We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

[Michael Clark]

Because we went through decades of film based cameras, obviously. Those days are over though, time to move on

Yeah, we've finally evolved past the desirability of landscape imaging!

 

[Michael Clark]

My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$

What is truly relevant to Canon is whether they think they can generate more net profits on offering an $8K camera with slightly less capable video features, and selling more of them (because more stills oriented folks will be able to justify spending $8K) or whether they think they can generate more net profits on a $10K camera with slightly more capable video features, while selling fewer of them (because fewer stills oriented folks will be able to justify spending $10K).

 

[Michael Clark]

C-raw

... or an even further evolution in that direction.

Not to mention that LOTS of sports shooters still use JPEG to get images out within minutes of capture.

So the in-camera processing engine is still a huge piece of the puzzle.

 

[Michael Clark]

It would need to be loss less though and cRaw is a lossy compression albeit pretty close to raw.
I would prefer a oversampling format rather than compression algorithm.

Why would it need to be lossless? The distribution network for sports images is nowhere near lossless.

 

[koenkooi]

... or an even further evolution in that direction.

Not to mention that LOTS of sports shooters still use JPEG to get images out within minutes of capture.

So the in-camera processing engine is still a huge piece of the puzzle.

I really hope the R1 fixes the issue where enabling HEIC images will disable all the nice EVF features, like high refresh rate. Maybe it will trigger Adobe and DxO to allow export to HEIC as well

 

[Michael Clark]

That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.

Right On!

 

[Michael Clark]

But are they? We don't really know what the target audience of the R1 is. Seems unlikely though that Canon thinks that even a majority of people who bought the R3 will turn around and immediately buy the R1.

Perhaps you only meant to share your "wish list" of what you personally would like in an R1. Nothing wrong with that, but it would have saved you some criticism, not only from me but from a number of others on this forum, if you had been more clear.

It's been my understanding for quite a while, which could turn out to be wrong, uhm... less correct than I originally thought, that the R3 is the camera primarily aimed at the sports/reportage market, like the 1D series before 2012, and the R1 will be the camera primarily aimed at the high res (studio, fashion, product, landscape) market, like the 1Ds series was prior to 2012. I think I've expressed that opinion more than once over the past couple of years in this forum. Maybe the α1 has forced Canon to alter that somewhat, though?

 

[Michael Clark]

I googled and learnt the word 'pernickety'. Nice. Will use it often in future. Thanks. I will have a British friend pronounce it for me. What fun!

Apparently us uncultured Americans have been misspelling and mispronouncing it as 'persnickety' for more than a century, now.

 

[Michael Clark]

Getty is not. Canon all the way. AP is all Sony. So not sure what you're talking about.

A friend who shoots for a Gannett owned local newspaper (and who also provides national Gannett coverage for the major college football team in his local paper's hometown) recently had his Canon gear (most of which had been around since before Gannett purchased the newspaper) replaced with Nikon, being told the long-term plan was to go with Sony.

 

[[email protected]]

A friend who shoots for a Gannett owned local newspaper (and who also provides national Gannett coverage for the major college football team in his local paper's hometown) recently had his Canon gear (most of which had been around since before Gannett purchased the newspaper) replaced with Nikon, being told the long-term plan was to go with Sony.

A Nikon flagship camera + 800mm rig is roughly 1/2 the cost (13k) of canon equivalent (23k) right now. If I'm a Gannett photo desk manager and I want to buy a 800mm f/5.6 or f/6.3, I have a choice of buying just a new lens for Canon or a new Nikon lens + a Nikon flagship body with 2x the resolution for $3,000 less. It's not an irrational decision.

 

[unfocused]

It's been my understanding for quite a while, which could turn out to be wrong, uhm... less correct than I originally thought, that the R3 is the camera primarily aimed at the sports/reportage market, like the 1D series before 2012, and the R1 will be the camera primarily aimed at the high res (studio, fashion, product, landscape) market, like the 1Ds series was prior to 2012. I think I've expressed that opinion more than once over the past couple of years in this forum. Maybe the α1 has forced Canon to alter that somewhat, though?

My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.

If true, Canon needs to know what features those buyers in the 'high end enthusiast market' want. They probably have a good idea of that already, based on product registration data.

