What happened to the 'mirrorless allows for lower cost' argument? Seems to me like this is exactly what Canon are doing here. Spread out development cost over greater number of products. Which is possible since there are less body specific developments for these bodies.
The AF specifically is now software only. It all works on super high resolution DPAF CMOS sensors. No variations in spread and point type and sensitivities from model model. It's all evenly spaced pixels split in the same fashion into two photosites. I bet they don't have to put in nearly the same effort to give future bodies animal eye AF as they did for the R5. And they may even add it to the 1DX III in post, if they decide giving the LiveView more capabilities than the OVF AF won't upset too many users.
Why would an R5 cost nearly as much as a 1DX III, when it has a less cutting edge card configuration, slower and most likely less durable shutter, no mirror and corresponding CMOS AF Array, no mirror motors and no vertical grip and corresponding ruggedness?
Literally the only thing the R5 seems to have over the 1DX III in terms of hardware is an H265 encoder capable of handling 8K*. So do some smartphones. It certainly has its cost, yes. But Canon for sure would not have included that if it was a huge cost factor given the challenges of the current market situation (even pre pandemic). The M50 introduced 4K H. 264, didn't it? That's a low end model getting the first high end encoder. And here we have a high end model getting a high end encoder an assume it will add a few grant to the price? And again, they would not have needed to include that. 8K RAW would have been enough to crush everything else out there.
*Granted, it also has an EVF. But I don't know of any compelling evidence that that would add cost.
The AF specifically is now software only. It all works on super high resolution DPAF CMOS sensors. No variations in spread and point type and sensitivities from model model. It's all evenly spaced pixels split in the same fashion into two photosites. I bet they don't have to put in nearly the same effort to give future bodies animal eye AF as they did for the R5. And they may even add it to the 1DX III in post, if they decide giving the LiveView more capabilities than the OVF AF won't upset too many users.
Why would an R5 cost nearly as much as a 1DX III, when it has a less cutting edge card configuration, slower and most likely less durable shutter, no mirror and corresponding CMOS AF Array, no mirror motors and no vertical grip and corresponding ruggedness?
Literally the only thing the R5 seems to have over the 1DX III in terms of hardware is an H265 encoder capable of handling 8K*. So do some smartphones. It certainly has its cost, yes. But Canon for sure would not have included that if it was a huge cost factor given the challenges of the current market situation (even pre pandemic). The M50 introduced 4K H. 264, didn't it? That's a low end model getting the first high end encoder. And here we have a high end model getting a high end encoder an assume it will add a few grant to the price? And again, they would not have needed to include that. 8K RAW would have been enough to crush everything else out there.
*Granted, it also has an EVF. But I don't know of any compelling evidence that that would add cost.
Last edited:
Upvote
0