The Canon EOS R1 is coming, here are a few things to expect

[neuroanatomist]

I know I'm coming into the middle of this so I could be taking this out of context. But I'm curious about your statement that one must be naive to believe Canon does things for the benefit of their customers. Since, if asked, I'm convinced canon would have no choice but to say 'yes' to that question, and when pressed they would refer to their wide ranging product lines and sales success to validate it. What proof are you relying on to make such a statement?

Basic business acumen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I love my EOS M. But I don't think that line will be around much longer. We'll be consolidated to the RF mount, and lenses like the rumored 18-XX mm, 16mm prime, and even 24-240 that are good on FF with heavy correction, but would be great on APSc will be the cheap, lightweight offerings to go with the APSc bodies.

The M line is very popular, particularly domestically (for Canon). I do not believe Canon will simply kill it off, or roll it into the R series. I would not read too much into the fact that there have not been updates to the line recently. The same is true for their DSLRs, and there are some on this forum who seem to believe those are dead for that same reason. But APS-C cameras comprise nearly 90% of the ILC market, and DSLR comprise about 43% of the ILC market. Canon would be foolish to abandon such a large chunk of the market, and they are anything but foolish. The Rebel/Kiss lines (with and without mirrors) will be with us for quite some time.

 

[Finn]

Sure, and Sony Exmor didn’t deliver 15-stops in the real world, either. But thanks for the irrelevant tangential deflection of the point.

LOL, yeah hmm. Deflection? Have a nice day.

RED KOMODO 6K Lab Test – Dynamic Range and Latitude Test - UPDATED | CineD

Lab test of the RED KOMODO 6K including dynamic range (waveforms and IMATEST) and latitude (over- and underexposure).

www.cined.com

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, I’m aware of those options, but both, especially the 600mm F4 cost far more money than I’m willing to spend. Very few people are willing or able to run to a 600mm F4, or even a 100-500mm and 2x extender.

Canon have succeeded in producing a nice selection of “budget” RF lenses including the 600mm F11, but it’s literally going from one extreme to the other, price-wise.

I think a fixed-aperture “telescopic” RF 800mm F8 would have been a much better choice - still easy to handhold and transport, much more usable, and well under $2000 would I think be perfectly achievable.

The summary is that Canon provides 3 different price points for super tele focal lengths.
All of them released in native R mount in the past 3 years plus the existing EF versions.
But.... you believe a 4th one would fit your (and many others') needs.

 

[David - Sydney]

I love my EOS M. But I don't think that line will be around much longer. We'll be consolidated to the RF mount, and lenses like the rumored 18-XX mm, 16mm prime, and even 24-240 that are good on FF with heavy correction, but would be great on APSc will be the cheap, lightweight offerings to go with the APSc bodies.

EOS M will be around for some time to come.... clearly a cash cow for Canon with little R&D to amortise now.
R Mount - even with the RP - is still a price segment above M not to mention the native lens range being substantially larger.
Replacement/cheaper RP has been rumoured for some time but still won't get down to M50 kit for USD650 or M200 kit for USD550 or M6 body for USD430.
Canon has been very busy with R bodies/RF lenses in the last couple of years and still more to come even in the face of parts shortages. EOS M may still get some more love in the future

 

[unfocused]

Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.

I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.

I know I'm coming into the middle of this so I could be taking this out of context. But I'm curious about your statement that one must be naïve to believe Canon does things for the benefit of their customers. Since, if asked, I'm convinced canon would have no choice but to say 'yes' to that question, and when pressed they would refer to their wide ranging product lines and sales success to validate it. What proof are you relying on to make such a statement?

Basic business acumen.

Actually no. You've never heard of enlightened self-interest? The invisible hand? or the more spiritual "It is but Allah [God] Who makes the prices low and high?"

Anyone who reduces every business decision to simple greed, is the one being naïve. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to buy Canon. Canon has to compete in the marketplace and they do so by offering products that satisfy their customers. The challenge with any mass produced product is to make a product that will satisfy most customers on most fronts.

On an individual basis, no one gets exactly what they want. But in the aggregate, customers get enough of what they want to convince them to buy the product. Canon and every other successful company constantly make choices to benefit their customers. But, no company can benefit their customers if they don't stay in business, which means they have to make a profit, offer returns that attract investment and pay their employees enough to keep them motivated and working to keep the company profitable.

