Canon Interview: EOS R1 is the true flagship

[tomislavmoze]

Photography is an element of the arts. Canon can repeat that "The R1 is our flagship" statement over and over if they please, but the consumer just aint buyin their argument in 2024. The R1 is a one trick pony. A tool for the contract sports photographer. That's about all I can claim for it. It may be their flagship sports camera. But overall flagship it is not. It is not a desireable camera for the average photographer. There are demanding projects that often require the "highest resolution available". The R1 doesn't cut the mustard. The R1 is like a stretch limousine waiting for ones rental for their occasional moments on the block.

It is peak of their technology so for that company that is a flagship device it is simple as that.

 

[tomislavmoze]

I know many photographers, including myself, who would love to own a Canon camera like the A1 or Z9. To say that one can't critique a camera makes me wonder what world you're living in—some sort of echo chamber? Most of the people defending this camera seem to think everything revolves around sports. Unfortunately, Canon has lost the trust of me and many others. If Canon doesn't release something truly spectacular, I think they'll have to go back to the drawing board, though they probably hold a world record for back-patting at the Canon office.

I can understand the z9 part with the griped body design and high max sensor. But the R5mk2 is basically the same and mostly better camera than the a1, so you already god what you wanted with it.
When I had 5d and 1dx I managed to damage my 1dx and in the same conditions 5dmk3 worked without a problem. I do think people underestimate the quality and durability of the 5 series.

 

[Omn]

Photography is an element of the arts. Canon can repeat that "The R1 is our flagship" statement over and over if they please, but the consumer just aint buyin their argument in 2024. The R1 is a one trick pony. A tool for the contract sports photographer. That's about all I can claim for it. It may be their flagship sports camera. But overall flagship it is not. It is not a desireable camera for the average photographer. There are demanding projects that often require the "highest resolution available". The R1 doesn't cut the mustard. The R1 is like a stretch limousine waiting for ones rental for their occasional moments on the block.

1) This is not a camera for consumers

2) Those who make the thing know better what it is then the bunch imagining

3) It's a flagship

4) Flagship is not for the average photographer nor designed to appeal to masses

5) No, it's not just for sports, they just focus on this domain in marketing because of speed and AF performance prioritised in sports. And legacy. These camera is likely to excell in other usages.

6) Image quality and pixel resolution are not synonims, and the correlation is inverse

7) Projects demanding "highest resolution" as in sensor pixel count are going to have to look elsewhere, this camera is not made for them. Bunch of choices in FF and MF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I tend to put my smaller non image Stabilised lenses on this camera, like my EF 35IIL or ef 11-24L which don't burn through the battery quite so fast.

Yes, my 11-24 was small and light…at least, compared to my 600/4 II.

 

[AlanF]

6) Image quality and pixel resolution are not synonims, and the correlation is inverse.

Inverse correlation? If that statement were correct, then a 1 pixel or 100px or 1000px or 1 mpx sensor would have better image quality than a 24 Mpx or 45 Mpx sensor.

 

[nickditoro]

My long winded 2 cents below:

I think a lot of people are hung up on the word flagship and its skewed meaning for Canon. The R1 is a master of a field of content that has a global revenue of about a half a trillion dollars per year - sports. Now, the majority of professional sports photographers are making bottom to middle tier, middle class wages at most (between $30,000 to $100,000 per year - average top earners make less than $50k a year), so a lot of these people aren’t practically buying their own gear on those salaries and gear is provided by whatever company they work for. These people and mostly the companies they work for care about how fast and efficiently they can churn out quality content that’s mostly consumed and discarded in a short period of time. A lot of these photographers just care about a device that does what they need it to do and not much else, and I doubt you’d find many lounging around forums like this nitpicking about specs they’ll never utilize. All of this makes sense to Canon, the photographers, and the companies they work for, so to Canon and their image, it’s worthy of the title flagship. Their flagship Camera geared toward one of the worlds highest grossing and content consuming industries.

Flagship meaning: The best or most important product, idea, building, etc. that an organization owns or produces.

This definition doesn’t describe what a fragmented segmentation of people want; a jack of all trades master of all product for less than what it would cost to produce. If Canon produced such a camera that was capable of that spec wise, it would be priced astronomically high and they most likely wouldn’t see a positive return on their investment.

