added c-log 2 which allows for more DR in video but again doesn't help photographers much. They put waveforms on the R5mii (which they didn't on the R1) again a feature for video. The 45MP was already enough for 8k video so there is no need for improvement there. And of course they got rid of the stabilization issure where the edges would wobble if you were shooting video with a wide angle lens.

So the vast majority of the upgrades on the R5mii were to appeal to video shooters. Why do you think the R5mii has done so well in preorders? Clearly video. I mean most photographers will tell you that the upgrades aren't substantial. But from the video side the R5mii is now on par with the competitors.

R3 & R1 - These cameras are supposed to be a step up from the R5mii. And for a few select groups they may be. But again if you are a video shooter then these aren't really an upgrade. For one they low megapixels means they both can't do 8k video. So on the one hand both of them have a sensor with a faster readout speed than the R5mii. The R3 is around 5.5 ms and the R1 is around 3 ms. So if you are a video shooter and you want the fastest readout speed so you get less rolling shutter, you have to give up 8k video. The Sony A1 has a 4.2 ms readout speed and the Nikon Z9/Z8 has a 4 ms readout speed. And both those cameras have 50 MP and 45 MP that both do 8k video. And then you have the Sony A9III that is 24 MP like the Canon R1 but has a 0 ms global shutter.

Will there be people taking pictures or birds or landscapes 20 years from now....sure. But forget what you personally like, do you think that will be a substantial part of the business...I doubt it. Does anyone really think the 25 year old kids today will be taking pictures of birds when they're 40? Social media and "content" production is the future of this technology. I personally beleive the current biggest hurdle is reducing the time-to-post. What can these cameras do to reduce the time between a photo/video being captured and it being posted on social media.

But what, exactly, is a 'creator?' At a basic level, it's someone who uses a camera to create content for public sharing. But let's be clear about what the camera companies mean when they talk about targeting 'creators': Gen Z and teenagers. I'm not just speculating; they straight up told me that in multiple conversations. Camera companies see this demographic as a critical market for the future, and there's a land grab going on to attract these users in their formative years to create brand loyalists.

And this is where the world outside this forum sees it a bit different. If you are a 20 year old getting into making "content" you only have so much money but want to buy into a growing hip cool system. This is where the flack from the R1 comes in. Sure a sports photographer might see the R1 as a great camera. But nobody knows or cares what a sports photographer thinks. Instead they go on YouTube and they see all the people there with hundreds of thousands or even millions of subscribers saying that the R1 isn't the best camera out there. The Sony A1/Nikon Z9 are the true do it all "flagship" cameras. So then they go out and buy the version of that companies camera that they can afford.

And back to the R3 I really don't see the overall space for it. The R1 is an improvement on the R3. If you wan't more megapixels then clearly the R5 is the best option. So if the R3 stays 24 MP why would you buy it over the R1? How could they improve the R3 and somehow not make it the same or better than the R1? Then there is price. The R3 was originally introduced at $6k. With the R5mii at $4300 and the R1 at $6300 there doesn't seem to be much room.

 

[neuroanatomist]

VIdeo seems to be the future, and thats not coming from random people on a forum that is from industry leaders at camera trade shows.

Slow, late, follower Canon seems to be putting a lens emphasis on higher-end hybrid shooters with their newest lenses (24-105/2.8 Z, 35/1.4 VCM) and on VR with their dual fisheye lenses. Do Sony and Nikon have similar offerings? How long ago did they launch them?

 

[CJaurelius]

Slow, late, follower Canon seems to be putting a lens emphasis on higher-end hybrid shooters with their newest lenses (24-105/2.8 Z, 35/1.4 VCM) and on VR with their dual fisheye lenses. Do Sony and Nikon have similar offerings? How long ago did they launch them?

VR is currently a gimmick.The Apple vision flopped and there isn't a way for people to consume VR content yet.

As far as video lenses yes canon is very far behind. The two lenses as you mention are new and the first ones to have aperture rings for video. First the 24-105 apeture ring only works in video where the Sony/Sigma/Tamron/Viltrox/etc aperture rings in both video and photo mode.

Also Sony has gone even further and put power zoom switches on their lenses that not only allow you to zoom with a rocker on the lens but allow you to use the zoom from the camera on a slider in front of the shutter button.