Plus, they've asked me directly.

 

[Johnw]

My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.

Or it could be a mix, as in they are counting on some regular pro customers to upgrade just because it’s the latest flagship, but maybe they are considering some features that would appeal more to the enthusiast market as well.

 

[unfocused]

Or it could be a mix, as in they are counting on some regular pro customers to upgrade just because it’s the latest flagship, but maybe they are considering some features that would appeal more to the enthusiast market as well.

Yes, of course. It will be a great tool for pros. It is just that the professional market for 1 series bodies keeps shrinking and the R3 offers everything that most professional sports and press photographers need.

 

[Michael Clark]

My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.

Well, I'd also say that it seems the vast majority of the active commenters here are enthusiasts or part-time pros. There aren't really that many full time professionals here who are making a full-time living shooting, particularly at anywhere near a level that could justify what we expect the R1 to cost.

Freelancers will probably find either the R5 (studio/fashion/landscape/product/etc.) or the R3 (sports/reportage) good enough at lower cost. Other than Goldwing, are there any agency photographers or staffers active here that have company equipment provided? Those guys are too busy scrambling for a living to spend much time on here.

 

[Michael Clark]

A Nikon flagship camera + 800mm rig is roughly 1/2 the cost (13k) of canon equivalent (23k) right now. If I'm a Gannett photo desk manager and I want to buy a 800mm f/5.6 or f/6.3, I have a choice of buying just a new lens for Canon or a new Nikon lens + a Nikon flagship body with 2x the resolution for $3,000 less. It's not an irrational decision.

My impression was that it was a transfer of existing company assets from another location that had more gear than staffers, not a new purchase. They sold to a used dealer (MBP or KEH?) his Canon gear and also cleaned out the other old Canon gear still in the photo department's equipment closet from when they had 3-4 staffers instead of only one. A few months back he did shoot with some Sony demo gear for a few weeks before sending it back to Sony. If I remember the conversation correctly from when he was testing the Sony gear, the long term plan is to standardize everyone to Sony and sell the Nikon stuff once the Sony stuff in the pipeline is delivered. I didn't ask if that was Gannett nationwide/worldwide, or only everyone under his regional editor.

He didn't have any 800mm lenses before and if he does now I haven't seen him lugging one around. I see him on TV every weekend during college football season. As of 3-4 years ago his longest lens was a 1990s vintage 400/2.8 II (non-IS) + 1.4X when needed. (That's before his paper was bought by Gannett.) I don't know if he's got a Nikon 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 now (and likely a Nikon 1.4X). I don't know the Nikon gear well enough to tell from seeing him on the sideline on TV when someone scores a TD right in front of him. College football, basketball, gymnastics, volleyball, and softball don't really call for an 800mm. He got by with the 400/2.8 + 1.4X for baseball. For most of his non-sports local reportage he's always been more of a 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 kind of shooter. (Though he did occasionally play around with stuff like an EF 8-15mm L he found in a desk drawer in his new office a few years back not long after he left the paper he had been at for 30 years in my hometown and moved to the college town where he's been for the last 7 years.)

 

[mpwolken]

My theory is that it will have a unique viewfinder, probably based on a pellicle mirror in combination with a transparent LED overlay.

 

[Del Paso]

My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.

What you describe has already happened...
The $9000 Leica M11 and its $3000 plus lenses is certainly rather aimed at enthusiasts than at pros. Sadly, also at collectors. This seems to be a stable, even expanding market. Customers who simply want (and can afford) the very best.
You may also take a look at the bicycle market. $13000 have begun to seem acceptable for high-end enduros. 10 years ago, $6000 or less were paid for the expensive ones.
And I also agree with you on the importance -for Canon cameras- of the number "1".
But it's not my aim to say that these customers can't be excellent photographers as well.
PS: I want the M11...

 

[SteveC]

And I also agree with you on the importance -for Canon cameras- of the number "1".
But it's not my aim to say that these customers can't be excellent photographers as well.
PS: I want the M11...

On the other hand, I'm definitely the weak link in my partnership with my R5.

 

[Del Paso]

On the other hand, I'm definitely the weak link in my partnership with my R5.

Don't you worry, you're not alone.