Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[EOS 4 Life]

But the people on YouTube are going to do a video filming propreller blades with the Sony A9III and the R1 and the A9III is going to look better.

Sure, but the R1 will look better in every other test.
There is a contingent of Canadian YouTubers who shoot Sony and do anything they can to make Sony look good and make Canon look bad.
I do not expect fair tests from them.
By the way, Manny Ortiz is pretty fair to Canon.
The a9 III has its use cases but it is nowhere close to the R1 in terms of video.
No YouTuber should ever pick the a9 III over the R1.
************* had to apply noise reduction to the a9 III just so it could get a halfway decent result on his tests.
Gerald is also fair to Canon but he will make every excuse for Sony.
Blogs and social media are interestingly stressing the rolling shutter speed when the R1 and R5 II are better than the competition at almost everything else.
They conveniently did not mention rolling shutter speed when the R5 and R6 were so much better than the competition.
12 MP was enough when the a7S III came out.
Then when Canon came out with the R3 24 MP was suddenly not enough anymore.
After Sony came out with the a9 III at the same price then 24 MP was enough again.
The R5 II makes the a1 look overpriced so they simply do not compare them.
There is no camera that Canon can make that won't get criticized.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You continue to make dumb math errors because you are so focused on getting everyone to agree with your point that you don't bother to think through what you say. You NEED 45 MP in a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor to make 8k at video aspect ratios. It is as simple as that, but your happily deny reality in the interest of trying to make a point. Give it up!

Conon should seriously consider 3:2 open gate.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Usually, people who buy "the best" when it is neither necessary or maybe even optimum typically have a problem with self-esteem and feel that the perceived quality of the trinkets they buy will will somehow enhance the public perception of their phallic dimensions. I always found it amusing that if you walk into a Porsche dealer without being dressed to the nines, the sales folk will ignore you and try to shoo you out of the store. In contrast, you can go into a Ferrari dealer dressed in old jeans and get immediate attention.

Sounds like I need to hang out with you.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think Canon and Nikon both only have 24 and 45 MP cameras right now.

R7

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I can list you hundered if not thousands of YouTubers that purchase tens of thousands of dollars of camear grear every single year. This is probably the largest segment of the business today.

That is pure speculation on your part.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But that is what other people are saying. No one is mad that the R1 is 24MP. What people are confused about is that they didn't make another camera as an OPTION.

Canon announced the R5 II on the same day.
It is a better all-around camera than Sony's much more expensive "flagship" a1.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In any case, if there are a bunch of wealthy amateurs willing to spend a ton of money on "the best" camera, I think it would be silly to ignore that market, even if they are only buying those cameras for "phallic reasons". Money is money after all.

Canon pretty much does ignore that market for cameras.
They do address that market for lenses though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I have both the r5m2 and R1 on preorder, if the r5m2 works well for my professional needs, I will cancel the R1 and wait for a later model with higher resolution.

If the R5 II fits your professional needs then why would you buy a later model?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Ah, CIPA data, thanks.

It does seem like even if you account for network camera revenues (unless network cameras are really selling like gangbusters in Americas -- like 50%+ of all network camera revenues), Canon cameras proportionally seems to do better in Americas than elsewhere compared to CIPA totals.

For whatever reason, Canon prices seem a lot more competitive in the USA.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

If the R5 II fits your professional needs then why would you buy a later model?

Because the later model may have something that I want that is better than the r5m2. Ideally, I want the speed and focus capabilities the R1 seems to be coming with, but I want somewhere around 36mp, which is much better for my needs than 24. When I changed to the R3 for my sports shooting, most of my customers complained about the "huge drop in image quality" their words, not mine. My r5 that I was shooting with before really struggled when switching targets and refocusing, something the R3 has much less of an issue with. I also want good subject tracking as well.

If the R1 had a higher resolution (at least 36mp) it would have been perfect for my needs and I would not have ordered the r5m2. I suspect this is the primary reason Canon left the R1 at 24mp, to not interfere with the r5m2 sales. None of us will likely ever know for certain why they chose to keep the R1 at 24mp and those of us who wish it were higher will just have to make the choice whether we buy it or not.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

For whatever reason, Canon prices seem a lot more competitive in the USA.

A certain percentage of the population will put brand recognition and platform familiarity high on the list of reasons they buy one brand over another. I certainly did; I shot a MUCH older Canon camera for years that was really garbage for what I was trying to do with it. When I was looking to upgrade, I looked at Nikon and Sony very seriously and decided to stick with Canon because I would have a much lower learning curve than I would by switching to a different brand.

 

[CJaurelius]

Is it? Do you know that? Hint: no you don't.