So while Canon has 2 "hybrid" effectively ALL of their current lenses are already hybrid.

So for example they have the FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G if you are a video only shooter and you need the zoom rocker then they have the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II if you are a hybrid shooter with the apeture ring. Again this is build into ALL of their lenses. The assume at a minimum everyone is hybrid. This is almost EVERY focal lenthg that they make. They've been doing this for years now and Canon just started a few months ago with 2 lenses.

And this shows how out of tocuh people are here when it comes to video. To you these "hybrid" lenses are new but to other people this is the standard. Heck Sigma has a full line up of these lenses with declickable apeture rings that have be out for years. Even cheap Viltrox cameras have these features.

 

[neuroanatomist]

VR is currently a gimmick.The Apple vision flopped and there isn't a way for people to consume VR content yet.

As far as video lenses yes canon is very far behind. The two lenses as you mention are new and the first ones to have aperture rings for video. First the 24-105 apeture ring only works in video where the Sony/Sigma/Tamron/Viltrox/etc aperture rings in both video and photo mode.

Also Sony has gone even further and put power zoom switches on their lenses that not only allow you to zoom with a rocker on the lens but allow you to use the zoom from the camera on a slider in front of the shutter button.

So while Canon has 2 "hybrid" effectively ALL of their current lenses are already hybrid.

So for example they have the FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G if you are a video only shooter and you need the zoom rocker then they have the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II if you are a hybrid shooter with the apeture ring. Again this is build into ALL of their lenses. The assume at a minimum everyone is hybrid. This is almost EVERY focal lenthg that they make. They've been doing this for years now and Canon just started a few months ago with 2 lenses.

And this shows how out of tocuh people are here when it comes to video. To you these "hybrid" lenses are new but to other people this is the standard. Heck Sigma has a full line up of these lenses with declickable apeture rings that have be out for years. Even cheap Viltrox cameras have these features.

Thanks.

I remember when autofocus was a gimmick. And the iPod was a fad. I think the jury is out on VR. I wonder if Oculus users know there’s no way to consume VR.

Still, we all know how late Canon was to mirrorless. And we all know who leads the market now. So if they’re late to hybrid shooting, I don’t expect it to have a significant effect on their market share. Time will tell.

 

[CJaurelius]

Thanks.

I remember when autofocus was a gimmick. And the iPod was a fad. I think the jury is out on VR. I wonder if Oculus users know there’s no way to consume VR.

VR has the same issue as 3D. While the tech itself is cool there simply isn't an easy way to consume it. Sure at some point they'll be able to get a solid device cheap enough that people can buy it. But realistically you can't consume a lot of content through a device that you have to put over your eyes.

Still, we all know how late Canon was to mirrorless. And we all know who leads the market now. So if they’re late to hybrid shooting, I don’t expect it to have a significant effect on their market share. Time will tell.

Agreed that time will tell, not so much about market share. We've discussed this before but even though Canon is the market leader in number of products sold Canon is at $544B while Sony is at $643B. With Canon at 46% total market share vs Sony's 26% that puts Canon at around 3.6M cameras sold vs Sony's 2M. So this means Canon is selling cameras at an average of about $1,000 while Sony is selling cameras at an average of double that at more than $2,000.

Now clearly the Sony cameras aren't double the cost of Canon's its just that most of the additional 1.5M units more cameras that Canon sells are lower end cameras. Lower end cameras have lower profit margin. These cameras are slowly being phased away. Canon has been effectively buying market share by lowering prices to remain the market leader. You can see that in the current pricing. The R8 was released about a year ago and is currently on sale at $1,300. The closes Sony equivalent would be the much older A7C which was released 4 years ago and is currently $1,600. So a camera that is almost 3 years older is selling for $300 more and the R8 is clearly a better camera. Same thing for the R6mii. It was just on sale for $2000 last week and is now on sale for $2,300 this week. This camera was released about 1 and half years ago. It's closes Sony competitor is the Sony A7IV which was released a year before the R6mii and again is sell at $2,500 or $300-$500 more than the Canon.

