The likelihood of a Canon EOS R6 Mark III this year is near zero
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
People seem to assume that the target market for any camera is that camera's immediate predecessor. That's probably because we're on a gear forum, and gear reviewers always compare a new model to the last one. It's far more likely the target market for any given camera model is owners of a camera that's ≥2 iterations back in the line, and owners of 'lower' lines.
Upvote
0
That's probably true, but I imagine people who hold onto bodies for multiple generations are a bit more price conscious. I could see a large chunk of them deciding to save the $1.5-2k and going with the original R5, especially with the common perception (rightly or wrongly) being that the image quality is the same or worse on the MkII.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
Even from the point of view of the owner of the R5, I think that the R52 brings very significant progress on many points, but for what I do, those places of progress are not my priorities, and the cost of switching to a new model is currently too high for my business. As someone who loves new "toys" sometimes it's hard for me to refrain from buying every new model, but the business side says - pull the handbrake!
Everyone should know what they are going to do with the tool and which tool is best for them. For example, in some situations I get incomparably better and more interesting results using the EF 70-200 2.8L instead of the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM. Although the latter is "significantly better", the former has a "magic" that the latter lacks. So, when I need magic, I use an old and "outdated" lens... So, not everything new is always better than the old, or as one local proverb says; all that glitters is not gold.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
I would be very happy if the R52 was only marginally better or even worse than the R5 - now I wouldn't have GAS.
I feel sorry for the people who are unhappy because the specifications of the new model did not live up to their imagined expectations - it's not easy for them, all this frustration... But it's actually great that it's a topic that makes them frustrated - it means they're probably happy with the important moments in life.
Upvote
0
I can see that...for now. But typically (though not always), Canon discontinues a model once its replacement is readily available. Not that it will become impossible to purchase a new R5, but it will likely become more difficult (used ones will obviously be available).
Upvote
0
My bet will be it gets the R3 sensor, and it will be criticized for being another 24MP camera using a parts bin sensor. Even though its main competition is also 24MP and this would be a true stacked sensor rather than a "partial" stack. Other option will be that it gets a resolution bump to around 30MP, but people criticize it for having less resolution than the original R5 which you can get for basically the same money.
The pie in the sky option would be they piss off everyone by giving it the R1 sensor in the same way the R6 got the 1dxIII sensor 6 months after that came out.
Upvote
0
The R3 sensor is still slightly faster than the R5II sensor, so it would make spec warriors
happy.
Upvote
0
We still don't have significant reviews of the R5ii... basically only first impressions. It is clear that there is a minor hit on DR but much better in most other aspects.
Canon made an initial production run. They would try to maximise the quantity to meet initial forecasted pre-orders at a country level as there are different regulatory requirements (eg power/documentation) for each country. It seems that they met the US initial quantities but not most other countries.
It is a shame that Canon did not have time to make more. Marketing would have said to announce immediately and production has replied that we don't have enough stock made yet to meet forecasted pre-orders. That tension always exists.
The only incentive I can think of for Canon to go on back order is for resellers to stop immediate discounting against each other from the beginning.
Upvote
0
Agreed... preordered the R5 5 years ago and it is still going strong. Similar to the 5Diii to 5Div, the spec improvements seemed evolutionary but added up to be significant when considered as an overall package.
The R5ii is compelling for DLSR buyers. The upgrade benefits were significant to the R5 but the R5ii is a much bigger step forward for them except for battery life.
DLSR -> MILC is still an inflection point where I believe there is a greater chance of switchers. Maintaining compatibility with EF lenses is one thing but with 3rd party options for Nikon/Sony could sway those people - even using their fellow users as influencers.
I am amazed how much my kids (~30 years old) are influenced in their decision making by google reviews, personal friends instead of doing detailed research themselves. From restaurants to appliances to cameras.
Upvote
0
I am not sure of your logic here. Besides a minor DR hit, the stills advantages are significant for those that use them - precapture, electronic shutter (with sound, variable speed and flash support), eye-controlled AF, predictive AF processor, etc. I think (but I could be wrong) that Canon is still the only body that can shoot at full speed with AF/AE with 14 bit raws.
