Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[Dragon]

I don't quite get all the teeth gnashing over the future of the R3 as a line. The discontinuance of the M line was significant because of its unique lens mount, but no such issue exists relative to the R3. If the R3 is a camera that fits your needs, then buy one. If not, then buy something that does. If you buy an R3 and 3 or 5 years down the road you need a new camera, then buy what fits your need. Neither the price nor the feature set between the R3 and the R1 is all that different, so moving from an R3 to an R1 mark II should not be the source of either eotimonal or financial stress. If you bought an R3 when it first came out and want some feature upgrades, then moving to the R1 mark I may make sense, but again, it shouldn't present a financial barrier relative to contemplating the purchase of a mythical R3 mark II. Given the history of the 3 with only two models in two and half decades (both quite experimental), expectation of feature stability should be muted in the first place and the likelihood of an R3 mark II, when and if it ever arrives, being a logical replacement for a current R3 is optimistic at best. The future direction of the R1 is very predictable. The future direction of the R3, clearly is not .

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I don't quite get all the teeth gnashing over the future of the R3 as a line. The discontinuance of the M line was significant because of its unique lens mount, but no such issue exists relative to the R3. If the R3 is a camera that fits your needs, then buy one. If not, then buy something that does. If you buy an R3 and 3 or 5 years down the road you need a new camera, then buy what fits your need. Neither the price nor the feature set between the R3 and the R1 is all that different, so moving from an R3 to an R1 mark II should not be the source of either eotimonal or financial stress. If you bought an R3 when it first came out and want some feature upgrades, then moving to the R1 mark I may make sense, but again, it shouldn't present a financial barrier relative to contemplating the purchase of a mythical R3 mark II. Given the history of the 3 with only two models in two and half decades (both quite experimental), expectation of feature stability should be muted in the first place and the likelihood of an R3 mark II, when and if it ever arrives, being a logical replacement for a current R3 is optimistic at best. The future direction of the R1 is very predictable. The future direction of the R3, clearly is not .

They cost about the same so cost is not an issue.
I think people are wondering how Canon would continue two lines that are so similar.
The R1 has the 1D legacy to live up to.
The R3 only needed the eye-controlled autofocus to live up to its legacy.
Now that eye-controlled AF has moved into other cameras, the R3 would need enough distinguishing features to continue as a model.

 

[Zeiss]

The R5 outsells the R3/R1. So all the talk of people not wanting higher megapixels is incorrect. I take people on guided tours for wildlife and the majority of Canon users including myself would like a high megapixel “pro body”. A full body also allows for those bigger batteries which comes in handy to power those big whites. Additionally, people with high megapixel cameras really desire dual CF’bs. Obviously in this case Canon does what is best for them and not what the people want.
I think Canon is slow at adapting to changing markets. The amount of people who are birders and ”wildlife photographers” and spend a lot of money on gear is astounding. Canon is sticking with what they know and what has worked for them in the past like catering to sports and journalists. It seems they have a lot of support even in this thread to just stick to their old ways, which is surprising considering consumers should want a brand that is competitive and innovates.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R5 outsells the R3/R1. So all the talk of people not wanting higher megapixels is incorrect.

The R6II outsells the R5. So all the talk of people wanting higher megapixels is incorrect. That must be true, if your impeccable logic is correct. Or it could be that you’re ignoring a rather significant factor in purchasing decisions for most people, cost.

I take people on guided tours for wildlife and the majority of Canon users including myself would like a high megapixel “pro body”.

I see. Who elected you speaker for the majority of Canon users? Of course, perhaps you mean a majority of Canon users on your tours. Wow, that must be what? Thousands of people? Tens of thousands of people?

As I usually ask when people make such asinine claims, what makes you think you understand the camera market better than the company that has led that market for two decades and dominates it today? It’s a rhetorical question, you don’t.

I think Canon is slow at adapting to changing markets.

Sure, sure. That must be the case since over the past decade the camera market has shrunk by 90% and mirrorless has taken over. Canon’s slowness to adapt has led to them maintaining their near 50% market share that entire time. Clearly, either they haven’t got a clue about what they’re doing or you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. Hint for the clueless, it’s not the former.

