campy wrote:
Why would Canon do all that if there's no competition? Not even sure if the average buyer even cares about the future firmware updates to a cheap lens. They buy it because it's a good enough lens for snapshots. The L lenses are in a different class. If Sony wasn't so stubborn about keeping the menu system and body handling they could challenge Canon for the top spot. They certainly have the lens options to do it.
Have you tried handling the Sony a1 II or a9 III? I think they are plenty comfortable. Menu system is not worse than Canon, just different. You would have to relearn a few things, your most-used functions will be assigned to one of the 17 custom-configurable buttons.
Don't get me wrong, Canon has very loyal pro user base with top glass. I don't see anyone changing brand mid or late career, but I'm pretty sure that most pros would be happy using a Sony a1 II or a9 III if they had to.
I live in Paris, France since last year (after 25 yrs in the US) and see pro photographers every day, especially wedding/engagement and event photographers. I would estimate that at least 75% of them shoot on Sony, 15% on Canon and 5-10% on Nikon. I do see a lot of the young/next gen pro photographers, often hybrid shooters, using Sony. I suspect lens selection and open platform has something to do with that.
Not trying to sidetrack the conversation, but I think part of the reason you see younger hybrid shooters gravitating towards Sony is because their family of cameras has a nice lineup of aspirational cameras including the Venice, Burano, and FX whatever, with a c,ear upgrade path. Most young video shooters/film makers hope to one day be shooting on a Venice or an Alexa, not really a C___, though I’m sure the canons are fine cameras. That, and like you said, access to all of the new 3rd party lenses. I do agree, most people deep into their careers probably aren’t making a switch, but Sony does seem to be crushing it with the next generation.
patotts wrote:
Have you tried handling the Sony a1 II or a9 III? I think they are plenty comfortable. Menu system is not worse than Canon, just different. You would have to relearn a few things, your most-used functions will be assigned to one of the 17 custom-configurable buttons.
Don't get me wrong, Canon has very loyal pro user base with top glass. I don't see anyone changing brand mid or late career, but I'm pretty sure that most pros would be happy using a Sony a1 II or a9 III if they had to.
I live in Paris, France since last year (after 25 yrs in the US) and see pro photographers every day, especially wedding/engagement and event photographers. I would estimate that at least 75% of them shoot on Sony, 15% on Canon and 5-10% on Nikon. I do see a lot of the young/next gen pro photographers, often hybrid shooters, using Sony. I suspect lens selection and open platform has something to do with that.
Mike_5D wrote:
The worst part about Sony, Tesla, or Apple is dealing with people who won't stfu about their product choice.
Interesting. Sony and Apple are so common on set that I never really hear people talk about them, honestly. Tesla is uncommon, and when people talk about them it’s usually in a negative way.
comotionfilms wrote:
Interesting. Sony and Apple are so common on set that I never really hear people talk about them, honestly. Tesla is uncommon, and when people talk about them it’s usually in a negative way.
It depends where you live. Southern California is Tesla central. I haven't heard many people badmouth Teslas, in fact most people who own them love them. You don't buy a Tesla for good fit/finsh/paint or luxury, you buy it for the technology, efficiency, and simplicity. A lot of people have solar here and charge at home, so it makes sense for a lot of people considering the little-to-no maintenance and very low operating costs.
As for Sony and Apple, yeah I see those brands the most by a long shot. I'm a rare Canon shooter in my circle as everyone else uses Sony.
One of my gigs is covering NFL games and along the sidelines, Sony has definitely made huge inroads. Most of the team photographers of my local team shoot Sony. Just the last 'old timer' on that squad, still shoots Canon. That said of everyone else on the sidelines, of the various teams I cover, it's a healthy mix of Canon, Sony and a bit less Nikon. Some of the 'black vest' NFL photographers shoot Sony, but surprisingly a large percentage shoot Canon, and they're not old timers. And some of the old timers shoot Sony. So you can't really say there is a demographic bias for a given brand.
