Sorry, but you can't fall back on blaming Excel. Excel has a symbol for every currency in the world. When formatting a cell, select "currency" and the go to the drop down box and pick your symbol
No I'm blaming it on my own hubris and laziness. If you havent guessed it by now I'm pretty accepting of criticism.
The current R3 price is only a few dollars more than an R5 II, so it will either stay in the market at that price point as an entry level ruggedized camera or it will be discontinued. Given the sporadic and experimental history of the "3", you may not see another until 2050 and it could be a holoscope (i.e. capture unit for holographic images)
I agree with you here in terms of what will happen. I disagree that is should.
You are missing the fact that the biggest market for "pro" (i.e. ruggedized dual grip) bodies is the sports crowd and they do not want a high MP body. If there is a sufficient ancillary market for a similar camera with a high MP sensor, then Canon will build one as they have before. More likely, they will build a high res version of the R5, since that market is almost certainly larger and more bodies means more lens sales.
Again I BELEIVE the market is changing. I personally know several people who own Sony's A1 and they are not "pros" in the sense that you describe. The reality is that they probably could get everything they need in the $3,500 - $4,500 price range but they'd rather spend the extra money to simply have the "best". As I mentioned a high res version of the R5 with a faster readout speed would work here. I was suggesting thats what the R3 should be but I'd be cool with it by any name.
Also, readout speeds much faster than the R5 II are only really useful for flash timing. For 6 mS to be noticeable in video, the pan has to be so fast that it will make the audience seasick. If you truly want to stop airplane propellers or hummingbird wings with no distortion, then global shutter is the only answer, but Canon has clearly decided that it isn't worth giving up a stop of dynamic range, at least for now, and that is probably a wise decision.
Yes us YouTube/Vlogging/Content creators are know to pan the camera quick from time to time. It's not a deal breaker, but in a world where people are constantly trying to differentiate from one another every bit helps. There is noticeable difference between the A1/Z9 at 4 ms and the A9iii's O ms global shutter. With the R5mii sensor somewhere around 6 ms it need to be at least on par with what is alraedy out there (4ms) if they want to claim the top spot. In Canon's ecosystem is it good enough? Sure. But it doesn't look good when others are faster.
As with so many, you are hung up on what you want, or maybe just what you think would be cool. Canon is looking at actual feedback from users that have a checkbook at the ready, and building the cameras they are asking for. In my business experience (in the broadcast equipment business, BTW), that is a very smart strategy. Ignoring your best customers is a pathway to the poorhouse. Copying what the other guys do is also fraught with pitfalls.
I think you are somewhat correct here. My perspective from someone who shoots with predominately people 35 and under is that Canon is listening to its existing customers who are prdominately older and making products for them. People who like and currently shoot Canon like those here see no issue with moves they are making. The people who are not shooting Canon are the ones who scratch their head at a 24MP R1 and have no clue what the R3 is for.
I don't think appealing to the younger generation has to come at the expense of "ignoring your best customers". If Canon made 50MP+, 4 ms or less camera and sold it for $7k would any existing customers get mad? From the outside looking in its PERCEIVED TO BE that the reason Canon didn't make this camera is because they can't currently and Sony/Nikon already have. Which is why people are openly stating in reviewes that they believe Canon is behind in sensor technology. I"M NOT SAYING THAT IS CORRECT. But again that is the perception. And people buy cameras based off perception.
The Nikon Z8 was winning camera of the year awards. It's 45MP and has a faster readout speed than the Sony A1 and is $2,700 cheaper. When that camera came out even the Sony crowd was praising it. I guarantee that with the Z8 and now the Z6miii with its partially stacked sensor for $2,500 Nikon will gain some market share.
See below NIkon has a mount that you can barely even see so that you can shoot Sony lenses on Nikon with full autofocus, programable buttons, aperture ring, etc. Clearly Nikon wants to make it as easy as possible for someone with a Sony body and lenses to pick up the new Z8 or Z6miii, throw their existing lenses and switch over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt_v65M7k&t=559s
There is a difference between copy others and changing with the times. The first camera I bought was a Nikon because of all the fond memomies as a kid seeing my Dad with a Nikon when they were way bigger than Canon. When I started to get back heavy into it as a hobby I though I was going to buy a Canon as at the time it was my perception Canon was for pros. I ended up shooting Sony because pretty much everyone else in my circle was using Sony. They are all about 10 years younger than me so they have a totally different perspective. So shooting Sony makes it easier to swap glass and accessories and talk gear. This is the main issue for me personally. If my circle switched to Canon then I'd switch with them. Most of my perspective is of how THEY view the gear.
I do it as a hobby since I'm a work from home exectuive. However most these younger people make $80k - $150k per year. I'm not sure if they are "pros" in the sense that you would think. But the differrence between a $4k camera and a $6k camera over 5 years with it used a busienss expense is marginal. And there are tons of younger people who all want to do the same thing. Working for themselves, on their own time, doing something creative. The brands have all acknowledge this group is the future.