When I was a professional wedding photographer, I never invested in any of the 1 series cameras because they either didn’t do what I needed, or they were loaded with extra features I found useless. Cost was never an issue, as it was always simply a matter of finding a piece of gear that suited my exact needs and buying it. Easiest thing to do in the world, as opposed to wishing for a different piece of equipment to be something it’s not.

So, tl;dr Canon knows exactly what they’re doing with the R1 and R5II, and they’re both designed ideally for different segments of the market. They’ll sell well for those that’ll utilize it, and it majorly bolsters their brand image further. This is flagship stuff for them.

Hey, if I’m wrong and the R1 and R5II tank, I guess Canons next earnings report will put them in the doomed bracket.

While I wish you were wrong in your definition of"flagship," since I want a "jack of all trades, master of all" camera and was hoping the R1 would be that body, your reasoning is solid. I guess "follow the money" is the name of the game.

 

[john1970]

Photography is an element of the arts. Canon can repeat that "The R1 is our flagship" statement over and over if they please, but the consumer just aint buyin their argument in 2024. The R1 is a one trick pony. A tool for the contract sports photographer. That's about all I can claim for it. It may be their flagship sports camera. But overall flagship it is not. It is not a desireable camera for the average photographer. There are demanding projects that often require the "highest resolution available". The R1 doesn't cut the mustard. The R1 is like a stretch limousine waiting for ones rental for their occasional moments on the block.

So Canon builds a flagship camera for the contract sports photographer what is the problem?

Has any 1-series camera ever been a desirable camera for the average photographer? How does one define average in this context?

If one has a demanding project that requires the "highest resolution possible" a photographer might want to consider a Fuji GFX MF with 100 MP sensor which will provide more pixels than any FF camera.

 

[MikeGalos]

On green screen or amber monitor?

First computer I used? Punch cards.
First personal computer I used? Toggle switches and blinking lights.
I preferred amber monitors to green but that was later.

To get back on topic, sort of, I was working in a camera shop to pay my way through college when Canon changed the FD mount from the separate ring that rotated to the breech bayonet and had to explain to customers that the new lenses worked on their cameras even though they worked differently.

 

[MikeGalos]

Has any 1-series camera ever been a desirable camera for the average photographer? How does one define average in this context?

If by average you mean a photographer who does a broad range of types of work then yes. But also if you count as "1-series" as including Canon's first "flagship" cameras, the F-1 family.

Flagship meant, at that time, that the camera was professional grade in durability and was flexible enough to do whatever was asked of it. It was true of the F-1 (and F-1n and New F-1) and for all the other flagships by the "big 5" manufacturers. Canon with the F-1 system, Nikon with the F (F2, etc) system, Minolta with the XK (aka X-1 and XM depending on market), Olympus with the single digit OM models, Pentax with the LX. Canon and Nikon pulled it off. Olympus sort of did. Minolta and Pentax tried and failed.

When Canon or Nikon needed a specialty body for high-speed sports they produced a specialty body in tiny quantities for that use. The Canon F-1 High-Speed Motor Drive Camera and Nikon Olympic High Speed Camera bodies are examples. Those bodies had things like special motor drives, special battery packs and pellicle mirrors that, while great for things like the Olympics, were major compromises for any other use.

It was only later that the idea of a high speed special being a flagship happened.

 

[koenkooi]

So Canon builds a flagship camera for the contract sports photographer what is the problem?

Has any 1-series camera ever been a desirable camera for the average photographer? How does one define average in this context?

If one has a demanding project that requires the "highest resolution possible" a photographer might want to consider a Fuji GFX MF with 100 MP sensor which will provide more pixels than any FF camera.

If we include everyone with a camera who takes pictures in the definition of ‘average photographer’, the most used camera would likely be a 1000D or M50/R50.

You’d have to narrow down the definition of ‘photographer’ a lot to get to the point where a 6 or 5 series would be in the hands of an ‘average photographer’, let alone a 1 series!

 

[MikeGalos]

When Canon or Nikon needed a specialty body for high-speed sports they produced a specialty body in tiny quantities for that use. The Canon F-1 High-Speed Motor Drive Camera and Nikon Olympic High Speed Camera bodies are examples. Those bodies had things like special motor drives, special battery packs and pellicle mirrors that, while great for things like the Olympics, were major compromises for any other use.

For those who don't remember the Canon F-1 High Speed Motor Drive Cameras, here are the descriptions from the Canon Camera Museum at the global Canon website...

For the first model based on the F-1 in 1972
With the F-1’s rigid, durable body and a fixed pellicle mirror, this F-1 model boasted the world’s fastest continuous shooting speed at the time.

