Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1

[mmmm]

The point of a traditional flagship is that it can do whatever you need it to without having to bend over backwards to get around limitations that aren't present in other models.

What a load of tosh. Canons flagship (which, by the way is entirely up to them how they denote it) has always been a sports/journalist focused camera. It’s absolutely never been a ‘do anything’ camera. The 5 series is a ‘do anything’ camera. And that’s precisely why it’s not the flagship. A jack of all trades is a master of none. It’s still a great series of cameras, but the 1 series is indeed a master of what it’s designed to do.

 

[frankchn]

What a load of tosh. Canons flagship (which, by the way is entirely up to them how they denote it) has always been a sports/journalist focused camera. It’s absolutely never been a ‘do anything’ camera.

The original 1DX is pretty close to a do-it-all camera in Canon's digital era. It is an full-frame 18 megapixel camera that had cutting edge AF, was very fast and had pretty high resolution for its time (the highest res camera Canon offered around then was the 5D3 at 22 MP).

After that Canon focused on the sports market more with subsequent 1 Series cameras, but it is not without precedent for Canon to introduce a do-it-all camera as a flagship.

 

[mmmm]

The original 1DX is pretty close to a do-it-all camera in Canon's digital era. It is an full-frame 18 megapixel camera that had cutting edge AF, was very fast and had pretty high resolution for its time (the highest res camera Canon offered around then was the 5D3 at 22 MP).

To be fair, that sounds a lot like the r1 v the r5ii.

Fast as can be with a respectable MP count v a lesser camera with a higher MP.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Once again, not my personal opinion. That was the definition used by all the major camera vendors including Canon prior to the technology limits forcing a change in the early days of full-frame digital.

You might want to look back at things like the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 and Minolta XK (AKA X-1 and XM) and Pentax LX for examples of vendors using that definition.

Yawn. A flagship is the lead/best product that a company offers. That's the definition of the word. Period. Sometimes companies have two flagships, e.g. the Toyota Century (running at ~$200K) comes as a sedan and now as an SUV. Sort of like the 1Ds and 1D were Canon's flagships for a while. They both had a '1' in the moniker.

What your argument boils down to is that you think the R1 should have more MP than Canon decided it should. Pretty sad that you can't accept that Canon understands the market and the needs (not wants) of those who purchase 1-series bodies far better than you do.

Apparently, you believe that since the R5II has more MP it's somehow also the flagship or means the R1 is not the flagship. Your words:

Effectively, Canon does not have a true flagship camera

Yes, they do. It's called the R1.

 

[frankchn]

Fast as can be with a respectable MP count v a lesser camera with a higher MP.

Though the megapixel counts are a lot closer in that generation — 1DX 18 MP to 5D3 22 MP is a 22% increase, rather than the 88% jump you get going from an R1 to an R5II, which makes the R5II notably better for photographs where you want a lot of detail.

 

[mmmm]

Though the megapixel counts are a lot closer in that generation — 1DX 18 MP to 5D3 22 MP is a 22% increase, rather than the 88% jump you get going from an R1 to an R5II, which makes the R5II notably better for photographs where you want a lot of detail.

That may be, but still my point stands. The r1 is better than the r5ii in other ways. If they put that sensor in the r1, from what they say, they couldn’t have achieved the same feat. So you’re getting essentially the same camera, one with less resolution (though honestly, still absolutely phenomenal for most styles) but greater speed and accuracy or forgo the speed and other factors which go into their top tier camera for the other camera, with more resolution. Perhaps you can’t have your cake and eat it? I don’t know - but that does seem to be what they’re suggesting and have always suggested.

My r1 is just incredible. The images I can make are the cleanest I have ever produced, and the camera is the fastest I have ever used. For me, that makes a higher resolution a somewhat moot point. My clients print their images and thus far (admittedly only a few months), they have been nothing but complimentary. I’m able to shoot these images with amazing accuracy and speed in tough conditions, almost without thinking about it.

I did spend some time deciding and debating about resolution due to ‘the internet’, but ultimately I’m glad I got what I got. I shoot on location portraits and weddings mainly. I value low light capability and speed and I’m very much far from disappointed, despite the cost.

 

[frankchn]

So you’re getting essentially the same camera, one with less resolution (though honestly, still absolutely phenomenal for most styles) but greater speed and accuracy or forgo the speed and other factors which go into their top tier camera for the other camera, with more resolution. Perhaps you can’t have your cake and eat it? I don’t know - but that does seem to be what they’re suggesting and have always suggested.