The amount of people who are birders and ”wildlife photographers” and spend a lot of money on gear is astounding.

Is it? Show us the data. How many people? How much money? What what is the average household income of such people and their other demographic information? More rhetorical questions. We both know you haven’t got a clue about the actual numbers, whereas Canon almost certainly does.

It seems they have a lot of support even in this thread to just stick to their old ways, which is surprising considering consumers should want a brand that is competitive and innovates.

Speaking for myself, I do want a brand that is competitive and innovates. I’m quite happy with Canon on both of those fronts. You don’t get to define what constitutes competitive and innovative for anyone but yourself.

By the way, welcome to the forums. Thanks for that pithy first post.

 

[Zeiss]

The R6II outsells the R5. So all the talk of people wanting higher megapixels is incorrect. That must be true, if your impeccable logic is correct. Or it could be that you’re ignoring a rather significant factor in purchasing decisions for most people, cost.


I see. Who elected you speaker for the majority of Canon users? Of course, perhaps you mean a majority of Canon users on your tours. Wow, that must be what? Thousands of people? Tens of thousands of people?

As I usually ask when people make such asinine claims, what makes you think you understand the camera market better than the company that has led that market for two decades and dominates it today? It’s a rhetorical question, you don’t.


Sure, sure. That must be the case since over the past decade the camera market


Speaking for myself, I do want a brand that is competitive and innovates. I’m quite happy with Canon on both of those fronts. You don’t get to define what constitutes competitive and innovative for anyone but yourself.

By the way, welcome to the forums. Thanks for that pithy first post.

The R6II outsells the R5. So all the talk of people wanting higher megapixels is incorrect. That must be true, if your impeccable logic is correct. Or it could be that you’re ignoring a rather significant factor in purchasing decisions for most people, cost.


I see. Who elected you speaker for the majority of Canon users? Of course, perhaps you mean a majority of Canon users on your tours. Wow, that must be what? Thousands of people? Tens of thousands of people?

As I usually ask when people make such asinine claims, what makes you think you understand the camera market better than the company that has led that market for two decades and dominates it today? It’s a rhetorical question, you don’t.


Sure, sure. That must be the case since over the past decade the camera market has shrunk by 90% and mirrorless has taken over. Canon’s slowness to adapt has led to the maintaining their near 50% market share that entire time. Clearly, either they haven’t got a clue about what they’re doing or you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. Hint for the clueless, it’s not the former.


Is it? Show us the data. How many people? How much money? What what is the average household income of such people and their other demographic information? More rhetorical questions. We both know you haven’t got a clue about the actual numbers, whereas Canon almost certainly does.


Speaking for myself, I do want a brand that is competitive and innovates. I’m quite happy with Canon on both of those fronts. You don’t get to define what constitutes competitive and innovative for anyone but yourself.

By the way, welcome to the forums. Thanks for that pithy first post.

First, thanks for the warm welcome. Second, this was my opinion as a Canon user, I’m not presenting my life experiences as fact to change Canons mind. It’s a forum for open discussion. All you do to dispute someone’s opinions is ask “who knows better, you or Canon”. I mean Canon knows what’s best for themselves, they only care about profit at the end of the day. Also that’s a lazy argument. I am not saying I know more than Canon, my opinion(remember that important part before you have an aneurysm next time) is that Canon is missing out on an important part of the market. These people are photographing woodpeckers with $15,000 dollar rigs. Big white primes exist for these people. Even though the market isn’t huge for 600 or 800mm primes that cost 14k+. Canon still makes it.
If Canon made an R1s with 45MP, what do you think would they would sell more of?
The R1 with 24 or the R1S with 45? I’d wager on the latter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

First, thanks for the warm welcome. Second, this was my opinion as a Canon user, I’m not presenting my life experiences as fact to change Canons mind.

I see. So, "I take people on guided tours for wildlife and the majority of Canon users including myself would like a high megapixel 'pro body'," is not that. Mmmmmkay.

I mean Canon knows what’s best for themselves, they only care about profit at the end of the day. Also that’s a lazy argument. I am not saying I know more than Canon, my opinion(remember that important part before you have an aneurysm next time) is that Canon is missing out on an important part of the market.

