Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1

[MikeGalos]

did they purchase them solely on the basis of resolution or the fact that they are the flagship models of those respective brands?

The traditional meaning of a flagship camera was a professional level body that was flexible enough to handle whatever assignment came the photographer's way. The Sony Alpha 1 and Nikon Z 9 meet that traditional meaning the same way the Canon F-1 did. Technical challenges with early digital sensors made that impossible and both Canon and Nikon split their flagships into a Fast and a Hi-Res version.

Nikon went back to the traditional model with the D4, D5 and D6 DSLRs and the Z 9 mirrorless.
Canon has stayed with the split model.

Effectively, Canon does not have a true flagship camera and suggests that professionals needing flexibility buy two bodies, one for speed and one for resolution.

 

[[email protected]]

If they come out with and R1 with a high-ish resolution, I'd buy two right away.

Though I once had to dress up as one for my young daughter, I am not a unicorn.

 

[Loswr]

Effectively, Canon does not have a true flagship camera and suggests that professionals needing flexibility buy two bodies, one for speed and one for resolution.

You're right. Canon doesn't know what they're doing. To reiterate...

It’s so great that we have people on this forum who know far more about making and selling cameras than the company that has led the market for over two decades.

Something to consider…would a company in a distant second or third place in the market be better served by offering the same thing as the market leader, or something different?

 

[MikeGalos]

You're right. Canon doesn't know what they're doing. To reiterate...

Thanks for acknowledging that I'm right that unlike Sony and Nikon now and Canon in their film days, Canon currently has no true flagship.

You'll also note that I wasn't saying that not having a true flagship was a bad financial choice. Canon seems to think that's a good choice and they're surviving in a tough market. On the other hand, both Sony and Nikon disagree and are also surviving in that same tough market.

The question of whether having a true flagship body matters in the long run is something we'll find out only in the long run.

 

[Loswr]

Thanks for acknowledging that I'm right that unlike Sony and Nikon now and Canon in their film days, Canon currently has no true flagship.

You'll also note that I wasn't saying that not having a true flagship was a bad financial choice. Canon seems to think that's a good choice and they're surviving in a tough market. On the other hand, both Sony and Nikon disagree and are also surviving in that same tough market.

The question of whether having a true flagship body matters in the long run is something we'll find out only in the long run.

Sarcasm. Look it up.

A flagship is what a company designates as their top of the line product. Canon’s flagship is the R1. If it doesn’t meet your personal criteria for being their flagship, that’s relevant only to you. It’s not about which ice cream flavor you like best. The R1 is the flagship. Period.

Do some people on the internet question that? Sure. Just like some people on the internet claim the earth is flat. There are plenty of people who make themselves look foolish on the internet. Most people would prefer not to be one of them, but that’s your choice. So far, the prognosis is poor.

Canon is ‘surviving in a tough market’? Yeah, that’s Flat Earther-quality thinking. Well done. (That last was more sarcasm, by the way).

 

[MikeGalos]

Sarcasm. Look it up.

A flagship is what a company designates as their top of the line product. Canon’s flagship is the R1. If it doesn’t meet your personal criteria for being their flagship, that’s relevant only to you. It’s not about which ice cream flavor you like best. The R1 is the flagship. Period.

Do some people on the internet question that? Sure. Just like some people on the internet claim the earth is flat. There are plenty of people who make themselves look foolish on the internet. Most people would prefer not to be one of them, but that’s your choice.

I stated how Nikon and Canon traditionally defined it. Mentioned when they both, for technical limitations, changed their definitions and how Nikon went back to the traditional definition used by Nikon and Canon, how Canon didn't and how Sony joined in that traditional definition.

That's not my personal set of criteria. It's the history of the term. That you lack the knowledge of history doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Loswr]

I stated how Nikon and Canon traditionally defined it. Mentioned when they both, for technical limitations, changed their definitions and how Nikon went back to the traditional definition used by Nikon and Canon, how Canon didn't and how Sony joined in that traditional definition.

That's not my personal set of criteria. It's the history of the term. That you lack the knowledge of history doesn't make it any less true.

