Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
Having owned multiple generations of both 1 and 5 series cameras, I still think the 1 series has the edge here.
The 1 series also has a better OVF/EVF, matched high speed card slots, and better controls (smart controller AF button, better vertical controls compared to the ones on the 5 series’ grip).
In some generations, the 1 series camera can also drive the supertele AF faster because they use higher voltage batteries and can output higher voltages to the lens, but I don’t know if that is still true with RF lenses.
Are all these things critical to what I take photos of? No, but for me it would be nice to have all these features inside a camera body with a 45 MP sensor.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'm not really understanding some of the discussion over the last 2 pages.
Yes, it is a true flagship camera.
But also yes, it is aimed at (or optimized towards) sports photography.
It feels like a lot of the above discussion is assuming that it has to be one or the other, can't be both. But it is both. It is a flagship camera optimized for sports photography. Obviously it's not limited to that, but it's optimized towards it. Heavily so. Tradeoffs were made. Readout speed was increased from the R3 at the cost of some ISO performance, and reaching 40FPS put limits on the sensor resolution.
In my opinion, a higher megapixel "version" of an R1 flagship could be considered more flexible for various photography use cases than the current R1, for anything but the highest-burst rate, lowest-light applications. The current R1 doesn't allow a lot of room for cropping and it doesn't have the highest amount of resolution for landscape or portrait photography, or even animal photography.
As I had said earlier in this thread: I wouldn't mind if the R1 had been a bit more "balanced" in its specs, leaning slightly less towards sports. That doesn't stop it from being the best camera that I have ever owned by a huge margin, though.
Yes, it is a true flagship camera.
But also yes, it is aimed at (or optimized towards) sports photography.
It feels like a lot of the above discussion is assuming that it has to be one or the other, can't be both. But it is both. It is a flagship camera optimized for sports photography. Obviously it's not limited to that, but it's optimized towards it. Heavily so. Tradeoffs were made. Readout speed was increased from the R3 at the cost of some ISO performance, and reaching 40FPS put limits on the sensor resolution.
In my opinion, a higher megapixel "version" of an R1 flagship could be considered more flexible for various photography use cases than the current R1, for anything but the highest-burst rate, lowest-light applications. The current R1 doesn't allow a lot of room for cropping and it doesn't have the highest amount of resolution for landscape or portrait photography, or even animal photography.
As I had said earlier in this thread: I wouldn't mind if the R1 had been a bit more "balanced" in its specs, leaning slightly less towards sports. That doesn't stop it from being the best camera that I have ever owned by a huge margin, though.
Upvote
0
All of what you succinctly put is true. But those sports optimisations are really just fast action optimisations- which is applicable to an awful lot more than just sports. It’s a versatile camera for lots of shooting. For the most part it’s the resolution that annoys most people, but that’s the tradeoff. Most of the optimisations would be less spectacular if the resolution was bigger (assuming Canons word is correct, and I do assume that, as they know better than I). Therefore berating the camera for being ‘just’ for sports or aimed solely at sports, is incorrect.
Upvote
0
There is nothing wrong with the build quality of the R5 series.
Upvote
0
You obviously understand the main point of contention over the last two pages. If everyone did, the discussion would have been over.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Exactly. Which is why I said the R1 is not a traditional flagship. As I've said multiple times, Canon chose to not go back to a traditional flagship after the split in the DSLR days when sensor limitations forced everybody to produce both a sports flagship and a high-resolution flagship. Rather than go back to a single traditional flagship, Canon killed off their high-resolution flagship and tagged their sports flagship as the only flagship.
Upvote
0
Irrelevant?
The question was about how many would buy a high res R1. Nikon sold some Z9 cameras. Are you saying everyone that bought those did it regretting it not being 24mp? And the A1 II is Sony's flagship.
Upvote
0
The angry face was mine and I stand by it.
You have just called me a "keyboard warrior and spec hunter"
I am pretty happy with my photography, and yes I have done it with multiple camera with different specs. With time and experience, I have decided I like high res more than low res. So eventually I have bought a MF camera (only 80mp, mind) which, spec wise, is ancient, and actually older than your 5D IV. But I still prefer its output to my R5's. Even if in terms of usability, speed and AF the R5 runs rings around it.
So go on, call me a keyboard warrior and spec hunter.
How come whoever wants high res needs to justify their stance? Because that's what you are saying.
And to be clear, if Canon will eventually release a high res R1, I will buy it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Perhaps the underlying issue for some people is that they believe a flagship product should be for everyone, or even more specifically for them.
That’s asinine. It would be like me claiming that the Ferrari F80 isn’t really a flagship because it would be a poor choice to take myself and 5 kids with all their gear to go skiing. My 8-passenger SUV handled that just fine.
Alternatively, for some the complaints are merely an excuse. Like me saying I’d definitely buy the Ferrari F80 if it could take 5 kids on a ski trip. The truth is I’m never going to spend $3.9M on a car.
A flagship is just that. If you don’t want to buy it, don’t. That doesn’t mean it’s not the flagship, it just means the flagship doesn’t meet your needs. Simple.
Well, simple for anyone with a bit of intelligence.
That’s asinine. It would be like me claiming that the Ferrari F80 isn’t really a flagship because it would be a poor choice to take myself and 5 kids with all their gear to go skiing. My 8-passenger SUV handled that just fine.
Alternatively, for some the complaints are merely an excuse. Like me saying I’d definitely buy the Ferrari F80 if it could take 5 kids on a ski trip. The truth is I’m never going to spend $3.9M on a car.
A flagship is just that. If you don’t want to buy it, don’t. That doesn’t mean it’s not the flagship, it just means the flagship doesn’t meet your needs. Simple.
Well, simple for anyone with a bit of intelligence.
Upvote
0
And, yet again, you delete a key word from the discussion and then argue how ridiculous your created straw man is. As I posted above, with the keyword you keep pretending isn't there in bold italics to make sure you see it:
Upvote
0
There’s no point in debating the issue with you, you clearly fail to grasp the relevant concept. But to set the record straight and to refresh your flawed memory of what you are pretending you didn’t state:
You can substitute the word traditional for the word true if you like, it doesn’t change reality or your lack of ability to comprehend it.
Feel free to keep going, you’ve shown no reluctance about embarrassing yourself so far. Either way, no more replies from me to your inane statements on the subject.
Upvote
0
I could but then I'd be saying something else that I didn't say. Traditional and True are not synonyms and by pretending they are you are, once again, creating a straw man argument since what I've actually said is quite accurate.
Upvote
0
Of course they do. But unlike Nikon and Canon, their flagship lacks an integrated grip. Does than make it a non-traditional flagship?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