So what you're saying is that, 1) Canon cares only about profit, and 2) in your opinion they're missing out on an important part of the market.

There are two logical scenarios for that: 1) Canon knows they're missing out on a major market segment and is choosing to forego the profit that is the only thing they care about, or 2) the part of the market in your opinion is important...isn't, at least from a commercial standpoint. Which do you think is more likely?

These people are photographing the woodpeckers with $15,000 dollar rigs. Big white primes exist for these people. Even though the market isn’t huge for 600 or 800mm primes that cost 14k+. Canon still makes it.

Yes, they do. But they haven't made a high MP 1-series body in over 14 years. So again, what does that tell you about Canon's assessment of the market for such a camera?

If Canon made an R1s with 45MP, what do you think would they would sell more of?
The R1 with 24 or the R1S with 45? I’d wager on the latter.

Again...Canon, who only cares about profit, is choosing to make a camera that you think would sell less well. And we're back to Canon is stupid or your wager is foolish (and the logical choice there is the same as above).
__________

The bottom line is that you've fallen into the classic mold of many people on this forum. You want something, in this case a high MP 1-series body. But you can't simply state that you want that, or that you wish Canon would make it, either of which would be perfectly reasonable.

Instead, you felt it necessary to frame your personal want as something that 'a majority of Canon users want' and something that 'Canon is missing out on profit by not making'. Those are fallacious arguments, to put it politely (or bullsh!t, to put it colloquially). When pushed to provide evidence to back up your assertions, you can't (no surprise there).

FWIW, if Canon made a high MP 1-series body, I would most likely buy it. The difference is that I don't fool myself into believing that my personal desires or choices represent those of anyone but me, nor do I assume that I know the market better than Canon (because I am fully aware that I don't).

Also, as @P-visie summed up nicely earlier in this thread:

The market is likely to be smaller than you think:

• Nikon introduced the Z8, without integrated grip, less than 2 years after the Z9. Would they have done this if the Z9 was selling well?
• Fujifilm removed the integrated grip when they introduced the GFX 100-II.
• Sony A1 and A9 have no integrated grip.

Taken together, the upshot seems to be that none of the major manufacturers see a strong market for a high MP, integrated grip body. But you do. Good luck with that.

 

[Zeiss]

I see. So, "I take people on guided tours for wildlife and the majority of Canon users including myself would like a high megapixel 'pro body'," is not that. Mmmmmkay.


So what you're saying is that, 1) Canon cares only about profit, and 2) in your opinion they're missing out on an important part of the market.

There are two logical scenarios for that: 1) Canon knows they're missing out on a major market segment and is choosing to forego the profit that is the only thing they care about, or 2) the part of the market in your opinion is important...isn't, at least from a commercial standpoint. Which do you think is more likely?


Yes, they do. But they haven't made a high MP 1-series body in over 14 years. So again, what does that tell you about Canon's assessment of the market for such a camera?


Again...Canon, who only cares about profit, is choosing to make a camera that you think would sell less well. And we're back to Canon is stupid or your wager is foolish (and the logical choice there is the same as above).
__________

The bottom line is that you've fallen into the classic mold of many people on this forum. You want something, in this case a high MP 1-series body. But you can't simply state that you want that, or that you wish Canon would make it, either of which would be perfectly reasonable.

Instead, you felt it necessary to frame your personal want as something that 'a majority of Canon users want' and something that 'Canon is missing out on profit by not making'. Those are fallacious arguments, to put it politely (or bullsh!t, to put it colloquially). When pushed to provide evidence to back up your assertions, you can't (no surprise there).

FWIW, if Canon made a high MP 1-series body, I would most likely buy it. The difference is that I don't fool myself into believing that my personal desires or choices represent those of anyone but me, nor do I assume that I know the market better than Canon (because I am fully aware that I don't).

Also, as @P-visie summed up nicely earlier in this thread:

Taken together, the upshot seems to be that none of the major manufacturers see a strong market for a high MP, integrated grip body. But you do. Good luck with that.