We can debate all we want about whether or not a specific product decision is a wise business decision for Canon, but suggesting that smart business decisions and looking out for the interests of their customers are mutually exclusive or even contradictory just shows a lack of understanding of how business works.

 

[Jethro]

I think most of us have worked for large organisations whose 'Mission Statement' or 'Purpose' has been the betterment of mankind in one way or another. In reality (and without tyrying to be overly cynical on a Monday morning) they are all in business to maximise profit. Of course, to do so, they have to maximise the extent to which their 'brand' (the anthropomorphism of their strategy to their collective customer base) reflects their target demographic. Their products / services have to align with what their customers (past and future) want. Canon is no different, and they want to (i) maintain their current market dominance in most segments, and (ii) within their existing base, eventually upsell users to the shiny new RF mount and associated lenses.

So, I think of course Canon have regard to what their customer base (as a whole) wants, and they'll do that based on better data on those 'wants' than any of us have, but in the end the decisions they make are still based on maximising profit.

 

[scyrene]

Regardless: a body with a vertical grip and video modes is a notoriously bad idea. Look at all the phone videos being shot in vertical mode. Let's not give them more tools to shoot video the wrong way. The world does not need more tiktok videos.

It's not the wrong way if you're also viewing them on a vertically-oriented phone screen

 

[SUNDOG04]

Awesome what these camera companies are developing. But, please work on something for landscape photographers. Sure an R5 is great for that as well as video. But, paying $3900 or whatever it is overkill for a 45MP camera unless video is that important. People say video does not cost extra, but I question that. Software does not create the video alone, there is hardware also. How can I justify paying $900 more for a R5 over a Z7 II to do landscape photography. That is not meant as a put down to Canon, just wishing they would have an addition model more geared toward landscape. I am sure Canon knows their customer base and what they are doing and find their future in younger buyers as opposed to us old farts that have not so much of an interest in video and less money to invest in new gear. if I sound disgruntled, no, I am really not, it is an exciting time!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Anyone who reduces every business decision to simple greed, is the one being naïve. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to buy Canon. Canon has to compete in the marketplace and they do so by offering products that satisfy their customers.

Their goal is profit. It may take satisfied customers buying their merchandise to generate that profit, but don’t kid yourself – the goal is profit, not satisfied customers. If sales don’t generate enough profit, operating expenses are reduced (and that includes workers, because their satisfaction isn’t the goal, either).

But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna.

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

—The Dread Pirate Roberts​

 

[David - Sydney]

Awesome what these camera companies are developing. But, please work on something for landscape photographers. Sure an R5 is great for that as well as video. But, paying $3900 or whatever it is overkill for a 45MP camera unless video is that important. People say video does not cost extra, but I question that. Software does not create the video alone, there is hardware also. How can I justify paying $900 more for a R5 over a Z7 II to do landscape photography. That is not meant as a put down to Canon, just wishing they would have an addition model more geared toward landscape. I am sure Canon knows their customer base and what they are doing and find their future in younger buyers as opposed to us old farts that have not so much of an interest in video and less money to invest in new gear. if I sound disgruntled, no, I am really not, it is an exciting time!

Since video writing to card is streaming there would be additional heat spreader etc for hardware. Potentially, the CFe card could have been replaced with dual SD card a la R6 if video was left out.
45mp was deliberate and specific for 8k and 4kHQ so the R5 was designed from the outset to be first to market and the stills was just a great bonus
Once the video SW was written then it would be reasonably portable to other devices but needed to be developed first. Note that the EVF is basically taking the video stream anyway.

So, yes, it would have been possible to release a landscape orientated body and saved some money but USD900? Not sure about that. The 5D was always marketed as the jack of all trades model and it certainly hits that segment well.

What would be your ideal Canon body lineup and associated price point? Don't forget to include a high mp body (assumed to be more expensive than R5), the R1, R7 and R/RP replacements.

 

[Czardoom]

Their goal is profit. It may take satisfied customers buying their merchandise to generate that profit, but don’t kid yourself – the goal is profit, not satisfied customers. If sales don’t generate enough profit, operating expenses are reduced (and that includes workers, because their satisfaction isn’t the goal, either).

But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna.

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

—The Dread Pirate Roberts​

Sometimes, being the smart guy you obviously are, your desire to disagree and put down everyone else overrides that intelligence. You can take an obviously correct statement or idea and push it to its limits, so that you can make fun of it.