Canon's market share is an illusion. They make less money than Sony but have a higher market share from selling an extra 1.5M cheap cameras. We're talking about people walking into Best Buy or Walmart and buying an EOS R100 WITH a kit lens for $400. These are people buying dad a gift or an impulse buy. They'll take a couple pictures with the kit lens, realize most of their photos aren't better than their iphone and the camera will collect dust on a shelf somewhere. Heck Canon is still selling Rebel T7's that aren't 4k for $479. Does anyone truly think these budget cameras are going to be selling 5 years from now?

And this data shows pretty clear when you look at the market share for rental cameras. People don't rent low end cheap cameras. So the rental market share gives you a good look at where the market is headed as people only rent cameras they need to use.

https://www.statista.com/statistics... United States, Canon,a share of 32.7 percent.

	Canon	Sony
2020	38.46%	22.8%
2021	37.49%	28.7%
2022	35.93%	31.17%
2023	33.39%	32.67%

So bascially over the last 4 years Canon went from being 50% ahead to bascially tied with Sony.

If the R3 line is going to continue, then it needs to be overhauled into something different. If they want the R1 to be the "legacy" low megapixel/fast readout speed camera then the R3 needs to be the jack of all trades A1/Z9 competitor. Because when the $400 DSLR Rebel sales drop they're going to have to compete head to head with Canon/Nikon at the upper end of the market.

Then the R1 would go head to head with the Sony A9 and the R3 would go head to head with the Sony A1. Beacause right now it appears as though the R3 was the true flahship along along and they simply called the R3mii the R1 for the sake of saying they have a flagship after all these years without one.

 

[Dragon]

Agreed that time will tell, not so much about market share. We've discussed this before but even though Canon is the market leader in number of products sold Canon is at $544B while Sony is at $643B. With Canon at 46% total market share vs Sony's 26% that puts Canon at around 3.6M cameras sold vs Sony's 2M. So this means Canon is selling cameras at an average of about $1,000 while Sony is selling cameras at an average of double that at more than $2,000.

It appears you are looking at corporate totals. Both Sony and Canon make a lot of stuff besides cameras and the revenue from cameras is way different from your numbers. Further, your corporate numbers for Canon are seriously off. Sony is more than twice the size of Canon, but that includes some tiny little items like Play Station, Sony Pictures, and Sony Music (all bigger than camera sales), not to mention the sensor fab that makes a majority of phone imagers. Go back and read the 10k reports from both companies carefully and you will find that you really can't put an accurate number on camera sales for either company, but you can get a whole lot closer that what you have stated here. BTW, your math (if you actually tried to do any) also needs some serious work. E.g. $643B/2M does not equal anything close to $2,000.

 

[CJaurelius]

If I had to put down a bet, I would bet we will see an R5s in the same time frame as the new Tilt-Shift lenses. My sense is that a full-house R7 any time soon is unlikely, both because of the history of the 7 series and the market shrinkage the higher price point would cause.

Canon’s marketing data probably shows that the market for current R7 type camera is larger than the market for a ‘higher end’ R7 type camera.

I don't really understand the pro apsc argument outside of lower price and smaller bodies. A higher end R7 would just seem pointless as you could just buy a comparable full frame.

I'm sure they could make an apsc version of the R5mii sensor and sell that camera for a little bit less. But what would be the point?

The only time I've seen where the reduction in cost makes that big of a difference is something like the FX30. The FX3 is a full frame cinema camera that sells for $3,900. The body has a built in fan, has 1/4"-20 mounts to rig, an option handle with XLR inputs for audio, etc. They created the FX30 which is an apsc version of that camera that sells for $1,800. So while most people would rather have the full frame sensor for those on a budget that need that cinema body style that is the most affordable way to get it.

But there isn't much difference in body styles between an R7 and an R6 or even the R5. So if you want to pay more for image quality why not just buy the more expensive full frame camera?

 

[CJaurelius]

It appears you are looking at corporate totals. Both Sony and Canon make a lot of stuff besides cameras and you will have a hard time really pinning down the revenue from cameras from either company, but it is way different from your numbers. Further, your corporate numbers for Canon are way off. Sony is a bit more than twice the size of Canon, but that includes some tiny little items like Play Station, and Sony Pictures, not to mention the sensor fab that makes a majority of phone imagers. Go back and read the 10k reports from both companies carefully and you will find that you really can't put and accurate number on camera sales for either company, but you can get a whole lot closer that what you have stated here.

