Here are a couple of images of the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
R1 - so this is the 'resolution trick'
- Built-in neural upscaling creates 96MP JPEG in about 10 seconds.
Upvote
0
Something no one on the planet earth in history asked for. Canon still experimenting......
Upvote
0
I think this will end up like Dual Pixel RAW, a feature no one uses. I have a 7950X3D + 4090 desktop at home, I don't need on camera AI up-rez when I can do it at my leisure with much better image models.
I can't imagine the sports photographers using an R1 would want to wait to 10 seconds a shot to make a 24 MP image into a 96 MP image when every second counts either.
Upvote
0
Indeed. Canon can make jpgs much faster, but RAW converters on a computer can do it better.
Upvote
0
You shouldn't use the USA inflation rates for Japan. USA would have very little input cost into the base cost of the R5/R5ii except for distribution/freight/advertising.
USA may have had 19.2% cumulative inflation over the last 4 years but Japan only had 8.8%
https://www.in2013dollars.com/japan/inflation/2020?amount=413400
JPY413,400 in 2020 = JPY449,603 today
=> to your point, the cost increase is dramatically higher than the original R5 within Japan.
Of course, components from other countries would have their own labour and input cost increases.
At the end of the day, Canon will maximise what profit they can. Economics 101 is selling at the price that the market will bear.
Upvote
0
How many employees does Canon USA have?
They don't have many compared to the R&D + production costs and even less without Rudy :-(
Upvote
0
Yeah, point taken. My whole line of reasoning is flawed. I would have deleted my post if I could.
That said, the "charge what the market will bear" excuse limps a little because this isn't a free market. Consumers can't say, "I'll just choose a different 45 MP body where the manufacturer didn't gratuitously raise the price $300 at the last minute based on nothing but the fact that they can get away with it," because Canon, Sony, Nikon, and the rest are all closed ecosystems. The barrier to switching systems is huge. Consumers don't have real choice. If they did, Canon wouldn't be in a position where they could force consumers to buy only RF glass. Frankly, I'd rather see the DOJ go after Canon, Nikon, and Sony than Apple.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Definitely not a free market. Proprietary ecosystems will always generate additional revenue if they have a captive audience or a superior product (hello Nvidia!).
Switching system barriers are different though. Simple to buy a M series with 2 kit lens and then buy into another system later as the cost wasn't a lot. Lots of EF/RF L glass will cause some to pause but not all especially if they can make additional money from the new kit.
Savvy buyers can get a R body and still adapt excellent second hand EF glass so they are not forced to buy RF glass. 3rd parties will be releasing RF-S glass soon... of course we would like Sigma's entire catalogue on RF (or manual AF at least for the wide angles).
In no way is there a monopoly that is anticompetitive. The L mount alliance was for open mount but users haven't really got on board with sales.
Upvote
0
The L mount has less variety than the E mount or the EF mount.
The same can be said of MFT.
It is not just fewer users.
It is also fewer lens makers and fewer lenses.
Upvote
0
Which was my point regarding government intervention for monopolistic behaviour. If consumers avoid open mount alliances in preference to walled ecosystems like Canon then that is a strike against the notion of no choice.
The Apple store has different characteristics... one store with steep profits with no negotiation and restricting payments outside of the store.
I think that the security vs side loading debate is reasonable but the unreasonable profit taking is monopolistic behaviour to the detriment of consumers.
Upvote
0
I do not think you are implying this but Canon is in no way a monopoly.
They are allowing third-party RF-S lenses and I mostly adapt third-party EF lenses,
People act like EF lenses no longer exist.
They also act like Canon will never allow third-party full-frame lenses.
The very same people who acted like there would never be third-party RF-S lenses.
Despite gaping holes in their line-up, Canon is steadily catching up to Sony with the number of first-party lenses.
I can't wait for full-frame third-party RF lenses to end these talking points.
BTW, the L mount alliance is not open.
New members need to apply and get accepted by existing members.
When it comes to lenses the E mount does have a lot of restrictions but a lot more lens makers.
The EF mount was far more open than the L mount.
Anyone could make whatever they wanted.
Upvote
0
When has Canon's marketing department ever acknowledged the existence of other camera makers?
Upvote
0
If you're talking about the R5 Mark II, it will drop on Black Friday, 2026. The R5 debuted in July 2020 and all pre-orders had not even been filled by Black Friday, 2020. There was no R5 discount on Black Friday, 2021 either. It was 2022 before we saw a Black Friday price reduction for the R5.
Upvote
0
It's not even really a sensor design issue, per se. It's a sensor manufacturing issue. Different sensors form the same model camera can have avrying numbers of hot pixels under the same conditions. Some can be fairly pristine. Others may have just barely passed the maximum allowable number at the quality control test.
I've seen images from different examples of the same model that have fairly significant variation in the number of hot pixels each specific camera has. My 5D Mark III is a bit on the high side when doing long exposure high ISO astro work. Raw files I've seen from a handful of other 5D Mark III examples do not have near as many hot pixels as mine. I can only assume they got lucky and I lost in the sensor defect lottery. My 5D Mark II and my 5D Mark IV have few to no consistent hot pixels at high ISO compared to my 5D Mark III.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