I'm a Canon holdout, but not necessarily because I don't like Sony or Nikon. I think each brand has certain strengths, but likewise, they can all do 95% of what any given photographer needs from a system. So it's ultimately a toss up and personal preferences. And my personal preferences currently strongly prefer telephoto zooms over primes. Hence why I still use the still unique Canon 200-400 and am currently experimenting with the 100-300. Sony does not have equivalents. Nor did they have until recently a 28-70/2. Or compact 70-200s. I'm also enamoured with the 24-105/2.8. But I am envious of the Sony 50-150/2, which I think Canon should have released years ago to pair with the 28-70. And unlike Sony or Nikon (until recently), Canon has been the only one of the three to offer mid-grade cameras that don't have horrendous rolling shutter, meaning they're actually usable in e-shutter for photographing action. I personally don't care about maximum DR or resolution and instead prioritize speed. Yet I can't justify the cost of an a1/Z9/R1 series camera. Surprisingly the lowly R6 series beats many of the top of the line competitors in some metrics, such as RAW at 40fps, RAW pre-capture, etc. And I'll take it, even though I'd rather be shooting with an R1.
The interesting thing, having been at this for a while, back in the early 90s, being a Canon photographer was a somewhat radical position because Nikon was the dominant professional system. But Canon, despite their alienation of many FD system users, made a bold move with the EF system and it was the technically superior one out of all the brands that transitioned to AF. At that time, Canon was the one 'crushing it' with innovative releases and the system of choice with young photographers 'fresh' to the scene. Now they're the slower moving 'legacy' brand benefitting somewhat from their prior market dominance, but also suffering from real and perceived complacency. And that has hurt them with making inroads with young photographers.
Basically they're now what Nikon was back then. And at the time, it kind of baffled me why so many photographers still stuck with Nikon even though Canon's system was (IMO) clearly technically superior.
30+ years later and I know why: it still did the job. And while not exciting, it's also the reality now. I know my Canon gear will do the job and I can do it well with what is currently available from Canon. I don't *need* any of those cool 3rd party lenses. Switching systems is always a money losing proposition and ultimately, it won't make me more money. Better marketing and business sense would, but that's a discussion for a different forum.
No stacked sensor makes it useless for those of us that need to freeze fast action. I'm actually really surprised they chose not to put a stacked sensor in it. It would have made it a leg up on the competition.
Personally I'm waiting to jump back into mirrorless until there's a reason. The current crop of cameras (except the Z8) just aren't worth the investment and won't make better images than my current system. I was kind of hoping Canon would innovate here but this is barely an upgrade over the MkII.
jwolfe wrote:
No stacked sensor makes it useless for those of us that need to freeze fast action. I'm actually really surprised they chose not to put a stacked sensor in it. It would have made it a leg up on the competition.
Personally I'm waiting to jump back into mirrorless until there's a reason. The current crop of cameras (except the Z8) just aren't worth the investment and won't make better images than my current system. I was kind of hoping Canon would innovate here but this is barely an upgrade over the MkII.
If you really need a stackable sensor and fast readout, then you buy a Z9/Z8, R1/R3, A9 III/A1 II.
Many if not most users capture other than all high speed action and want better IQ and a less expensive sensor. As mentioned above, the R6 III's readout speed is pretty good for most purposes even with the standard sensor, and it still does 12FPS mechanical. A valid complaint is that the price is bit high though that may change over time.
The R6III is in a weird area code at its current price point. It doesn't make much sense for a first time buyer entering the market (used Z8), it doesn't make much sense for a sports shooter (used R3), and it doesn't make much sense for an all-arounder (used R5II). I would personally rather buy a used R5 and R6II for the price of an R6III and have the best of both worlds.
It will be a better value when it comes down in price.