On the whole trolling thing - one thing that trolls tend to do is quote articles highly selectively to 'make' whatever point they are trying to get across. Like this case, in quoting Petapixel's article, where you ignore comments such as "the company’s global numbers look stronger than earlier this year" and "To broadly say that Canon’s camera sales are falling is inaccurate". Or: "It’s easy to look at Canon Marketing Japan’s presentation and take from it “the sky is falling,” but it’s only one small slice of the whole picture." That is Petapixel writing an article which is critical of Canon, but balanced in discussing the stats involved, and nuanced in commenting upon them. An approach worth emulating.

How many times have I posted here that the R5mii is an amazing camera? Its the people here that pick out the negative side of my opinion and ingore the positive.

My OPINION is that from what I SEE the lower end of the market is going away for ALL CAMERA COMPANIES. Therefore the camera COMPANIES that focuse on high end/niche cameras will be better suited for success in the future when these lower end camera sales are gone.

CIPA camera sales numbers:

	2020	%	2021	%	2022	%	2023	%
MIrrorless	2,933,080	33%	3,106,499	37%	4,073,511	51%	4,832,813	63%
DSLR	2,374,569	27%	2,241,772	27%	1,853,222	23%	1,166,100	15%
Fixed Lens	3,578,643	40%	3,013,250	36%	2,084,865	26%	1,721,592	22%
Total	8,886,292	100%	8,361,521	100%	8,011,598	100%	7,720,505	100%

In a span of just 4 years the market has gone from 33% mirrorless to 63% mirrorless. DSLR's and Fixed Lens cameras are primarily comprised of the lower end of the market. DSLR's are mostly lower end to mid range. As the years go on and no new technology is introduced they will become dominately lower end as they phase out. It's already droped from 27% to 15%. It's looking like its going to drop to below 1M this year. At this rate they will be gone in 5 years.

Fixed lens cameras include point and shoots that are at the absolute bottom. This includes cameras that are $99. This market has also drop considerable from 40% to 22%. There may be some resurgence in this category this year but that is primarily due to the Fuji X100VI which is a $1,600 camera and technically a mirrorless. So this market will also be almost gone soon and what will remain will be higher end mirrorless cameras with fixed lenses. Neither Canon, Sony or Nikon will want to participate in this markate as they aren't really interested in making fixed lens mirrorless cameras. This will more than likely be a niche market with Leica, Fuji, Ricoh, etc.

Volume of total camera sales will likely pick up a pit but by and large are flat. No one can see the future but from the numbers it appears as were moving to a world where we sell 8M cameras and 75% - 8% of them will be mirrorless. So how will camera companies increase profits in that landscape? It seems likely they will have to shift higher end units with higher profit margins.

Can the market turn around and young kids fall love with $300 point and shoot cameras so Camera companies make a profit off of selling tens of millions of them like in the past? Sure that is possible. But the current trends don't show that.

 

[CJaurelius]

This comment and others you have made suggest that the target market you are excited about is a bunch of youngish folks who are actually over their heads in debt (i.e. house mortgage, car loan, camera bought on a credit card, etc.) That is all well and good until the economy turns south (which it always does) and then, which of their overpriced toys will be the first to go?. Maybe, just maybe, Canon is on to something catering old folk who have their house and car paid for and have money in the bank. In a down economy, those will be the only camera customers to be found. BTW, that downturn is already whispering in the wind.

That is certainly a possibility, especially in the short term.

But for the younger people these aren't really toys. Again they need these "toys" to get views on YouTube which is their job. It's how they get paid. If you are a hobbyist and you have an R5 and the economy crashes then you may push off getting the R5mii. If you have a YouTube channel and the economy crashes you still need to create new content and new gear drives views. Furthermore in a downturn people are going to gravitate toward watching more YouTube vs traditional TV as YouTube is free.

Also most of the advancements I see in the newer cameras is on the video side. As the older established crowd gets older they will have less reason to upgrade as they aren't as focused on video.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/20/...outube-and-netflix-dominating-us-tv-streaming

Nielsen stats show YouTube and Netflix dominating US TV streaming.
YouTube was the most-watched streaming option over the past 12 months, according to data from Nielsen. In January, YouTube accounted for 8.6 percent of usage in the US, followed by Netflix at 7.9 percent. That’s more than the next eight services combined. Separately, YouTube says users around the world watched over 1 billion hours of content on the site’s TV app every day, while creators saw a 400 percent increase in watch time on TVs.

 

[CJaurelius]

You continue to make dumb math errors because you are so focused on getting everyone to agree with your point that you don't bother to think through what you say. You NEED 45 MP in a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor to make 8k at video aspect ratios. It is as simple as that, but your happily deny reality in the interest of trying to make a point. Give it up!

To generate a 32MP 16:9 file for 8K, a 3:2 resolution of 38MP would be required.

