Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1

[mmmm]

I find the latter to be the more useful of the two by far.

Indeed. So much so I wish the (*) was one too!

 

[MikeGalos]

@MikeGalos to name one person. But he also cares excessively about hyphens, so….

Nope. Sorry but I don't care about the title. I do care about the quality bar and I care about how Canon no longer uses the "Flagship" quality bar for anything but cameras highly optimized for sports. You might recall that I was fine with Canon having a high-res "Flagship" and a high-speed "Flagship" when that was a technological necessity.

As to hyphens, that's just me making fun of the people insisting that the numeral 1 means it's a flagship by pointing out how that is not even true as well as being ludicrous.

 

[Sporgon]

As to hyphens, that's just me making fun of the people insisting that the numeral 1 means it's a flagship by pointing out how that is not even true as well as being ludicrous.

If the R1 is the flagship of the range, and the R5 is first rate, then I guess the R6 is second rate but where does that leave the R100 ? Jolly Boat or Cutter ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nope. Sorry but I don't care about the title. I do care about the quality bar and I care about how Canon no longer uses the "Flagship" quality bar for anything but cameras highly optimized for sports. You might recall that I was fine with Canon having a high-res "Flagship" and a high-speed "Flagship" when that was a technological necessity.

You might recall that you explicitly stated that Canon does not have a true flagship.

As to hyphens, that's just me making fun of the people insisting that the numeral 1 means it's a flagship by pointing out how that is not even true as well as being ludicrous.

So were there Canon flagship DSLRs or MILCs that didn’t have the numeral ‘1’ in the model designation? I must have missed them. Well, I’m sure you’ll make some argument based on film cameras, or something equally irrelevant today.

As for ludicrous, your statement exemplifies that. Canon has made it very clear on many occasions, most recently stating:

Canon’s EOS 1-series legacy continues with the unveiling of the flagship EOS R1 camera.

 

[AlanF]

If the R1 is the flagship of the range, and the R5 is first rate, then I guess the R6 is second rate but where does that leave the R100 ? Jolly Boat or Cutter ?

The Titanic.

 

[roby17269]

Maybe it will be the same day as the RF 35mm f1.2 L?

I hope not, given Hassy's speed of development....

 

[roby17269]

So, the word flagship is so important to you. I'm kind of curious as to why. Afraid your friends will mock you if you bought a R5 mark II, which is as good a camera - perhaps better - than the Nikon and Sony flagships? Canon does offer a high-res camera that is top-level, professional quality. That it is not labeled flagship should not matter to anyone who is a photographer and not just a gear-head.

Don't put words in my typing fingers... I don't care about something being defined "flagship" or not. I care about a manufacturer offering a top of the line camera with high res sensor or not.
The R5 (I and II) have a number of characteristics that are inferior to the R1. These R1 features being (the ones that matter to me): gripped body, bigger better viewfinder, better AF. Speed is not something that matters to me. If you cannot understand this, I do not know how to explain it.

And har har you had to go for a trollish attack ... no one of my friends care which camera I shoot with. The vast majority of my friends would't be able to tell my R5 from my H5X. But I do care, as it is my prerogative. My hobby my time my money.

And here I was, happy with just keeping up with the 35 1.2 whining, but no...

 

[SvO2]

Perhaps from the cost of production of the smart controller. But not the price that is passed on to the customer. There is still some difference between €4700 and €7499. The smart controller brings the 5-series closer to the 1-series (or R3). There is certainly some extra money to be made in the current price difference between R5/R5II and R1 (R3)

I don't know what's going on with europe's pricing, but here it was $4300 (and more than current price of R3) vs $6300 at launch -- I believe similar delta in Japan. And there's a lot more than just the smart controller missing on the R5II. R3 has been at the same price or less than the R5II since the R5II came out.

And personally, if I'm already spending $4300 and buying lenses fit for that body, spending $6300 on the body instead is trivial. Between the sensor and the build quality and extra features I favor the sensor. But I'd gladly pay more to get dual CFe, larger buffer, larger/higher res viewfinder. Smart controllers and the two-stage AF buttons should have been built in even at the lower price, but Canon is going to Canon.

 

[MikeGalos]

You might recall that you explicitly stated that Canon does not have a true flagship.


