Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1

[mmmm]

Maybe. But its unrealistic expectation at this point. I mean the R3 doesn't even have matching slots.
Once again online forums are such a minority of buyers. I bet there's plenty of buyers who would back off of buying a camera based on expensive storage. Now CFEx has come down a ton in pricing, so maybe you'll get it, but I doubt it. There's a reason the battery shape has never changed, etc. People love being able to use legacy gear they've collected over decades.

Matching slots was one of the things that convinced me on the R1 in the end, but yeah - very expensive to need to basically buy all my cards again.

 

[Sporgon]

A downside for you, maybe. Personally, I find the integrated grip far more comfortable to hold and the weight a much better counterbalance to the heavier lenses I tend to use.

From personal experience, I can shoot for a day with a lens like the EF 70-200/2.8 or RF 24-105/2.8 in my hand most of the time, and using a 1-series or R3 body my hand doesn’t hurt at the end of the day like it does after trying that with a non-gripped body.

Ergonomics are very personal.

I found it interesting that Sebastiao Salgado continued to use one series cameras even after the 5DS had been introduced, but then he did tend to use zooms such as the 24-105 and 70-300 which can make for a somewhat unbalanced camera without a built in grip.
I’m not sure why there is such a difference, but the gripped 5 series doesn’t handle like a 1 series.

 

[MikeGalos]

A downside for you, maybe. Personally, I find the integrated grip far more comfortable to hold and the weight a much better counterbalance to the heavier lenses I tend to use.

Personally, I agree with you but many do find it a disadvantage. If not they'd be more universal.

 

[David - Sydney]

A downside for you, maybe. Personally, I find the integrated grip far more comfortable to hold and the weight a much better counterbalance to the heavier lenses I tend to use.

From personal experience, I can shoot for a day with a lens like the EF 70-200/2.8 or RF 24-105/2.8 in my hand most of the time, and using a 1-series or R3 body my hand doesn’t hurt at the end of the day like it does after trying that with a non-gripped body.

Ergonomics are very personal.

An extension to this is the ergonomics for underwater handling of bodies. Achieving neutral buoyancy both as a complete unit as well as front to back is a tricky undertaking especially for wide angle with a 8" dome (full of air) in the front. Strong wrists are needed to adjust for the imbalance as you don't have a hand under the lens ie a hand on each side of the housing only.
There are trim weight systems eg https://www.ikelite.com/products/trim-weight-system-for-dslr-mirrorless-housings
but this clearly adds more weight when top side.
It also is different for different lenses eg for port length.
Aluminium housing have better control ergonomics and less air inside but are heavier topside than polycarbonate housings. Polycarbonate housings have simplistic controls only.

All sorts of fixed buoyancy options from foam to tubes https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Best-Buoyancy-Solutions-For-Underwater-Cameras
For my 100mm macro setup, I use a pool noodle

 

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I agree with you but many do find it a disadvantage. If not they'd be more universal.

I suspect what most people find disadvantageous is the high cost of integrated grip bodies.

 

[MikeGalos]

I suspect what most people find disadvantageous is the high cost of integrated grip bodies.

The same as I suspect about many of the people praising the advantages of APS-C bodies and lenses over full frame.

 

[SvO2]

This may well not be market segmentation but the problems of heat management in a smaller body and battery life. Permanent vertical grip bodies have their size and weight downsides but also their battery and thermal mass advantages.

Sony pulls it off in its pro bodies, so I don't think it's an engineering impossibility

 

[MikeGalos]

Sony pulls it off in its pro bodies, so I don't think it's an engineering impossibility

Hence my not calling it impossible.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

No one would buy it, which is at least one reason. The echo chamber of the internet gets in the way of logic sometimes.

Of course it would sell. What the heck are you talking about?! I would buy it instantly. I had each of the $8000USD 1Ds bodies and that's more like $10k today. I now have a Nikon Z9 in part because it's a full size and 45Mp but also because currently, Nikon leads in the long lens category with the two internal 1.4xTC lenses, Z 400/2.8 and Z 600/4.

Canon should make an "R1r" or something like that.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

did they purchase them solely on the basis of resolution or the fact that they are the flagship models of those respective brands?

Nikon is a perfect example because the Z8 and Z9 are darn near identical in spec aside from body shape. I was so happy to find out the Z9 was 45Mp. I still prefer pretty much everything about the Canon R1 but the nikon also gains entry to the amazing built in 1.4x Tc 400 and 600 lenses.

It's like the Toyota Land Cruiser vs Forerunner, the only reason to not get the LC is cost. A Canon R1s or R at 45Mp would be better in every way over the R52 except cost and slight packing ease.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course it would sell. What the heck are you talking about?! I would buy it instantly.

Canon should make an "R1r" or something like that.

Once again I am reminded how much more some people on this forum know about making and selling cameras than the company that las led the market for over two decades.

 

[mmmm]

Of course it would sell. What the heck are you talking about?! I would buy it instantly. I had each of the $8000USD 1Ds bodies and that's more like $10k today. I now have a Nikon Z9 in part because it's a full size and 45Mp but also because currently, Nikon leads in the long lens category with the two internal 1.4xTC lenses, Z 400/2.8 and Z 600/4.

Canon should make an "R1r" or something like that.

So by ‘of course it would sell’ you’re referring to you buying one? Because I reckon they need more to go on than a few internet posters claiming they would ‘buy one instantly’. No doubt with all of their years of making cameras, have probably deduced that although JWest claim’s they may buy one, maybe even instantly, that’s probably not solid enough to actually make it.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

Once again I am reminded how much more some people on this forum know about making and selling cameras than the company that las led the market for over two decades.

