Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1

[Deleted member 380853]

Some reviews of the A9 III (the global shutter one) last year praised it for finally improving the ergonomics and making it more human. I have no experience with it though.
The R5 is really ergonomic and I love it.

I don't think Canon's menus are great either. Aside from being fairly consistent over the years, some things are illogically placed, some are annoying (You can't do X when Y is set somewhere totally different) and the mislabeled "Enable"/"Enabled" options are comical.

Not to mention some setting values are per-mode while others are global, but they don't tell you which is which (only in the manual). And the menus themselves change based on photo/video, what lens is attached, etc. but again with no way to tell what's missing or why. Then there are weird limitations like length when entering filenames or prefixes, straight from the 80s.

Button customization options are whack too, some things just aren't possible for (seemingly) no reason or don't work, I made a thread recently with an example (checkered flag button). Some are also buggy or laggy (AF using recall), although that is not a fault of the menu system.

I'd like an overhaul please. Even in 1987 when EOS was introduced better UIs existed. Of course many long-time users likely disagree, especially if they rely on muscle memory for work.

Yeah, I do recall one or two buttons on the R1, R#, and R52 that couldn't be what I wanted but overall I find the canon menus to be intuitive enough and compared to Nikon, the custom menus and especially the custom "Mode" makes way more sense to set up on canon vs nikon. The Nikon 4 way button with center button is so 90's to me though.

 

[mmmm]

Some reviews of the A9 III (the global shutter one) last year praised it for finally improving the ergonomics and making it more human. I have no experience with it though.
The R5 is really ergonomic and I love it.

I don't think Canon's menus are great either. Aside from being fairly consistent over the years, some things are illogically placed, some are annoying (You can't do X when Y is set somewhere totally different) and the mislabeled "Enable"/"Enabled" options are comical.

Not to mention some setting values are per-mode while others are global, but they don't tell you which is which (only in the manual). And the menus themselves change based on photo/video, what lens is attached, etc. but again with no way to tell what's missing or why. Then there are weird limitations like length when entering filenames or prefixes, straight from the 80s.

Button customization options are whack too, some things just aren't possible for (seemingly) no reason or don't work, I made a thread recently with an example (checkered flag button). Some are also buggy or laggy (AF using recall), although that is not a fault of the menu system.

I'd like an overhaul please. Even in 1987 when EOS was introduced better UIs existed. Of course many long-time users likely disagree, especially if they rely on muscle memory for work.

Well I’m used to the canon menus so it’s probably that, but apart from the odd thing I find it logically ordered. And I wish the white balance button could be reassigned, and pre capture could be placed on a button, but they’re hardly a big deal. I have my cameras set up so that everything is nicely in reach.

 

[koenkooi]

Some reviews of the A9 III (the global shutter one) last year praised it for finally improving the ergonomics and making it more human. I have no experience with it though.
The R5 is really ergonomic and I love it.

I don't think Canon's menus are great either. Aside from being fairly consistent over the years, some things are illogically placed, some are annoying (You can't do X when Y is set somewhere totally different) and the mislabeled "Enable"/"Enabled" options are comical.

Not to mention some setting values are per-mode while others are global, but they don't tell you which is which (only in the manual). And the menus themselves change based on photo/video, what lens is attached, etc. but again with no way to tell what's missing or why. Then there are weird limitations like length when entering filenames or prefixes, straight from the 80s.

Button customization options are whack too, some things just aren't possible for (seemingly) no reason or don't work, I made a thread recently with an example (checkered flag button). Some are also buggy or laggy (AF using recall), although that is not a fault of the menu system.

I'd like an overhaul please. Even in 1987 when EOS was introduced better UIs existed. Of course many long-time users likely disagree, especially if they rely on muscle memory for work.

I've been watching a lot of Hasselblad X2D reviews lately and the menu system on that looks very efficient to me.

My big gripe with Canon menus is that it lacks a "make it so" option, e.g. turning off the conflicting options instead of forcing you do a long detour into other menus. I know it's possible, if you assign that action to a button the camera does do it for you.