Yes, profit is the goal. Despite your attempt to make it so, the goal will not be reached without satisfied customers. If there are not enough satisfied customers, than lowering operating costs will not be enough to overcome the loss of customers if they are not enough satisfied customers.

I have always been glad that you have been - more than anyone else - willing to combat the trolls and the ignorant, but your desire to put down everyone else - even when they are right - is becoming quite tiresome.

Much as you would hate to hear it - being the obviously smart guy that you are - it makes you come across as just as big an idiot as the trolls and ignorant that you have been combating all these years.

Of course, you will find some way to make fun of my comments and try very hard to make me seem stupid. So be it. Kinda sad when you think about it.

 

[stevelee]

The M line is very popular, particularly domestically (for Canon). I do not believe Canon will simply kill it off, or roll it into the R series. I would not read too much into the fact that there have not been updates to the line recently. The same is true for their DSLRs, and there are some on this forum who seem to believe those are dead for that same reason. But APS-C cameras comprise nearly 90% of the ILC market, and DSLR comprise about 43% of the ILC market. Canon would be foolish to abandon such a large chunk of the market, and they are anything but foolish. The Rebel/Kiss lines (with and without mirrors) will be with us for quite some time.

From what I read here and elsewhere, a large percentage of purchasers of Rebels and M-line cameras never buy another lens. So developing a whole array of lenses for those mounts is not likely to be a big priority. They need native wide-angle lenses and a normal range zoom. For longer lenses there is the whole array of EF lenses that fit and act even longer than on FF.

I realize I am an exception. I bought a Rebel some years ago, and it also came with a not-so-hot telephoto for an extra $100. I took some good pictures with it, but mainly it convinced me that I needed a better Rebel, so I got a T3i. It worked well for me for years. Researching tests of that telephoto posted on the web, I found that it could be pretty decent at f/11 when zoomed to 300mm. I am still proud of the pictures of the total solar eclipse I took with it.

 

[StevenA]

"But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna."

I'm having problems understanding this logic. Given Canon's prominence in the world I think they would find motivation from people enjoying their gear.

Boiled down to its simplest essence a company MUST strive for happy customers if they wish to survive. In fact, in virtually all of Canon's marketing materials they are showcasing people using their products and being happy about it. What kind of sense would it make to feature a photographer berating their latest achievements?

Canon wants to sell stuff to make money. Canon must make their customers happy to do it. The two are interdependent.

What am I missing here?

 

[unfocused]

Their goal is profit. It may take satisfied customers buying their merchandise to generate that profit, but don’t kid yourself – the goal is profit, not satisfied customers. If sales don’t generate enough profit, operating expenses are reduced (and that includes workers, because their satisfaction isn’t the goal, either).

But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna.

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

—The Dread Pirate Roberts​

You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)

As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)

As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.

I think I’m just farther down the cynical path than you.

 

[LogicExtremist]

You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)

As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.

I thinks there's a little more to it than that though.

"the best path to profit is to provide create demand for products that people don't need customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic top-down relationship that exploits vulnerable human emotions. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years originated in the 13th - 16th century and we're still trying to determine whether it's a sustainable or viable ideology. That's because it is based on an aspect of human nature known as greed."

There, I fixed it!

I'd prefer to take my sword fighting lessons from The Princess Bride rather than Adam Smith though.

Not starting a political debate here! My response is part tongue in cheek, part acknowledging that people hold different world views when it comes to subjective political ideologies...

 

[Fischer]

45MP is already “too much” for most purposes,

45 MP is "too little" for me having shot with more already. I understand you do not know what to do with more pixels - so did you ever upgrade from 8 MPIX?

 

[landon]

I don't do photos. But things I like about the Z9, is the swivel mechanism, and the price.

Perhaps Canon can adapt the S1H swivel screen for the R1. Maybe with ND filters. $7,000?
Does this mean, there will be no R5C? Only advantage would be the ND filters.

 

[AEWest]

I don't do photos. But things I like about the Z9, is the swivel mechanism, and the price.

Perhaps Canon can adapt the S1H swivel screen for the R1. Maybe with ND filters. $7,000?
Does this mean, there will be no R5C? Only advantage would be the ND filters.

If you only shoot video, wouldn't a dedicated video camera like a C70 or higher be better for your purposes rather than a hybrid stills/video camera?