What were you expecting from a stills perspective that it is missing? You basically need to move to medium format if you want better DR irrespective of Canon/Sony/Nikon.
MILC are inherently video processors now. There is definitely better video specs if hybrid users need them. The R5 was the first 8K hybrid and still is the only one recording raw. Others use codecs especially Sony with slower CFe cards. If that is what you need but most don't.
I am all for more competition which is better for all users.
Upvote
0
I agree that the R5 is a compelling and additional price point in the market now. I would like Canon to keep it in their line-up for a long time if possible.
I won't upgrade to the R5ii for some time as there are additional costs for me if I do (underwater housing) and I don't feel compelled to use the new features (yet!).
At some point my currently 5 year old body will need an upgrade (wear / tear or insurance) and then the tough decision for a new or second hand R5 or move to R5ii.
Upvote
0
To what dominant position are you referring? If you mean camera market share, you couldn’t be more wrong – Canon has maintained around 50% market share for a decade. Over the past several years Sony has traded places with Nikon for a #2 position far behind Canon.
If you mean some other dominant position, such as what brand you think is best, what brand people you know are buying, or what brand has more shills on the internet, that’s fine…but irrelevant.
Upvote
0
Sony does claim to be #1 with regards to full frame mirrorless - https://petapixel.com/2024/02/12/sony-disputes-canons-number-one-mirrorless-brand-in-2023-claim/
I would be curious to see the actual numbers, but since most of us here do shop at the high end, I think there is some relevance to who's leading at different segments of the market.
Upvote
0
Yes, they do. Full frame mirrorless. In the US. As I've said before, you can usually parse data down to the point where it supports your contentions. Sony once did a press release for being the number one full frame mirrorless brand by unit sales in a single month...in South Korea. Yay for them.
Sony is #1 in full frame mirrorless in one country. Yay. Ricoh is #1 in market share among brands beginning with the letter 'R'. Yay. Canon is #1 in digital camera market share globally, by a wide margin (46% vs. 26%). Canon is #1 in mirrorless camera market share globally, by a significant margin (41% vs. 32%).
Sony does like to report market share by value, because they are ahead of Canon there (but not by a very big margin). Market share is typically reported as units sold, but again, data can be parsed to support a point someone wants to make.
Really, what matters more is not units or revenue, but profit. Canon does report the profit for their camera sales in their main financials. For 1H24, their profit on cameras increased by 19%. Equivalent data are not in Sony's presentation materials, maybe those data are buried in their financials but I have not found them. Sony has played a shell game, moving their cameras from one division to another every couple of years, and that's probably for a reason.
Upvote
0
Of course, even a quick 2 or 3 minute search of the internet is all that would be needed to find out that there are severe magnesium shortages, as well as continuing electronics shortages as well due to supply issues. But evidence that goes against your conspiracy theory would negate your theory, so no sense looking for actual information. And I can we can discount the idea that Canon did delay the R5 mark II for a couple months in order to have more copies available to fill the expected amount of pre-orders. If Canon did delay the camera to produce more copies, and those pre-orders are now sold and the camera is on backorder, well, that would completely negate your theory, so Canon must have been lying right from the start with their "delay" announcement.
And, of course, as is so often the case, people have no idea how large the planet is. If not one single R5 II was sold in NYC, it would hardly create a dent in Canon's global sales. So, yes, maybe all your friends, acquaintances, and people you hardly know in NYC won't be getting the R5 II. I don't doubt your word. But it means next to nothing. China is now the biggest market for mirrorless. If no one in China buys the R5 II, then Canon is in trouble.
Upvote
0
Sony released their counterclaim to Canon USA's similar claim
https://petapixel.com/2024/02/08/ca...rless-brand-in-the-u-s-for-3rd-straight-year/
but the devil is in the detail ie "It turns out that close inspection did show that Canon was moving more units of mirrorless cameras while Sony was leading on total value." so it depends on what you are measuring so they are probably both correct. That said, it is again just one geographic region albeit a large one with China, Japan and Europe also being significant regions.
One thing is for sure is that the report that they are both referring to exceeding expensive to obtain so the real data is hard for most to access and analyse
Upvote
0
Similar threads