 

[koenkooi]

To generate a 32MP 16:9 file for 8K, a 3:2 resolution of 38MP would be required.

And for DCI aspect ratios?

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is no camera that Canon can make that won't get criticized.

Yet those cameras keep selling, and the arguments against that all amount to some form of, “Yeah, but…,” and have been that way for the 14 years I’ve been on this forum. Meanwhile, Canon has not lost market share.

So all these armchair experts who think they understand the camera market better than the company that leads it and has successfully dominated that market even as it changed dramatically over the past decade, will go on predicting that Canon is Doomed™. The usernames and the reasons change, the arguments are the same. Poor low ISO DR, late to mirrorless, late to FF mirrorless, doesn't understand the market's interest in hybrid cameras, not enough MP, blah, blah, blah and Canon is Doomed™. It's a little amusing, but also a little sad.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And for DCI aspect ratios?

Golly gee, I think DCI 8K is 8192 x 4320 pixels. And the R5 sensor outputs 8192 x 5464. Must be a coincidence, we all know Canon just picked 45 MP out of a hat and stuck with that number for the R5II because they don't understand customers' needs and they're incapable of change.

 

[CJaurelius]

Sure, but the R1 will look better in every other test.
There is a contingent of Canadian YouTubers who shoot Sony and do anything they can to make Sony look good and make Canon look bad.
I do not expect fair tests from them.
By the way, Manny Ortiz is pretty fair to Canon.
The a9 III has its use cases but it is nowhere close to the R1 in terms of video.
No YouTuber should ever pick the a9 III over the R1.
************* had to apply noise reduction to the a9 III just so it could get a halfway decent result on his tests.
Gerald is also fair to Canon but he will make every excuse for Sony.

I don't disagree with your assesment. YouTube is by definition a video first platform as you are there to watch videos and photographs. Therefore it has a bias against video and consequently a bias for Sony.

Also for the money most YouTubers are going to compare the R1 with the A9III and the A1. The overall all assesment will be if you want the fastest readout speed and 120 pfs get the A9III and if you want more megapixes and better all around camera get the A1. I'm not saying this technically correct I'm saying this will be the overwhelming view of this biased group.

We agree on the bias but disagree on the benefit of it.

Blogs and social media are interestingly stressing the rolling shutter speed when the R1 and R5 II are better than the competition at almost everything else.
They conveniently did not mention rolling shutter speed when the R5 and R6 were so much better than the competition.
12 MP was enough when the a7S III came out.
Then when Canon came out with the R3 24 MP was suddenly not enough anymore.
After Sony came out with the a9 III at the same price then 24 MP was enough again.

Again no. It's not about 24MP being enough or not, its about choice. Sony gives you the A9III at 24MP if absolue speed and fps is the most important criteria. If you want megapixels you can get 50MP with still a high sensor readout of 4 ms. And if you want 61MP and aren't shooting fast subjects you can sacrafice readout speed all the way down to 31 ms but again get 61MP.

The R5 II makes the a1 look overpriced so they simply do not compare them.
There is no camera that Canon can make that won't get criticized.

I agree TODAY. The R5mII is essentially 90% of what the A1 can do but 65% of the price. However the R5mii was just announced and the A1 is 4 years old. If Sony either doesn't update their lineup OR somehow releases a new camera with the same or slower specs for more money I will be the first person criticizing Sony.

And this is not different than the Z8. The R5mii and Z8 are both newer and better priced than the A1. However the newer R5mii and Z8 are both 45MP and the Nikon has a faster readout speed and cost less. The R5mii has better autofocus. These newer cameras are more closely comparabe. But again the 4 year old A1 has the most megapixes and tied with Nikon for fastest readout speed.

 

[CJaurelius]

And for DCI aspect ratios?

I'm in agreement will all here that Canon chose the 45MP as this was the minimum MP needed to get 8k video in mulitple formats.

This only highlights my viewpoint. Canon Produces primarily 24MP full frame sensors as this is current minimum standard for quality. The only full frame sensor (that I'm aware of) is the R5 line which is higher so they can do 8k video. People here see that as a possitive and I see that as a negative.

I would rather have the choice of different MP options for different people situations. Why not offer a 60MP+ sensor for the people who want to crop. Why not offer a 30-35MP camera for people in the middle that want to crop a little bit and then could have downsampled 7k for a slightly sharper picture with a moderate sensor readout speed. Why not offer a SUB 24MP option so that you can get a relative fast readout speed at a low cost for people who don't need more than 4k?

The argument here seems to be Papa Canon knows better and whatever they give us is all that we need.

 

[CJaurelius]

That is pure speculation on your part.

How so? You can go on YouTube and watch these young people with tons of camera equipment.