And you remind me of how some people on this forum find the need to behave badly. What did your reply add here? Your reply added nothing except to emphasize your unlimited capacity for shitty comments.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

So by ‘of course it would sell’ you’re referring to you buying one? Because I reckon they need more to go on than a few internet posters claiming they would ‘buy one instantly’. No doubt with all of their years of making cameras, have probably deduced that although JWest claim’s they may buy one, maybe even instantly, that’s probably not solid enough to actually make it.

Yes, literally, they would sell them, just as Nikon sells its Z9. We weren't discussing how successful it would be or anything other than a wish-list by this thread anyway so I'm not sure why you get your self so invested in speculating on what Canon would or wouldn't do or why or any of that. I said I'd buy a wider TSE lens if they'd make on and I got one of the first 17tse shipped.

I've never tried to make claims as some of you do on why canon makes this or that, or if they should, but rather simply what I'd like and that I would buy it, period.

 

[SvO2]

So by ‘of course it would sell’ you’re referring to you buying one? Because I reckon they need more to go on than a few internet posters claiming they would ‘buy one instantly’. No doubt with all of their years of making cameras, have probably deduced that although JWest claim’s they may buy one, maybe even instantly, that’s probably not solid enough to actually make it.

The other manufacturers building high res do-it-all flagships does in fact suggest there is a market for them. Canon seems to have settled on sports photographers as being their flagship customers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The other manufacturers building high res do-it-all flagships does in fact suggest there is a market for them. Canon seems to have settled on sports photographers as being their flagship customers.

Right. I mean, it couldn’t be that other manufacturers chose to make a product of a type that Canon didn’t because it’s difficult to compete with the market leader.

When Sony shifted their focus from DSLRs into mirrorless, it was because of the great market demand for mirrorless. I mean, it only took nearly a decade before MILC sales started to overtake DSLR sales. And that only happened two years after Canon also moved fully into the mirrorless market.

But sure, Canon ‘settled’. Mmmmkay.

 

[vikingar]

Right. I mean, it couldn’t be that other manufacturers chose to make a product of a type that Canon didn’t because it’s difficult to compete with the market leader.

When Sony shifted their focus from DSLRs into mirrorless, it was because of the great market demand for mirrorless. I mean, it only took nearly a decade before MILC sales started to overtake DSLR sales. And that only happened two years after Canon also moved fully into the mirrorless market.

But sure, Canon ‘settled’. Mmmmkay.

Canon in the past often "settled" for the most $$$, rather than making the best possible camera. Which is okay to do for them.

I get that you'd like and praise that as a business person. Value extraction and all. From an engineering view "settled" is the right word a valid word choice.

Another way to put it is they played it safe. They absolutely needed QPAF and didn't want to risk any issues with lower speed or reliability. And from both the business and engineering view, this was probably a good choice, even the right choice.

But still I like Canon better when they don't. Not to repeat the hammer trope, but the R5/R6/R3 were a breath of fresh air in this regard. Also the halo RF lenses. I certainly like what Canon makes more when they have to prove they are to be the market leader.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon in the past often "settled" for the most $$$, rather than making the best possible camera. Which is okay to do for them.

What is 'the best possible camera'? Hint: it differs for everyone, you don't ge to define it for anyone but you.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

Canon in the past often "settled" for the most $$$, rather than making the best possible camera. Which is okay to do for them.

I get that you'd like and praise that as a business person. Value extraction and all. From an engineering view "settled" is the right word a valid word choice.

Another way to put it is they played it safe. They absolutely needed QPAF and didn't want to risk any issues with lower speed or reliability. And from both the business and engineering view, this was probably a good choice, even the right choice.

But still I like Canon better when they don't. Not to repeat the hammer trope, but the R5/R6/R3 were a breath of fresh air in this regard. Also the halo RF lenses. I certainly like what Canon makes more when they have to prove they are to be the market leader.

It seems like over the years Canon and Nikon "leap frog" and bit with who's doing something extra cool that is more because they can than should. I love it when stuff like that comes out. Often these items were my working tools for only a tiny proportion of my commercial workload but they were always worth it in my opinion.

All of my gear paid for itself many times over. Even my first 44" printer nearly paid for itself on the first client order so a body that had a new quality feature was 100% worth it or a lens I'd only use 3 times a year if it was the perfect tool for the job.

I have had no true expectation for a higher Mp pro body Canon but it would be nice. For wildlife I find the Nikon Z9 to work fine and their 400 and 600 are better in practice but for any landscape I'd use a Fuji GFX so for now, the Canon bodies are only chosen 30 % of the time.

Regarding lens design, it's interesting how Canon go right to expanding barrel zooms while Nikon has more choices in non-expanding zooms. The Noct .95 is pretty cool, but manual focus is not for everyone. Nikon did it anyway though !

 

[neuroanatomist]

And you remind me of how some people on this forum find the need to behave badly. What did your reply add here? Your reply added nothing except to emphasize your unlimited capacity for shitty comments.

Yes, we get it. You know better than Canon what 'would sell'. You couldn't seem to comprehend that the patent for the possible RF 600/4 with built-in 1.4x and the actual RF 600/4 are 'essentially the same length' despite repeated attempts to explain that simple statement, but you know more than Canon about what cameras 'will sell'. Cool, bro.