Sorry I’m not good at quoting individual sections yet. I’m speaking only from my personal experience and my opinion regarding that. It’s no different then your opinion that you’re happy with Canons innovation etc. You are happy with it but you don’t speak for many(in this thread even) who aren’t, or Canons consumer base as a whole. You’re as clueless as me in that regard, although I probably speak to more users of this equipment yearly than you do. If the market for this R1s exists, which in my opinion it does, and if you would buy it yourself, it probably does lol…
Maybe it’s not profitable enough. Maybe they haven’t figured that out. In closing, my opinion is that a lot people want something better than the R5 series. It’s up to Canon to decide if it’s worth making. Or if they are fine with some people moving to Nikon or Sony for that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry I’m not good at quoting individual sections yet. I’m speaking only from my personal experience and my opinion regarding that. It’s no different then your opinion that you’re happy with Canons innovation etc. You are happy with it but you don’t speak for many(in this thread even) who aren’t, or Canons consumer base as a whole. You’re as clueless as me in that regard, although I probably speak to more users of this equipment yearly than you do. If the market for this R1s exists, which in my opinion it does, and if you would buy it yourself, it probably does lol…
Maybe it’s not profitable enough. Maybe they haven’t figured that out. In closing, my opinion is that a lot people want something better than the R5 series. It’s up to Canon to decide if it’s worth making. Or if they are fine with some people moving to Nikon or Sony for that.

Yes, we are both stating our opinions. But there are two important differences. 1) I am not claiming my opinions represent those of anyone but me, you are claiming (and persist in claiming) that you speak for yourself and others (a 'majority of users' as you first put it). 2) I am considering an important factor that you seem to be ignoring, namely what Canon has actually done. Those are facts, not opinions. Canon released a 24 MP integrated grip R3, then three years later they are releasing a 24 MP integrated grip R1. They released a 45 MP R5, then four years later they are releasing a 45 MP R5 II.

Twelve years ago, they stopped producing separate 'fast' and 'studio' versions of the 1-series (1D IV, 1Ds III), and combined them into one 'fast' 1-series body that has now seen iterations of 18, 20, 20 and 24 MP. Meanwhile, the 5-series saw increases from 22 to 30 to 45 MP (with a 50 MP 's' version as a one-off nearly a decade ago). They've had ample opportunities to bring back the high MP 1-series body, but they've chosen not to do so. For 12 years.

Your opinion is that they're wrong. That could be true, companies make mistakes just like people do. But it's far more likely that Canon simply knows the demands of the market they lead better than we do.

The thing about stating opinions is that even though anyone has the right to state theirs, not all opinions have equal validity. Some people hold the opinion that the earth is flat...and they are welcome to state that opinion, even given the weight of evidence to the contrary. Your opinion seems to be that you understand the needs of the camera market better than Canon. I repeat...good luck with that.

 

[Zeiss]

To be fair, the integrated grip is something I would like personally. As I mentioned it allows for the better battery. My experience with other photogs is simply that they would like a more “professional” body then the R5 offers. Whether that means better weather sealing, the integrated grip, or better features (many to list). I think Sony and Nikon offer that with their flagships that the R5 does not. You don’t need to believe or put weight behind my personal experience, it’s not data to be collected. You mentioned the classic mold of people on this forum. And if I fit in that, it sounds like there are more people who would agree with my experience. Looking at Canons history, are they usually the first to innovate? Or do they wait until someone else takes the risk to bring something to the market? And then expand upon that. They were a bit late to the mirrorless game in general. But with the R5mk2 as an example they are just playing catch up with many features, like pre-capture.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You mentioned the classic mold of people on this forum. And if I fit in that, it sounds like there are more people who would agree with my experience.

I was not talking about your specific desire for a high MP 1-series body, but rather the general mold of people expressing their personal desires as 'the needs of the many' (or 'the all') and/or suggesting that there will be negative consequences for Canon (loss of revenue, loss of market share due to people switching away from Canon, etc.) if their personal desires are not met by Canon.