 

[roby17269]

I've been watching a lot of Hasselblad X2D reviews lately and the menu system on that looks very efficient to me.

not that it matters, but I have held a X2D (I have Hassy gear and get invited to some events) and it was, put simply, the most beautiful camera I've ever seen Nice in the hands as well. Unfortunately very beta firmware at the time, with lots of issues. Maybe some day...

 

[P-visie]

not that it matters, but I have held a X2D (I have Hassy gear and get invited to some events) and it was, put simply, the most beautiful camera I've ever seen Nice in the hands as well. Unfortunately very beta firmware at the time, with lots of issues. Maybe some day...

Maybe it will be the same day as the RF 35mm f1.2 L?

 

[Quack]

...Canon does not offer a high-res flagship, the other manufacturers do. That fact matters to me.

So, the word flagship is so important to you. I'm kind of curious as to why. Afraid your friends will mock you if you bought a R5 mark II, which is as good a camera - perhaps better - than the Nikon and Sony flagships? Canon does offer a high-res camera that is top-level, professional quality. That it is not labeled flagship should not matter to anyone who is a photographer and not just a gear-head.

 

[koenkooi]

So, the word flagship is so important to you. I'm kind of curious as to why. Afraid your friends will mock you if you bought a R5 mark II, which is as good a camera - perhaps better - than the Nikon and Sony flagships? Canon does offer a high-res camera that is top-level, professional quality. That it is not labeled flagship should not matter to anyone who is a photographer and not just a gear-head.

You could also view it as a lack of dedication to high-MP bodies from Canon.

If it weren’t for the lockstep release and feature parity with the R1, one might think the R5 series would get the EOS M treatment: no real updates despite being a massive seller.
That’s the downside of the usage of ‘flagship’ for technology: the implied “all the other models weren’t good enough for this label”.

 

[mmmm]

If it weren’t for the lockstep release and feature parity with the R1,

I’m not sure what else there would need to be happening to make it a flagship in all but name - or why that’s somehow a lack of dedication!

 

[koenkooi]

I’m not sure what else there would need to be happening to make it a flagship in all but name - or why that’s somehow a lack of dedication!

I suffer from EOS-M trauma

 

[Sporgon]

So, the word flagship is so important to you. I'm kind of curious as to why. Afraid your friends will mock you if you bought a R5 mark II, which is as good a camera - perhaps better - than the Nikon and Sony flagships? Canon does offer a high-res camera that is top-level, professional quality. That it is not labeled flagship should not matter to anyone who is a photographer and not just a gear-head.

Perhaps those upset by the higher resolution R5 not being the flagship of the range could take comfort from the fact that it is definitely a first rate ship of the line, undoubtably a three decker, packing a heavy broadside punch.

 

[koenkooi]

Perhaps those upset by the higher resolution R5 not being the flagship of the range could take comfort from the fact that it is definitely a first rate ship of the line, undoubtably a three decker, packing a heavy broadside punch.

Listing "not a flagship" as a complaint about my R5II has never entered my mind. It being or not being a flagship doesn't impact the performance one iota

 

[Del Paso]

So, the word flagship is so important to you. I'm kind of curious as to why. Afraid your friends will mock you if you bought a R5 mark II, which is as good a camera - perhaps better - than the Nikon and Sony flagships? Canon does offer a high-res camera that is top-level, professional quality. That it is not labeled flagship should not matter to anyone who is a photographer and not just a gear-head.

Couldn't it be that you misunderstood his post?
I don't think it was about a camera named or not "flagship", but rather about the absence of a high-MP R1.

 

[mmmm]

Couldn't it be that you misunderstood his post?
I don't think it was about a camera named or not "flagship", but rather about the absence of a high-MP R1.

The point does still stand. The flagship camera is the R1. There is one, and it’s 24mp. There is a nearly equally specced, substantially cheaper second only to the flagship R1, that is higher MP. The post could have been misunderstood, but how? This ‘inferior’ camera is the very next best they offer, aside the pinnacle of their offerings. And as explained by Canon themselves, to make that pinnacle a higher MP they would need to reduce other specs, including speed. So not being able to have one without the other is their line in the sand. But it’s not like they don’t offer an almost equally impressive , potentially more impressive if you value higher mp count, camera. It’s much ado about nothing, as canons 2 top of the line cameras are either fast or have a higher mp count. The difference seems to come down to one is called a flagship and one is not. Maybe the issue could more easily be described as the R5 II doesn’t offer a dual grip shape, and isn’t described as a flagship.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe the issue could more easily be described as the R5 II doesn’t offer a dual grip shape, and isn’t described as a flagship.

