Upvote
0
Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
So you do think sports photography is the only segment that matters.OMFG. The R1 is not the best printer Canon makes. Nor is it the best lithography machine or CT scanner. It’s the best camera.
Evidently “utterly clueless” was giving you way too much credit.
Upvote
0
it’s optimised full stop. Sports a mere facet, or else it likely wouldn’t have animal recognition, for example. It’s aimed at the users that clearly buy the most journalists and sports, but it’s you pigeonholing it.
I have one. Do you? It’s an excellent camera that’s clearly able to shoot anything you through at it better than most.
If you’re in the niche that demands very high MP count, due to extreme cropping or other such needs, then get one of the cameras that offer it.
Upvote
0
Looking through the various prestigious wildlife photography awards over the last few years those guys and girls certainly don’t prioritise ultra high mp in their camera choices.
Upvote
0
I don’t know, but I doubt they do. High MP woes are firmly within the realms of the keyboard warriors and spec hunters. Most photographers just take excellent pictures and don’t worry too much about it all. I’m not calling myself some kind of amazing, but until November I was shooting 5div’s. That’s ancient tech I have just discovered since my upgrade - my clients didn’t notice either way.
Upvote
0
I sincerely hope you’re being intentionally obtuse. At this point, though, that’s seeming increasingly unlikely.
It’s simple. The R1 is Canon’s flagship. Their top-of-the-line camera. Period. Your inability to accept that fact is irrelevant. What you think the R1 is optimized for is irrelevant.
Personally, my main use cases for my R1 are birds, architecture, events (mainly concerts and performances), and portraits.
Whether you’re just trying to provoke a reaction or you’re honestly so intellectually deficient that you can’t grasp a straightforward concept, there’s really no point in further discussion on the subject.
Upvote
0
I don’t know. I find it quite amusing. Little angry faces on my posts simply stating my use case. People arguing until they’re blue in the face about a camera they haven’t ever even likely seen let alone used or own and certainly not something they’re likely to ever buy. Très drôle.
Upvote
0
There is no such thing as "optimized full stop". Optimization means making trade-offs. You gain in one area by deprioritizing contradictory wishes in another area. If some feature works for everyone it's not an optimization and it just goes in. Sorry but very few features have no costs either in money or in places where the technological trade-offs mean you sacrifice somewhere else.
Let's take a simple and non-controversial one:
You want better battery life? You give up size and weight for a bigger battery.
You want better size and weight? You give up battery life that the bigger and heavier battery gives.
Or, another one:
You want lots of full-size ports for connectivity? You give up size.
You want a compact, pocketable camera? You give up having lots of full-size ports.
In both examples the first optimization also means a more expensive to manufacture and support body and target price is also an optimization factor with trade-offs to get that target price.
Getting the idea?
Upvote
0
No. As you stated the R5 is better for people who need more megapixels. Yet those people are a segment that, also by your definition, should have a "flagship" that is the best camera possible for that segment.
What Canon has done is redefined the "flagship" as the best camera possible for the sports photography segment.
Either each segment should have a flagship that optimizes for their needs or, since the only Flagship is the one optimized for the sports photography segment, then only that segment has a flagship and the others have been deprioritized.
Upvote
0
Those with an actual need for high MP counts will likely be using MF cameras that deliver 100-150 MP.
Reading some of the asinine comments here, you’d think people couldn’t take good pictures a decade ago, in the dark ages when not even 40 MP was available.
Upvote
0
Glad you agree that their segment does not have a Canon flagship for their needs. You're getting the idea.
Upvote
0
Indeed. An awful lot; virtually every FF or asp-c camera on sale today is high resolution, with perhaps the exception of specialist cameras such as the 12 mp Sony A7S series !
Upvote
0
But not any from Canon with professional build quality.
That's the point. The only market that gets a "flagship level" body is sports photographers.
Upvote
0
Your obtuse sarcasm is rather tiring. I already have the idea, everyone in this thread except you and a few others already has the idea. The MP count is the trade off. That’s what we have spent 7 pages debating.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