Mike_5D wrote:
Crazy how quickly cameras went from impressing everyone with 10-15 fps to not being able to stop fast action without a stacked sensor.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but that is definitely not my belief. All kinds of photography can be achieved with stuff from decades ago, including action. But that’s missing the point. At the retail price point of this thing in almost 2026, it just isn’t super compelling for many of us and somewhat of a disappointment.
I had both the R6 and R6ii, which were both great cameras for what they were. I expect the mk3 to be largely the same. But incrementally better while reusing some of the more significant components makes it yawn-worthy. This is why I still have an R8 for a lower res Canon body.
Personally, I was hoping for a stacked 33mp sensor to go with my R5ii that would mirror that body but at a slightly lower res. As it stands, I’m more than content staying with my second R5ii.
For everything else, I still have all my Sony and Fuji stuff.
My point is, if I want to shoot blackout free the R6III will not have a fast enough readout speed to avoid rolling shutter. The Nikon Z6III is. Although I dislike the sensor in that camera for other reasons.
I owned a Z8 and loved it but couldn't justify a $3k camera in my bag when I'm only working PT (health). I keep hoping someone will come along with a compromise, especially a D500 replacement, with a stacked sensor, but alas nothing yet.
To be honest my Nikon DSLR gear makes better images than the Z6III. But Canon has been rocking it with lenses lately.
Eventually it'll happen I just have to be patient.
artsupreme wrote:
The R6III is in a weird area code at its current price point. It doesn't make much sense for a first time buyer entering the market (used Z8), it doesn't make much sense for a sports shooter (used R3), and it doesn't make much sense for an all-arounder (used R5II). I would personally rather buy a used R5 and R6II for the price of an R6III and have the best of both worlds.
It will be a better value when it comes down in price.
People that would buy a used higher-end camera for their first camera would seem to be few and far between. Either they don't know what they want and hit a lower tier used (R50, R8?), or they commit and go new.
Now if they're changing markets and have already established their photographic art, then I'd be inclined to agree, and one of the used options you mention above are probably a better pick.
jwolfe wrote:
I keep hoping someone will come along with a compromise, especially a D500 replacement, with a stacked sensor, but alas nothing yet.
Regards,
JM
Theoretically, smaller sensors are easier (cheaper) to make fast - but I don't know of a single high-speed APS-C offering, and Canon's R7 is among the worst and suffers when shooting action, which might be due to the slower readout speed.
I'd really like to see a true 'sports' cropper too. An affordable global shutter would be even cooler.
artsupreme wrote:
The R6III is in a weird area code at its current price point. It doesn't make much sense for a first time buyer entering the market (used Z8), it doesn't make much sense for a sports shooter (used R3), and it doesn't make much sense for an all-arounder (used R5II). I would personally rather buy a used R5 and R6II for the price of an R6III and have the best of both worlds.
It will be a better value when it comes down in price.
I will most likely get the R6III. Hopefully for around 2000 euros next year, for a slightly used one. R5 is too old and R5II is too expensive for what it is. I will upgrade from a 5DIV.
Uarctos wrote:
I will most likely get the R6III. Hopefully for around 2000 euros next year, for a slightly used one. R5 is too old and R5II is too expensive for what it is. I will upgrade from a 5DIV.
Next year a used R5 will probably be at $1500 USD or so, which is an amazing value. Why do you think it's too old? What is it lacking?
Uarctos wrote:
Precapture, an olderr AF systen, less fps. Worth the difference for me. Still a very good camera, don't get me wrong.
Got it. As for precapture, be careful falling for that gimmick. I understand there are very very niche uses for it and it can be of use, but IMO it's nothing to consider when buying a camera unless you shoot in those niches very very often. The bird flying off a perch use that you often see here is questionable as it only works well if the bird is flying in a horizontal plane. I've tested this with kicking bushes to make birds fly away and I get the same result. I've had the R5II's since before the release date and I've yet to use precapture. I can think of a few uses for it, but they aren't a part of my general photography which is sports, action sports, portraits, and travel. Someday I'll probably use it for something, but I've yet to find a need for it.