So were there Canon flagship DSLRs or MILCs that didn’t have the numeral ‘1’ in the model designation? I must have missed them. Well, I’m sure you’ll make some argument based on film cameras, or something equally irrelevant today.

As for ludicrous, your statement exemplifies that. Canon has made it very clear on many occasions, most recently stating:

Yes but I also defined the term "true flagship" using the definition used by Canon (and everyone else) up until the split between hi-res and hi-speed because of processor/sensor limitations. You keep forgetting to mention that.

As to the numeral 1, again you've got that backwards. I pointed out that there were a lot of Canon cameras that had a 1 model designation that weren't flagships such as the AE-1 and AT-1. Or are you now saying those were flagships? It's hard to keep track of what half of my statements you're refuting at any given time.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes but I also defined the term "true flagship" using the definition used by Canon (and everyone else) up until the split between hi-res and hi-speed because of processor/sensor limitations. You keep forgetting to mention that.

There’s no point in mentioning something that’s irrelevant. The simple fact that eludes your comprehension is that a manufacturer designates their flagship. The Mike Galos and Jehosophat Humperdinck definitions don’t matter.

Your perseveration on this issue is like a flat earther’s belief against reality, and sounds just as silly.

As to the numeral 1, again you've got that backwards. I pointed out that there were a lot of Canon cameras that had a 1 model designation that weren't flagships such as the AE-1 and AT-1. Or are you now saying those were flagships? It's hard to keep track of what half of my statements you're refuting at any given time.

Yes, there’s that irrelevant film camera era reference I said was coming. Whether you are one or not, the sentiment applies: Ok, Boomer.

 

[MikeGalos]

Your perseveration on this issue is like a flat earther’s belief against reality, and sounds just as silly.

You're the one who brought it up and tagged me.

 

[MikeGalos]

Yes, there’s that irrelevant film camera era reference I said was coming. Whether you are one or not, the sentiment applies: Ok, Boomer.

I'll make it easier for you to understand. Change "true flagship" to "OG Flagship".

Since you're not a "boomer" that will make you want it - and want to add some IG filters to get that "film look" while complaining that new lenses have no "character" and are too "clinical" and complain that there isn't a version with "retro controls".

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'll make it easier for you to understand. Change "true flagship" to "OG Flagship".

I'm not confused. You're the one who either cannot understand or cannot accept that the R1 is Canon's current flagship camera. It is. Period.

 

[MikeGalos]

I'm not confused. You're the one who either cannot understand or cannot accept that the R1 is Canon's current flagship camera. It is. Period.

Again, you are confused since nobody said otherwise. The discussion was four points:

1. Whether Canon should offer a second Flagship, as they used to do, that was not a sports optimized camera
2. Whether the current Canon meaning given by the term Flagship mean the same thing the entire industry including Canon used to mean by the term.
3. Whether Canon should produce, instead, a Flagship that met the older criteria
4. If Canon did return to the older meaning of the term, should they also produce a special, dedicated high speed body for sports journalists, as they and others in the industry used to do.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Again, you are confused since nobody said otherwise.

Right, nobody said that.

Canon currently has no true flagship.

(you would be the nobody in this scenario)

The discussion was four points:

1. Whether Canon should offer a second Flagship, as they used to do, that was not a sports optimized camera
2. Whether the current Canon meaning given by the term Flagship mean the same thing the entire industry including Canon used to mean by the term.
3. Whether Canon should produce, instead, a Flagship that met the older criteria
4. If Canon did return to the older meaning of the term, should they also produce a special, dedicated high speed body for sports journalists, as they and others in the industry used to do.

Lol, whatever. I'll leave you to ponder those questions along with other topics of similar relevance, such as:

1. Whether Canon should release a Hello Kitty themed flagship camera to pair with the Inspic Pv-123 mini photo printer
2. Whether the definition of the word flagship should be determined by entities like the Oxford Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or by a rando on the internet thinking it means whatever he decides at that moment
3. Is the earth really an irregularly shaped ellipsoid

 

[mmmm]

Again, you are confused since nobody said otherwise. The discussion was four points:

1. Whether Canon should offer a second Flagship, as they used to do, that was not a sports optimized camera
2. Whether the current Canon meaning given by the term Flagship mean the same thing the entire industry including Canon used to mean by the term.
3. Whether Canon should produce, instead, a Flagship that met the older criteria
4. If Canon did return to the older meaning of the term, should they also produce a special, dedicated high speed body for sports journalists, as they and others in the industry used to do.