Fourteen years ago, Canon was doomed because Nikon had better low ISO DR, and 'everyone wants more DR'. 12 years ago, Canon was doomed because they were late to mirrorless, and all the other manufacturers were switching over to MILCs (never mind that the Nikon 1 was a flop, and the EOS M became the most popular line of MILCs globally a few years after its launch). 6 years ago, Canon was doomed because they were late to mirrorless and Sony was going to dominate the market. In fact, you just stated that Canon was 'late to mirrorless' yourself. Canon launched the EOS R in 2018, DLSRs outsold MILCs until 2020, and Canon now leads the entire MILC market by a substantial margin. It's not a coincidence that MILCs did not start to lead the ILC market until after Canon fully committed to mirrorless.

The takeaway here is that for a long time people on this forum have held and expressed the opinion that Canon was going to suffer for not meeting their personal desires, but somehow Canon seems to have survived and prospered. But by all means, continue to suggest that your assessment of what the market wants is more accurate than Canon's, and keep predicting that Canon needs to make [insert product here], add [insert feature here] or do [instert strategic approach here] or else... Who knows, maybe one of you will be right someday. And maybe Charlie's foot will finally connect with the ball.

Looking at Canons history, are they usually the first to innovate? Or do they wait until someone else takes the risk to bring something to the market? And then expand upon that.

Lens faster than f/1.0. Fluorite lens elements. Tilt-shit lens for a 35mm camera. Zoom lens with a 10x range. CMOS sensor in a DSLR. Image stabilization. Diffractive optics. Full frame CMOS sensor in a DSLR. 1080p video recording in a DSLR. Fisheye zoom lens. FF zoom lens down to 11mm...then to 10mm.

Canon is the only company in the world to have been in the top 5 for number of granted patents for 38 years in a row (and counting), but sure...they never innovate.

 

[Zeiss]

I was not talking about your specific desire for a high MP 1-series body, but rather the general mold of people expressing their personal desires as 'the needs of the many' (or 'the all') and/or suggesting that there will be negative consequences for Canon (loss of revenue, loss of market share due to people switching away from Canon, etc.) if their personal desires are not met by Canon.

Fourteen years ago, Canon was doomed because Nikon had better low ISO DR, and 'everyone wants more DR'. 12 years ago, Canon was doomed because they were late to mirrorless, and all the other manufacturers were switching over to MILCs (never mind that the Nikon 1 was a flop, and the EOS M became the most popular line of MILCs globally a few years after its launch). 6 years ago, Canon was doomed because they were late to mirrorless and Sony was going to dominate the market. In fact, you just stated that Canon was 'late to mirrorless' yourself. Canon launched the EOS R in 2018, DLSRs outsold MILCs until 2020, and Canon now leads the entire MILC market by a substantial margin. It's not a coincidence that MILCs did not start to lead the ILC market until after Canon fully committed to mirrorless.

The takeaway here is that for a long time people on this forum have held and expressed the opinion that Canon was going to suffer for not meeting their personal desires, but somehow Canon seems to have survived and prospered. But by all means, continue to suggest that your assessment of what the market wants is more accurate than Canon's, and keep predicting that Canon needs to make [insert product here], add [insert feature here] or do [instert strategic approach here] or else... Who knows, maybe one of you will be right someday. And maybe Charlie's foot will finally connect with the ball.

View attachment 218620


Lens faster than f/1.0. Fluorite lens elements. Tilt-shit lens for a 35mm camera. Zoom lens with a 10x range. CMOS sensor in a DSLR. Image stabilization. Diffractive optics. Full frame CMOS sensor in a DSLR. 1080p video recording in a DSLR. Fisheye zoom lens. FF zoom lens down to 11mm...then to 10mm.

Canon is the only company in the world to have been in the top 5 for number of granted patents for 38 years in a row (and counting), but sure...they never innovate.

Your misunderstanding, I was asking a question. Not stating that they don’t innovate. But it seems like they are playing catchup with mirrorless bodies. As I stated.

You seem to have some pent up rage regarding the dooming. You don’t have to take it out on me, I was just stating my experience. I certainly don’t think Canon is doomed. But I also don’t think they are some perfect company that is adapting to a changing market either.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But it seems like they are playing catchup with mirrorless bodies. As I stated.

Yes, Canon is trying to catch up to Sony and Nikon with mirrorless bodies...at least, in your mind. Meanwhile, Canon is selling 30% more mirrorless bodies than Sony and twice as many mirrorless bodies as Nikon. Remind me again, who knows the market better? Yeah.