You stated your opinion of the definition. That your opinion diverges from reality doesn’t make it any more relevant, because anything times zero relevance is still zero relevance.

Canon Interview: The Canon EOS R1 is the true flagship

Phototrends in France sat down with Canon to discuss the new EOS R1 and the EOS R5 Mark II. It was a pretty wide-ranging interview, so you should check it out

www.canonrumors.com

 

[David - Sydney]

The talk about "flagship" and 1 series and 5 series and "high" megapixel etc seems to tangle people up.
For me, the real question is whether Canon should make an integrated grip 5 series. It could be the size of the R3 (not a "flagship") or the R1 ("flagship") which is larger.

Canon would certainly know the number of R5 grips they sell with 3 options at the moment for the mark ii. Combining all 3 types into an integrated grip version similar to a R3 would be an interesting option. The embedded fan could even allow this new version to have cinema menus with its better heat management.

I would be interested to know people's experience with the R5ii grips and their limitations vs an integrated grip eg the placement of controls, weather sealing and the lack of AF touch control vs joystick.

Clearly Nikon has market experience with "high" megapixel integrated and non-integrated grips and believes/sells both even if Nikon's overall market share is significantly lower than Canon's

 

[vikingar]

I stated how Nikon and Canon traditionally defined it. Mentioned when they both, for technical limitations, changed their definitions and how Nikon went back to the traditional definition used by Nikon and Canon, how Canon didn't and how Sony joined in that traditional definition.

That's not my personal set of criteria. It's the history of the term. That you lack the knowledge of history doesn't make it any less true.

Intrigued, I looked at old press releases for the 1D and 1Ds (e.g. https://lens-db.com/camera/canon-eos-1d-2001/, https://lens-db.com/camera/canon-eos-1ds-2002/). BTW that's the only other site besides DPReview that still has the old press releases, and multiple ones at that (dpreview only has one, but includes the full headers and dates).

When introduced, the 1D was the flagship no question about it. It's not stated as clearly what the 1Ds was to Canon at the time of release, but that it "tops the flagship range". Later iterations are more murky about which one is the true flagship, probably because they released the Mk versions alternating each year. It gets bit silly with the 1D Mk IV where they sell the APS-H crop as a feature, but I digress.

So it seems your recollection here is certainly correct. Anyways it's always clearly stated in these that they are 1-series professional cameras, and many features beside resolution are touted that make it a 1-series.

However, at present - especially looking at the direct quotes from Canon in this thread's article which I hope you've read - it is 100% clear that Canon considers the R1 to be the one and only flagship camera they have right now. It's also the only 1-series professional camera right now.

The R3 was a different beast, from the unusual 3-series numbering to the fact that Canon themselves had to clarify multiple times that it was not the flagship camera to them. That they've relegated the high-MP alternative to the 5-series now makes this very clear, there has never been a 5-series that was considered by Canon to be their flagship.

 

[MikeGalos]

However, at present - especially looking at the direct quotes from Canon in this thread's article which I hope you've read - it is 100% clear that Canon considers the R1 to be the one and only flagship camera they have right now. It's also the only 1-series professional camera right now.

Yes. Canon explicitly says that the R1 and only the R1 is a flagship camera which, since there are many areas in professional photography that are much better handled by other non-flagship models, is why they are no longer using the traditional definition of a flagship.


A bit of naming trivia since we're talking about historical model hierarchies and their names:

Traditionally, Canon used Canon <series name>-1 as their naming scheme for the top model in each line
Canon F-1
Canon A-1
Canon EOS-1

They used Canon <series name><model letter>-1 for models below the flagship of each line
Canon AE-1
Canon AV-1
Canon AT-1
Which were all lower models of the A series below the A series flagship A-1

If they'd have kept that tradition, the current flagship would be named Canon R-1 instead of Canon EOS R1

 

[alFR]

since there are many areas in professional photography that are much better handled by other non-flagship models

What would those use cases be and why? Not wanting to start a megapixel war again, but the only one I can think of is maybe a higher-res body like the R5II might be better suited to an application where you need to crop a lot (birds / wildlife?) or maybe for landscapes, but given that you can make very large prints from a 24MP file (as large as anyone is practically going to hang on their wall) I can't see that there are "many" jobs a R1 couldn't do.