Yeah I get it, I have both the R1 and the R5II and they are incredible cameras.

Canon doesn't think there is a market for a high resolution R1-like body and it is their prerogative, but I personally would totally ditch the R5II for an R1 body with the R5II sensor.

If nothing else, it would make for a more consistent control layout when I am bringing both cameras (not to mention the better EVF, the matched card slots, and the build quality that I also appreciate in the R1).

 

[neuroanatomist]

The original 1DX is pretty close to a do-it-all camera in Canon's digital era. It is an full-frame 18 megapixel camera that had cutting edge AF, was very fast and had pretty high resolution for its time (the highest res camera Canon offered around then was the 5D3 at 22 MP).

I guess the logic is that so much detail was added to the world and everything in it during the 12 years between the 1D X and the R1 that while the 18 MP 1D X was basically a ‘do it all’ flagship, the 24 MP R1 isn’t.

My eyesight has gone from 20/20 to 20/30 over that 12 years, I suppose that’s why I’ve missed all the extra detail in the world that requires double the MP to capture. So sad.

 

[EricN]

You might want to look back at things like the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 and Minolta XK (AKA X-1 and XM) and Pentax LX for examples of vendors using that definition.

You do realize all those were *film* cameras, right?

 

[frankchn]

I guess the logic is that so much detail was added to the world and everything in it during the 12 years between the 1D X and the R1 that while the 18 MP 1D X was basically a ‘do it all’ flagship, the 24 MP R1 isn’t.

The world might not have, but my printing options certainly did. I went from printing 4x6s at Walgreens sometimes to buying a Pro-1100 and a bunch of Hahnemuhle 17x22s last year

In any case, I don't think sports and wildlife has changed much over the last 12 years, but the 1DX AF system would likely not be considered flagship-worthy today either -- almost all the recent R cameras will outclass it in most situations. Tempora mutantur, and all that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The world might not have, but my printing options certainly did. I went from printing 4x6s at Walgreens sometimes to buying a Pro-1100 last year and a bunch of Hahnemuhle 17x22s last year

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the Canon flagship camera…I didn’t realize we were discussing @frankchn‘s personal flagship.

Sure, printing that size at 300 dpi needs ~40 MP. Not sure that’s a common use case. Plus, I have several 18x24” prints of 18 MP images from my 1D X hanging on my walls, and they look very good.

 

[Bob Howland]

Yeah I get it, I have both the R1 and the R5II and they are incredible cameras.

Canon doesn't think there is a market for a high resolution R1-like body and it is their prerogative, but I personally would totally ditch the R5II for an R1 body with the R5II sensor.

If nothing else, it would make for a more consistent control layout when I am bringing both cameras (not to mention the better EVF, the matched card slots, and the build quality that I also appreciate in the R1).

Canon has to consider two questions (1) is your statement of intent likely to be a good predictor of your future behavior? (2) How many people are willing to buy an R1 with the 5R5-2 sensor if the price is likely to be as more than the price of two r5-2s?

 

[frankchn]

Canon has to consider two questions (1) is your statement of intent likely to be a good predictor of your future behavior? (2) How many people are willing to buy an R1 with the 55-2 sensor if the price is likely to be as more than the price of two r5-2s?

Oh of course, I am not expecting any such product to launch ever. It would be great for me, but I am under no impression that it will sell well or be worth the additional development time.

 

[EricN]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the Canon flagship camera…I didn’t realize we were discussing @frankchn‘s personal flagship.

Sure, printing that size at 300 dpi needs ~40 MP. Not sure that’s a common use case. Plus, I have several 18x24” prints of 18 MP images from my 1D X hanging on my walls, and they look very good.

View attachment 222831

I agree with you. If someone is so close to see the pixels of an 18mp image, they either are too close to see the composition or they have very impressive eyesight. For people who aren't printing, full hd was only 2mp if I remember.

 

[john1970]

This is wrong, there\'s no reason to not offer the ergonomics and form factor of the R1 to Hi-res shooters

I wonder how many Nikon Z9 are selling now that one can get the same functionality in the Nikon Z8 for significantly less money?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder how many Nikon Z9 are selling now that one can get the same functionality in the Nikon Z8 for significantly less money?

Indeed. Fuji offers another relevant comparison that speaks to demand for a high resolution body with an integrated grip. When they updated the GFX 100 to the Mark II version, the integrated grip went away.

