But that is a distinction that only existing Canon users know/care about. Again the issue is do you want to just appeal to the tradition of what Canon was or do you want to appeal to what the masses want today.
I don't disagree with you here. Here is where we see it differently. A large part of the market is moving toward content creation. They may make money off of their content but not in the traditional sense of photojournalism or wedding photography. 99% of peope don't need the specs in the R1 or the A1. But what they are looking at is to see which company makes the "best" camera and then they want to buy into that company's ecosystem.
For example 99% of motorcycle riders can't use the real potential of any of these machines. But they look too see which company has the top sportsbike and then the choose either a lower cheaper model of that brand or if they have the money they buy that top sportsbike for bragging rights even though they'll never use it to its full potential.
The 2 people I know that have the $6,500 A1 clearly don't need the extra features. But in their mind they have the best. Meanwhile most of the Sony shooters I know have something in the $2,500 range like the A7iv or the ZV-E1. But they have those cameras partly because they believe the A1 is the best camera out and so all the investments in glass and accessories is an "investment'.
On this forum, there is a lot of deference given to the "pros". But here those pros are professional sports or journalims photographers. But to the younger people the "pros" are Peter Mckinnon, Fstopers, etc.
These cameras aren't just pieced of equipment for utility purposes only. How they look, how they make you feel and the perceived status of the brands is all part of it. Again as most people have stated over and over you can get outstanding pictures from pretty much any camera today.