 

[Zeiss]

Yes, Canon is trying to catch up to Sony and Nikon with mirrorless bodies...at least, in your mind. Meanwhile, Canon is selling 30% more mirrorless bodies than Sony and twice as many mirrorless bodies as Nikon. Remind me again, who knows the market better? Yeah.

Again with the default “Canon knows” I mean really? Do you ever have your own opinion or do you just take every camera they make and just say “oh well, dual Cf slots would be great but since “Canon knows”, it’s fine. Lol

Seriously you are being over defensive to someone like me who is a Canon for life person. I don’t think my statement that canon is playing catchup in mirrorless is inaccurate. (I’m not talking specifically about how many they sell compared to competitors)It doesn’t mean they don’t sell a crap load of them or that they aren’t successful or good. They are just “late to the game”. Their flagship just got released meanwhile Sony and Nikon are due for their first updates. You gotta relax, I’m on your side lol.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Again with the default “Canon knows” I mean really? Do you ever have your own opinion or do you just take every camera they make and just say “oh well, dual Cf slots would be great but since “Canon knows”, it’s fine. Lol

Seriously you are being over defensive to someone like me who is a Canon for life person. I don’t think my statement that canon is playing catchup in mirrorless is inaccurate. It doesn’t mean they don’t sell a crap load of them or that they aren’t successful or good. They are just “late to the game”. Their flagship just got released meanwhile Sony and Nikon are due for their first updates. You gotta relax, I’m on your side lol.

Not at all, I'm just realistic about the difference between my own desires and those of the broader market.

Personally, 18-24 MP is enough for my needs, I have a strong ergonomic preference for a gripped body, I like my R3 and am looking forward to using the R1 when it arrives.

Meanwhile, I can enjoy using a 24-105/2.8, 10-20/4 and 28-70/2 on my 'late to the game' Canon mirrorless bodies.

Baseball metaphor – Canon is late to the game in the same way that fourth player in the batting order is late. They're called the clean-up hitter for a reason.

 

[Zeiss]

Not at all, I'm just realistic about the difference between my own desires and those of the broader market.

Personally, 18-24 MP is enough for my needs, I have a strong ergonomic preference for a gripped body, I like my R3 and am looking forward to using the R1 when it arrives.

Meanwhile, I can enjoy using a 24-105/2.8, 10-20/4 and 28-70/2 on my 'late to the game' Canon mirrorless bodies.

Baseball metaphor – Canon is late to the game in the same way that fourth player in the batting order is late. They're called the clean-up hitter for a reason.

I mean is it factually incorrect that they were late to the game for mirrorless? I believe they will end up dominating because they (in my opinion) always do. I shoot mainly wildlife with the R5 and RF 600/4. Also do some event photography with the usual suspects, 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 with a R6. I’ll be waiting to upgrade bodies for another year or two.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I mean is it factually incorrect that they were late to the game for mirrorless? I believe they will end up dominating because they (in my opinion) always do. I shoot mainly wildlife with the R5 and RF 600/4. Also do some event photography with the usual suspects, 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 with a R6. I’ll be waiting to upgrade bodies for another year or two.

If you mean full frame mirrorless, it is factually correct to state that Canon was the last of the three major ILC manufacturers to release a full frame MILC (Nikon beat them by 2 months). If you mean APS-C mirrorless, Canon was the second of the three to launch one (Sony was two years ahead of Canon, Nikon was 7 years behind Canon). If you mean mirrorless ILCs in general, Epson, Leica, Panasonic and Olympus all had them well before Sony, Canon or Nikon, in Epson's case 6 years before Sony launched the NEX line.

So the answer to your question, "...is it factually incorrect that [Canon was] late to the game for mirrorless," is yes, that is factually incorrect. Being late means doing something after the proper time. Given that Canon was fully committed to mirrorless before MILCs outsold DSLRs (and that shift likely occurred because Canon fully committed to MILCs), and that as the industry transitioned from DSLRs to MILCs Canon maintained their near-50% camera market share, it seems Canon entered the mirrorless game at the proper time.