Canon used to offer higher and lower MP models with an integrated grip, they dropped the high MP version. Sony hasn’t ever offered an integrated grip. Fuji’s 100 MP GFX body had an integrated grip that they dropped with the GFX II. Only Nikon still offers a ‘high MP’ body with an integrated grip.

To me, there’s a clear statement there about the value to the market of a high MP body with an integrated grip.

Having said that, IMO Canon should have pushed the Smart Controller to the 5-series.

 

[candyman]

Having said that, IMO Canon should have pushed the Smart Controller to the 5-series.

Canon may have chosen not to include the Smart Controller for the R5/R5 II because the price would have been even higher. A price of €4700 is already quite a lot. It would have probably pushed the price above €5000. I remember from social media posts and reviews that the general impression about the price was not positive. People found/find it on the high side.
But, that feature would be most welcome.

 

[SvO2]

So, the word flagship is so important to you. I'm kind of curious as to why. Afraid your friends will mock you if you bought a R5 mark II, which is as good a camera - perhaps better - than the Nikon and Sony flagships? Canon does offer a high-res camera that is top-level, professional quality. That it is not labeled flagship should not matter to anyone who is a photographer and not just a gear-head.

Why does everyone think it’s about the word? Who cares about the word flagship? What matters is the build quality and features that come with that word, which the R5II does not have.

 

[SvO2]

Canon may have chosen not to include the Smart Controller for the R5/R5 II because the price would have been even higher. A price of €4700 is already quite a lot. It would have probably pushed the price above €5000. I remember from social media posts and reviews that the general impression about the price was not positive. People found/find it on the high side.
But, that feature would be most welcome.

Said smart controller is unlikely to add more than a few cents to the price.

The R5II already is closer to the flagship price than any previous 5 series. They didn’t have to cheap out on it.

 

[candyman]

Said smart controller is unlikely to add more than a few cents to the price.

The R5II already is closer to the flagship price than any previous 5 series. They didn’t have to cheap out on it.

Perhaps from the cost of production of the smart controller. But not the price that is passed on to the customer. There is still some difference between €4700 and €7499. The smart controller brings the 5-series closer to the 1-series (or R3). There is certainly some extra money to be made in the current price difference between R5/R5II and R1 (R3)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why does everyone think it’s about the word? Who cares about the word flagship?

@MikeGalos to name one person. But he also cares excessively about hyphens, so….

What matters is the build quality and features that come with that word, which the R5II does not have.

Outside of the build type (i.e., the integrated grip) there’s not that much, IMO.

It seems to me that the weather sealing of the R1 was reduced to the level of the 5-series, at least in some respects. The diagrams of prior 1-series bodies were all red (indicating O-rings or foam seals), whereas lesser bodies also relied on tight joins (shown as green in the diagrams). The R3 was the first integrated grip body to have some green creep in, but hey, it wasn’t a 1-series. However, the R1 also has green, indicating (potentially, at least) less effective sealing.

Prior 1-series have had different card slots (more commonly than not). Software customizability of the 5-series is pretty darn close to the 1-series, which was not the case in the past.

Said smart controller is unlikely to add more than a few cents to the price.

The R5II already is closer to the flagship price than any previous 5 series. They didn’t have to cheap out on it.

They included eye controlled AF in the R5II, which almost certainly has a significantly higher hardware cost.

I suspect Canon felt they needed to choose between eye control and smart controller for the R5II, and picked the former. That probably means the former appealed to a large proportion of the customer base. Personally, I find the latter to be the more useful of the two by far.

 

[Sporgon]

Listing "not a flagship" as a complaint about my R5II has never entered my mind. It being or not being a flagship doesn't impact the performance one iota

Indeed it doesn’t, because the R5 is, after all………..”first rate” !