 

[alFR]

To be clear, I am saying that there are indeed scenarios where more megapixels are better, not that you cannot do fashion (say) photography with 24mp. Actually I have done quite a lot of fashion shoots with the 1D X (18mp! ), but I vastly prefer the output of my 80mp IQ1-80 (54x40mm MF sensor) for fashion. There's simply no comparisons in the ways it doesn't mush fine textures. If I could afford one I'd jump on a IQ4-150 (150mp, tasty!)... make it 2 since I'd love a monochrome one as well (and then I assume I'd have to justify here why someone would want a monochrome camera... )

What's your intended output for the files from the IQ1-80? Can you realistically tell a 24MP file from an 80MP printed as, say, a full-page image in a magazine? I genuinely have no idea about that, would be very interested to hear more about that and what the resolution ceiling is for that sort of use (i.e. the resolution above which you're not going to see any improvements in a print magazine because you're exceeding the rendering capabilities of the printing system).

It isn't that it "couldn't" do the job. You can do workarounds for any problem. The point of a traditional flagship is that it can do whatever you need it to without having to bend over backwards to get around limitations that aren't present in other models.

Still waiting for some concrete examples of where you need to do that bending over backwards...

 

[roby17269]

What's your intended output for the files from the IQ1-80? Can you realistically tell a 24MP file from an 80MP printed as, say, a full-page image in a magazine? I genuinely have no idea about that, would be very interested to hear more about that and what the resolution ceiling is for that sort of use (i.e. the resolution above which you're not going to see any improvements in a print magazine because you're exceeding the rendering capabilities of the printing system).

Fashion magazines typically. So at those sizes you could use 24mp images without difficulties. But:

• Often more images are made from a single file by cropping (typically to show some accessories or other details) and the higher the resolution the better, since sometimes crops can be quite extreme
• Realistically yes, on screen I can, but do keep into account that the IQ1-80 is a non-aliased 80mp 54x40mm 0.66x crop CCD sensor, a very different beast from a 36x24mm 1x crop CMOS aliased lower-res sensor. Lenses are different too. So apples to oranges
• I am no printing expert so not sure what the thresholds are... you can always calculate the minimum resolution required if you know print size and dpi figures. For standard size mags I think the minimum required is around 16mp post crop (if any). But, again, the more resolution you have, the more flexibility you have. If you don't need such flexibility then yes, more resolution is overkill

Look, for me the move to MF was triggered empirically: I was happily dabbling into fashion photography with my 1D X, but then at one event I was allowed to shoot images with an Hasselblad (H5D-50) and, after the shoot, at home looking at the images, I fell in love with the detail and colors. From that moment on I started saving Simple as that.

 

[MikeGalos]

You do realize all those were *film* cameras, right?

Yes. Companies did have flagship cameras even in the film days.

 

[Karm]

Would you buy it?
How many do you know who would ACTUALLY buy it?

I mean, I know that I would. Of course they're not going to base their market strategy based on what I want, but I can't imagine I'm alone.

To me, the most interesting part of Canons statements quoted here is the part about balance:

For example, if we have higher resolution, then we know that that will skew the balance, and the sensitivity will be lower. That is a physical mechanism. So, in a flagship, we would never focus on just one aspect of the performance that would destroy the balance.

Increasing sensor resolution would (according to them) "destroy" the balance of speed, quality, performance and reliability.
While I can understand that, I would argue that the current R1 isn't a very "balanced" camera to begin with. It is very, VERY heavily leaning towards specifically high-speed sports shooting. The (AI) autofocus, readout speeds, burst rates, responsiveness, noise performance and image resolution, everything there screams "high-speed sports photography". In fact, they even sacrificed some ISO performance for increased readout speed over the R3!
There are many professional applications, including wildlife, landscape and portrait photography, where a higher resolution sensor would be preferable at the cost of some noise performance and maximum burst rate. I know that I'd be happier with a 45-50MPx R1 with 30fps burst rate than the current R1 doing 40fps.

Is it a dealbreaker? Absolutely not. 24MPx is enough for most applications, and I own the R1 and I definitely enjoy it. But I would have preferred the balance of the specs mentioned by Canon to be more... well, balanced, rather than being pretty much exclusively aimed at sports photography.
The R5 is a nice high res body, but to me the resilience, battery life and better viewfinder of the larger body are more important.