I shoot mainly wildlife with the R5 and RF 600/4. Also do some event photography with the usual suspects, 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 with a R6. I’ll be waiting to upgrade bodies for another year or two.

My wildlife shooting (mainly birds) is with the R3 and EF 600/4 II (since I can handhold the lens, I saw no need to get the MkIII which is optically no better, nor the RF which is the MkIII with an adapter bolted on, optically at least). A lot of architecture with the TS-E 17 and 24, and I wish Canon would hurry up with the rumored TS-R 14mm. I have found the RF 24-105/2.8 plus RF 100-300/2.8 an excellent combination for event photography.

 

[Dragon]

First, thanks for the warm welcome. Second, this was my opinion as a Canon user, I’m not presenting my life experiences as fact to change Canons mind. It’s a forum for open discussion. All you do to dispute someone’s opinions is ask “who knows better, you or Canon”. I mean Canon knows what’s best for themselves, they only care about profit at the end of the day. Also that’s a lazy argument. I am not saying I know more than Canon, my opinion(remember that important part before you have an aneurysm next time) is that Canon is missing out on an important part of the market. These people are photographing woodpeckers with $15,000 dollar rigs. Big white primes exist for these people. Even though the market isn’t huge for 600 or 800mm primes that cost 14k+. Canon still makes it.
If Canon made an R1s with 45MP, what do you think would they would sell more of?
The R1 with 24 or the R1S with 45? I’d wager on the latter.

So I am guessing here that these $15,000 rigs currently include an R5 for you to be so sure the users would want 45 MP. With an R1s, they would be $17 ,500 rigs and maybe over the top. Alternatively, these folks are currently using an R3 or R6 and have no experience with 45 MP files and those using laptops to process photos (I am perpetually amazed by how many are using laptops) would be unpleasantly surprised buy the impact on their processing chain caused by 45 MP files. Personally, I would far prefer an R5s with 80 to 100 MP over an R1 with 45 MP, but this is also a very niche market given the small number of lenses that could take advantage of such pixel density. You only have to shoot with an R7 for a while to get an idea which lenses give high pixel density a material advantage and the R7 is only using the center of FF lenses, so the list gets even shorter with a FF of similar density.

I suspect Canon is not that far away from making a very high res camera of some sort, and given the numbers, I suspect an R5s is more likely than an R1s, but then we could also see a 40 MP r7 II since that market is arguably even larger (once again based on the number of base models likely sold). The R7 + RF 200-800 is a remarkably compact package for what it can do and it would be even more effective if the camera body allowed setting a focus distance window and there is no obvious reason why that could not be done.

 

[Zeiss]

So I am guessing here that these $15,000 rigs currently include an R5 for you to be so sure the users would want 45 MP. With an R1s, they would be $17 ,500 rigs and maybe over the top.

Im not sure, but a lot of people(many retired) with expensive rigs. Money doesn’t appear to be a factor for them, they just want the “best”.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Im not sure, but a lot of people(many retired) with expensive rigs. Money doesn’t appear to be a factor for them, they just want the “best”.

Tell them 'the best' is now a Fuji GFX 100II with a Fujinon GF 500mm f/5.6. 100 MP medium format (-ish) sensor, 400mm full frame equivalent lens. And it's only $11K for the setup (best to throw in the GF 1.4X TC to get to 560mm FFeq, so call it $12K). Canon, Sony and Nikon have nothing even remotely comparable. Looks like there are lots of brands playing catch-up!

 

[Dragon]

Im not sure, but a lot of people(many retired) with expensive rigs. Money doesn’t appear to be a factor for them, they just want the “best”.

I think if you look carefully, you will find that us retired guys are more interested in the most functional over the "best", particularly if you interpret "best" as most expensive and showy. One thing a lifetime of experience teaches most people is that trying to outdo the Joneses is a waste of time. We dress in jeans even if we can afford Armani Suits, because jeans are comfortable and functional and we really don't give a tinker's damn what other folks think about our dress code. If you look closely, I think you will find similar behavior with respect to camera equipment (at least with a lot of those folks). Disclaimer: There will always be some folks who refuse to learn from experience .