With a shutter speed anywhere from 1/60 sec. to 1/1000 sec., the camera could finish a roll of 36-exposure film in 4 sec. at 9 frames per sec. Since the camera was designed for high-speed continuous shooting, an exposure meter was omitted along with the self-timer. The lens aperture also had to be stopped down manually with a lever on the camera. The camera targeted pro and press photographers covering the Munich Summer Olympics.

For the one based on the New F-1 in 1984
Based on the New F-1 and equipped with a fixed pellicle mirror, this camera boasted the fastest continuous shooting speed ever. It has a four-axis, horizontal-travel, focal-plane electromagnetic shutter with metal curtains. One of three shooting speeds can be set. At the H setting, the camera can zip through a 36-exposure roll of film in 2.57 sec. at 14 fps.

Metering system has a match needle for stopped-down TTL. The aperture is stopped down automatically during the exposure. The power pack can be attached to the camera bottom or detached and used separately. The camera requires two dedicated power packs (totaling 24 V) housing ten 1.2 V size-AA Ni-Cd batteries. Priced at 1,300,300 yen, the camera was a limited edition for press photographers.

And to continue being thorough, Nikon had two High Speed versions of the F and a special High Speed version of the F2 and the F3. All were in that same niche market for things like the Olympics. In the Nikon F versions, they didn't even use the mirror and required a separate viewfinder.

 

[AlanF]

If we include everyone with a camera who takes pictures in the definition of ‘average photographer’, the most used camera would likely be a 1000D or M50/R50.

You’d have to narrow down the definition of ‘photographer’ a lot to get to the point where a 6 or 5 series would be in the hands of an ‘average photographer’, let alone a 1 series!

We could use "mean" = "average". Then a 'mean photographer' would buy the cheapest.

 

[MikeGalos]

And although photo industry history is a fun side topic, I think I'll save discussing why an inter-division rivalry in the mid-1970s changed the definition of what a "flagship camera body" means today and how that ties in to camera straps and Microsoft Excel for Macintosh for another time.

 

[MikeGalos]

holy Sh*t you're old lol. meant only in jest!

Hey, you out me as old (you'd think the gray hair would have done that) and I respond with a discussion of the last half century of changes in the industry's definition of "flagship".

 

[OldDudePhotog]

Hey, you out me as old (you'd think the gray hair would have done that) and I respond with a discussion of the last half century of changes in the industry's definition of "flagship".

I started going gray in my 30's, now my hair is going caucasian in my almost 50's.

 

[Sean C]

On green screen or amber monitor?

My first green screen was btw an Apple IIe ca. 1984 in the biochemistry lab - no internet and first Internet at university datacenter in ca. 1993 (IBM-AIX workstation) ...

Apple ][+ for me. But as to what @MikeGalos said - I remember using Bang paths for email on Fidonet but not needing that on the Internet. I was first on the 'net in '87 - telnet to a terminal server via modem. Before even Slip much less PPP that gave you a 'real' connection.

 

[docsmith]

Ok

Newbie... Some of us were on the Internet before you could use @ in an email address and had to type in the path between the various computers the message went through with an exclamation point between each of them...

haha.

Yep, my first internet experience was on old Digital DEC stations using gopher protocol that predated HTTP.

If we are dating ourselves

 

[john1970]

You’d have to narrow down the definition of ‘photographer’ a lot to get to the point where a 6 or 5 series would be in the hands of an ‘average photographer’, let alone a 1 series!

I agree with you.

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

Ignoring the amount of megapixels, the R6II already outshines the R5 in a lot of ways. Much improved AF, 10% less rolling shutter, 40fps, better anti-flicker and oversampled 4k60 video and no half hour video limits.

The problem is that when people ding the R5, they never mention the most important reason to buy an R5 is the sensor megapixels. Those who want high FPS typically will give up a high-quality image. That's fine if that's what you want, but if the other vendors are offering 60mp on their high-end cameras, why haven't they gotten the message and dumbed down their sensors?

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's fine if that's what you want, but if the other vendors are offering 60mp on their high-end cameras, why haven't they gotten the message and dumbed down their sensors?

It seems that something is being dumbed down here, so I’ll use simple terms. Canon dominates the market. Suddenly changing that winning formula could be considered…dumb. Sony and Nikon are well short of dominating the market. Doing the same thing that Canon does could be considered…dumb. Hope I didn’t go too fast, there.