No I'm pretty spot on and these numbers are reported elsewhere.

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/05/canon-has-nearly-50-of-camara-market-share-nearly-double-sony/
From 2022 numbers:

Further, Sony is actually ahead of Canon when it comes to the value of those sold cameras. Canon’s higher number of camera bodies sold equated to 506.7 billion yen, while Sony sold fewer units for a sales value of 565 billion yen. Canon seems to be excelling when it comes to selling more affordable cameras, while the opposite is true for Sony.

Canon's camera division is up to $544B for fiscal year 2023 which ended December 2023.



Sony's fiscal year ended in March 2024 3 months later and their camera division did $643B (bottom row).


So I'm comparing Canon's "Camera" division with Sony's "Still and Video Camera" division which has been reported on and directly compared in the past. Playstation falls under "Game & Network Services" and Sony pictures falls under "Pictures".

I've had people here try to include Canon's "Network Cameras & Others" however these are things like security cameras,

Sony states in their financials "Still and Video Cameras includes interchangeable lens cameras, compact digital cameras, consumer video cameras and video cameras for broadcast"

 

[Dragon]

I don't really understand the pro apsc argument outside of lower price and smaller bodies. A higher end R7 would just seem pointless as you could just buy a comparable full frame.

I'm sure they could make an apsc version of the R5mii sensor and sell that camera for a little bit less. But what would be the point?

The only time I've seen where the reduction in cost makes that big of a difference is something like the FX30. The FX3 is a full frame cinema camera that sells for $3,900. The body has a built in fan, has 1/4"-20 mounts to rig, an option handle with XLR inputs for audio, etc. They created the FX30 which is an apsc version of that camera that sells for $1,800. So while most people would rather have the full frame sensor for those on a budget that need that cinema body style that is the most affordable way to get it.

But there isn't much difference in body styles between an R7 and an R6 or even the R5. So if you want to pay more for image quality why not just buy the more expensive full frame camera?

If you want to troll, you need to know at least a little bit about the subject you are trolling. Bird and wildlife photographers are looking for all the magnification they can get for many situations. The common term used is "Pixels on the bird" and an R7 puts almost twice as many pixels on the bird as an R5. An R7 has a pixel density equal to an 83 MP FF sensor, which you cannot buy. You can add a 1.4 TC to get to approximately the same place with an R5, but now you are down a stop and AF performance and IQ are very similar to the the R7 on the bare lens, so why have a more expensive, heavier rig to get to the same place? These folks also want good weather sealing and the best AF, so the idea of a "pro" APS-c camera is quite logical. Before jumping in and making dumb comments as you have been, you really should spend a few days just reading some threads in these forums. There are a number of folks here who know a lot about cameras and also are very skilled at explaining how to use them.

Sorry neuro, I couldn't wait for your time zone.

 

[Dragon]

No I'm pretty spot on and these numbers are reported elsewhere.

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/05/canon-has-nearly-50-of-camara-market-share-nearly-double-sony/
From 2022 numbers:


Canon's camera division is up to $544B for fiscal year 2023 which ended December 2023.

View attachment 218640

Sony's fiscal year ended in March 2024 3 months later and their camera division did $643B (bottom row).
View attachment 218642

So I'm comparing Canon's "Camera" division with Sony's "Still and Video Camera" division which has been reported on and directly compared in the past. Playstation falls under "Game & Network Services" and Sony pictures falls under "Pictures".

I've had people here try to include Canon's "Network Cameras & Others" however these are things like security cameras,

Sony states in their financials "Still and Video Cameras includes interchangeable lens cameras, compact digital cameras, consumer video cameras and video cameras for broadcast"

So your problem is that you don't know the difference between Dollars and Yen. The Yen is currently .067 to the US Dollar. Your market size estimates in dollars are off by a factor of 150. Also beware that Sony is likely throwing high dollar pro television cameras into that same bucket. I think Canon does the same, but Canon Cine cameras are much less expensive per unit than Sony's Broadcast line. https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems . These are 3 sensor cameras with dichroic prisms and they are not cheap. Circa $50k per copy. Both companies appear to also be rolling lenses into that same line item which really confuses any math you might try to do. Just think, a $50k Sony Broadcast camera with a $150k Canon box lens https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/pro/lenses/broadcast-lenses. It doesn't take too many of those to mess up your calculations from the annual reports and the Sony camera/Canon lens combo is popular with broadcasters worldwide. The breakout in both cases is clearer than it has been in the past, but still pretty fuzzy.