1: there isn’t normally such a thing as a second flagship. See below. The only reasons they did this in the past, I believe, was due to technical limitations at the time, which still exist, but they no longer feel the need to have two devices when one can offer everything they want.

2: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/flagship

3: this is the only question in this debate that’s worth asking, if you’re discussing whether the flagship r1 should have a different spec.

4: there are no ‘older meanings’ of the term outside of what’s been explained already.

 

[roby17269]

The point does still stand. The flagship camera is the R1. There is one, and it’s 24mp. There is a nearly equally specced, substantially cheaper second only to the flagship R1, that is higher MP. The post could have been misunderstood, but how? This ‘inferior’ camera is the very next best they offer, aside the pinnacle of their offerings. And as explained by Canon themselves, to make that pinnacle a higher MP they would need to reduce other specs, including speed. So not being able to have one without the other is their line in the sand. But it’s not like they don’t offer an almost equally impressive , potentially more impressive if you value higher mp count, camera. It’s much ado about nothing, as canons 2 top of the line cameras are either fast or have a higher mp count. The difference seems to come down to one is called a flagship and one is not. Maybe the issue could more easily be described as the R5 II doesn’t offer a dual grip shape, and isn’t described as a flagship.

There are a few more little differences between the R5 (II) and R1 beyond the grip that matters to me:

• Bigger and higher res viewfinder
• Better AF (the pseudo quad AF)
• Smart controller (I am not 100% sure this one matters to me, but I am curious about it)

 

[AlanF]

1: there isn’t normally such a thing as a second flagship. See below. The only reasons they did this in the past, I believe, was due to technical limitations at the time, which still exist, but they no longer feel the need to have two devices when one can offer everything they want.

2: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/flagship

3: this is the only question in this debate that’s worth asking, if you’re discussing whether the flagship r1 should have a different spec.

4: there are no ‘older meanings’ of the term outside of what’s been explained already.

The US Navy does not have a designated flagship for the entire Navy, but rather, each fleet commander has a flagship for their respective fleet. They can include aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, cruisers, destroyers, or other vessels depending on the specific command or mission.

The largest navy in the world, the Chinese, has two different flagships, the Liaoning and Shandong.

The Royal Navy's two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth, regularly rotate the role of flagship, with one ready for deployment and the other in maintenance.

Merriam-Webster gives two definitions of flagship:
1: the ship that carries the commander of a fleet or subdivision of a fleet and flies the commander's flag
2: the finest, largest, or most important one of a group of things (such as products, stores, etc.)
and outguns the Oxford Learners Dictionary.

 

[mmmm]

Oxford Learners Dictionary

Actually I used the learners version as an underhand sleight. Clever hey. Incidentally, it’s the exact same definition Merriam - Websters.

But as you bring up Merriam- Websters definition, ok then!

Whilst you’re perhaps accurately telling me about multiple navies of the world and their alleged flagships, the definition we need is number 2 in the entry.

“the finest, largest, or most important one of a group of things (such as products, stores, etc.)”
—often used before another noun
-“the company's flagship store”
-“The traveling media crew comprises seven beat writers and a reporter from WFAN, the team's flagship station and the granddaddy of all-sports radio”

Canons camera line qualifies as a group of things. That they define their finest camera as their flagship is exactly the definition of a flagship product.

I don’t know what your point is.

 

[mmmm]

There are a few more little differences between the R5 (II) and R1 beyond the grip that matters to me:

• Bigger and higher res viewfinder
• Better AF (the pseudo quad AF)
• Smart controller (I am not 100% sure this one matters to me, but I am curious about it)

The smart controller is really game changing for me.

But you know, things like that, and a bigger better EV, better AF - it’s to be expected. The camera is 2k more expensive. But just because they’re (a bit) better, doesn’t suddenly mean the R5ii is much worse. The majority of posts I have come across have solely concentrated on the MP difference and the dual grip.