Where is the successor to the original EOS R?

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

More resolution. IBIS. Stacked CMOS. Moderate performance and video bumps. I'll buy it.

The EOS R was Canon's first attempt to claw back market share from Sony with their first full-frame mirrorless.

The EOS R was Canon's Pilot project body for mirrorless entry. And the pilot sold very well, even with its warts, and that informed Canon marketing that the waters were safe to continue the development of future RF bodies, as they have.

I'd like someone who uses terms like "prototype" or "pilot" to point out where Canon has ever indicated anything like that.

It's too obvious that the R was in fact a pilot into the mirrorless full-frame market. That body was a jack of all genres of shooting, but not a master at any, especially when you compare it with Sony's similar-class bodies, which mostly were superior to the R.

You make the mistake of looking for specific "words" from Canon instead of focusing on specific behaviors of Canon, and the features Canon gave the R, which all shout "Pilot', "Marketing Probe", and "Desperate Answer to Competitors", as well as "Proof of Concept".

And when the R came out, Canon said on record that they would look closely at its sales, and comments from their customers, to help them determine if they should continue developing DSLR bodies, and EF lenses. The R also gave Canon the ability to gauge what the coming line of RF bodies should do, how should they be categorized, priced as, etc.

The EOS R tried to be all things to all shooters; a camera for wildlife/birders, for portrait shooters, landscapers, and almost everything in between. It was a jack of all trades, a mount for the super awesome first batch of RF lenses, the RF 28-70L f2, the f1.2 primes, but a master of none. It was not an A-player...it was a good start, a strong C-player.

Is that how the 5DIV was ever described? The R is a smaller, cheaper 5DIV and I don't recall anyone ever describing it as all things to all people or a jack of all trades or a master of none.

The 5DIV is compared to like cameras (DSLR) from other competitors. The R was compared to the offerings of Canon's competitors. This is very obvious. The R has served it's mission and I believe that that line is DONE. No Mark II...but there will be Mark II's the R6, R5, R7, R3 too and the R1 as well. Look at Canon's history!

And if you compare the 5D4 with the R5, the 5D4 looks blah, frumpy, old, tired. Especially the 1 to 1.5 stop wider DR of the R5, the at least 1 stop of cleaner noise, better AF, and tracking.

Canon does not need to replace the R, because Canon already replaced the EOS R with many other models, niched models, and each serves its niche very well.

I'd be very surprised if Canon releases an EOS R Mark II...that would seem weird from a marketing point of view.

Just my opinion...

R $2,299 Sept 2018

RP $1,299 Feb 2019

R6 $2,499 July 2020

R5 $3,899 July 2020

R3 $5,999 April 2021

So Canon has rarely replaced a full frame camera in under four years (not in 15 years). Why would Canon have replaced the R early and with wildly different price point and feature sets?