 

[shtarkerx2]

Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first), but I'll die on the hill that this would be a perfect place to stick a big megapickle sensor. The rebirth of the 1ds would be nice.

A cripple hammer of the R1 would be a tough sell over the R52 or even the 6 series, which will get some added speed for the Mark III. So would just sticking the R52 sensor in it.

The 3 series has no real heritage, they can do whatever they want with it. 5 and 1 are well defined.

Come at me!

Mega pickel - how cute! Cue the unicorns and the teddy bears.

 

[P-visie]

So your problem is that you don't know the difference between Dollars and Yen. The Yen is currently .067 to the US Dollar. Your market size estimates in dollars are off by a factor of 150.

The R5mII for example is an upgraded version of R5m1 sensor.

@Dragon: Arguing with @CJaurelius will take a lot of your time.

When confronted with facts that point out her/his glaring errors (as you have done above) of lack of knowledge (your post about why birders and macro photographers want a high end APS-C camera), (s)he will, like a winding river where water meets an obstacle, change course and present new ‘ facts’ and ‘figures’, likely comparing apples with oranges and coming up with big lemons.

I once questioned her/his definition of ‘upgraded’ after the nonsensical statement about the R5 Mk II sensor and did not get a response so I stopped reading and responding, saving myself a lot of time.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The only time I've seen where the reduction in cost makes that big of a difference is something like the FX30. The FX3 is a full frame cinema camera that sells for $3,900. The body has a built in fan, has 1/4"-20 mounts to rig, an option handle with XLR inputs for audio, etc. They created the FX30 which is an apsc version of that camera that sells for $1,800.

The FX3 and FX30 are very different cameras but they share the same body.
The 7D and 6D were the same way.
People were expecting the same with the R7 and R6 but Canon decided to go with a smaller body like they did with the 90D.
I do not mind that but the 90D can take a battery grip.
The R7 can't.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

No I'm pretty spot on and these numbers are reported elsewhere.

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/05/canon-has-nearly-50-of-camara-market-share-nearly-double-sony/
From 2022 numbers:


Canon's camera division is up to $544B for fiscal year 2023 which ended December 2023.

View attachment 218640

Sony's fiscal year ended in March 2024 3 months later and their camera division did $643B (bottom row).
View attachment 218642

So I'm comparing Canon's "Camera" division with Sony's "Still and Video Camera" division which has been reported on and directly compared in the past. Playstation falls under "Game & Network Services" and Sony pictures falls under "Pictures".

I've had people here try to include Canon's "Network Cameras & Others" however these are things like security cameras,

Sony states in their financials "Still and Video Cameras includes interchangeable lens cameras, compact digital cameras, consumer video cameras and video cameras for broadcast"

I do not doubt that Sony has higher margins but they are not reporting the exact same thing.
It is difficult to compare the sales of a particular segment in two separate companies based solely on their reports.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is difficult to compare the sales of a particular segment in two separate companies based solely on their reports.

Some people have no problem bending data to support their preconceived conclusions.

 

[CJaurelius]

So your problem is that you don't know the difference between Dollars and Yen. The Yen is currently .067 to the US Dollar. Your market size estimates in dollars are off by a factor of 150.

No I don't I compared Yen to Yen $544BY to $643BY. Both financials are reported in Yen obviosly. Then when I converted to unit prices I used the Yen to USD coversion rate. Your conversion rate is off by a factor of 10 as the current conversion rate is .0067 not .067 My math is below.

Canon:
$544BY divided by 3.6M units = $151,000Y. $151,000Y X .0067 = $1,012 USD

Sony:
$643BY divided by 2M units = $319,000Y. $319,000Y x .0067 = $2,138 USD

Also beware that Sony is likely throwing high dollar pro television cameras into that same bucket. I think Canon does the same, but Canon Cine cameras are much less expensive per unit than Sony's Broadcast line.

Agreed and I noted that in my post above. Again that is part of my whole argument. Sony sells LESS cameras that are MORE expensive. Sony also has a cinema line that is way more expnsive than Canon. The C500mii is $11k and Sony is selling the Venice 2 for $60k and Burano 8K for $25k. And these camera's all relate. So their cinema line goes down to the FX9 and FX6 in the middle around $10k to $6k then all the way down to the FX30 at $1,800. They are heavy beleivers that video is the future.

https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems . These are 3 sensor cameras with dichroic prisms and they are not cheap. Circa $50k per copy. Both companies appear to also be rolling lenses into that same line item which really confuses any math you might try to do. Just think, a $50k Sony Broadcast camera with a $150k Canon box lens https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/pro/lenses/broadcast-lenses. It doesn't take too many of those to mess up your calculations from the annual reports and the Sony camera/Canon lens combo is popular with broadcasters worldwide. The breakout in both cases is clearer than it has been in the past, but still pretty fuzzy.

I agree the unit mix is off. I'm making ball park assumptions. I mean if you think Sony is selling 100k cameras that cost $50k then good for them. But again this goes back to my point that Sony is focusing on moving the industry toward higher end cameras. The FX30 is an example of that. They effectively have people shooting YouTube content on their cinema line of cameras.

Sony has now made their entry level "vlogger" camera $1k for the body only. Meanwhile Canon is selling R100's with a kit lens for $400. What happens when the bottom of the market is gone?

Taking this back to the R3 this is why I think they need to make the R3 a flagship beast with high megapixes that cost $6500+. I thought they were going to do that with the R1. They didn't and that's why they are catching flack. There is ALREADY a rumor that they are going to make an R1X that will be the high megapixel beast. That would be fine too but a bit confusing. I think it would be best to differentiate the R1 and R3 line instead of an R1 and R1X line with R3 lost.

 

[CJaurelius]

If you want to troll, you need to know at least a little bit about the subject you are trolling. Bird and wildlife photographers are looking for all the magnification they can get for many situations. The common term used is "Pixels on the bird" and an R7 puts almost twice as many pixels on the bird as an R5. An R7 has a pixel density equal to an 83 MP FF sensor, which you cannot buy. You can add a 1.4 TC to get to approximately the same place with an R5, but now you are down a stop and AF performance and IQ are very similar to the the R7 on the bare lens, so why have a more expensive, heavier rig to get to the same place? These folks also want good weather sealing and the best AF, so the idea of a "pro" APS-c camera is quite logical. Before jumping in and making dumb comments as you have been, you really should spend a few days just reading some threads in these forums. There are a number of folks here who know a lot about cameras and also are very skilled at explaining how to use them.

Sorry neuro, I couldn't wait for your time zone.

I will be the first to admit that I have very little knowledge photographing birds. That's why I started but saying "I dont understand".

This is very similar to how many people seems to not be up on the video side of things. From my perspective shooting birds is a lot more niche part of the market than video. The R7 can also shoot 4k60 10 bit footage overasampled from 7k. In Canon's official product showcase they promote it as a photo & video camera. I'd also note that pretty much everyone in the video is younger. While there are some wildlife sections the majority of it focuses on young people shooting video. Which of course I think is a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwLPgwnoI4&t=25s

My point is that I think we all are coming from our own personal perspective, which is fine. But how representative is our perspective from the whole of the industry. In the circles that I run in (primarily social media and content production) we're constantly discussing which cameras, lenses, lights, mics, drones, software, etc. I've never heard the term "pixels on the bird" before. The overwhelming things we're shooting content of is products and people (mostly chicks). My "role" within my circle is to be the one knowledgeable on gear so the more I understand the better. So even though I personally will never shoot a bird the informatin may translate into something useful to me.

 

[CJaurelius]

I once questioned her/his definition of ‘upgraded’ after the nonsensical statement about the R5 Mk II sensor and did not get a response so I stopped reading and responding, saving myself a lot of time.

Apologies If I missed this but I'm not aware of the qustion. I would be glad to respond if you could repeat it. Also I'm a he. To old t care about pronous though