 

[Loswr]

Yes. Canon explicitly says that the R1 and only the R1 is a flagship camera which, since there are many areas in professional photography that are much better handled by other non-flagship models, is why they are no longer using the traditional definition of a flagship.

Lol. What is hard to understand? The flagship is the top model. Period. If you're not shooting with a Phase One or at least a Fuji GFX then you're a complete hypocrite, since evidently according to you MP count is the most important, defining feature of a camera. Again, Lol.

If they'd have kept that tradition, the current flagship would be named Canon R-1 instead of Canon EOS R1

You haven't moved on from this, or at least figured it out properly, yet? No, it would not have been the Canon R-1, it's still an EOS camera. It could have been the EOS-1 R as a literal extension, or given that they transposed the letter and number (5D became R5. did you miss that?), possibly the EOS-R1. Try to keep up. In any event, it's irrelevant (unless you're actually somehow suggesting the R1 is not the flagship because Canon dropped the hyphen from the moniker, but I really hope you're not descending to that level of foolishness). If it was their top camera and they called it the EOS Fred Flintstone, it would still be the flagship.

Yes. Canon explicitly says that the R1 and only the R1 is a flagship camera

Thanks for agreeing that the R1 is the flagship. You can stop now, that's all that needs to be stated.

 

[roby17269]

I can't imagine who you are speaking of.
I need a clue...

Why are my ears ringing?

 

[roby17269]

What would those use cases be and why? Not wanting to start a megapixel war again, but the only one I can think of is maybe a higher-res body like the R5II might be better suited to an application where you need to crop a lot (birds / wildlife?) or maybe for landscapes, but given that you can make very large prints from a 24MP file (as large as anyone is practically going to hang on their wall) I can't see that there are "many" jobs a R1 couldn't do.

Product, macro and fashion photography do indeed benefit from high res. As well as landscape and wildlife (esp. if you are focal length-limited), as you mentioned.

There are reason why serious fashion and landscape photography used to be the realm of MF cameras.

To be clear, I am saying that there are indeed scenarios where more megapixels are better, not that you cannot do fashion (say) photography with 24mp. Actually I have done quite a lot of fashion shoots with the 1D X (18mp! ), but I vastly prefer the output of my 80mp IQ1-80 (54x40mm MF sensor) for fashion. There's simply no comparisons in the ways it doesn't mush fine textures. If I could afford one I'd jump on a IQ4-150 (150mp, tasty!)... make it 2 since I'd love a monochrome one as well (and then I assume I'd have to justify here why someone would want a monochrome camera... )

 

[MikeGalos]

I can't see that there are "many" jobs a R1 couldn't do.

It isn't that it "couldn't" do the job. You can do workarounds for any problem. The point of a traditional flagship is that it can do whatever you need it to without having to bend over backwards to get around limitations that aren't present in other models.

As to who needs more megapixels, obviously a significant percentage of the market does or the R5 wouldn't exist. The point of a flagship is that you don't need a second body because it is missing features needed for the job.

 

[MikeGalos]

Thanks for agreeing that the R1 is the flagship.

And I stated that in the first place. What I also stated was that Canon, unlike Nikon and Sony, was not using the traditional definition of a flagship. They redefined it (as did Nikon) when digital camera technology was too primitive to support both speed and high resolution. When the technology improved and you could get both in one professional body, Nikon changed back to the traditional definition and Canon didn't.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?

 

[Del Paso]

Why are my ears ringing?

I have absolutely no idea,

 

[Loswr]

And I stated that in the first place. What I also stated was that Canon, unlike Nikon and Sony, was not using the traditional definition of a flagship. They redefined it (as did Nikon) when digital camera technology was too primitive to support both speed and high resolution. When the technology improved and you could get both in one professional body, Nikon changed back to the traditional definition and Canon didn't.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?

flagship noun ˈflag-ˌship
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.) —often used before another noun, e.g. the company's flagship store

That's the definition of flagship. Not the 'traditional definition according to Mike', not 'flexible enough to handle whatever assignment came the photographer's way', or whatever you seem to think the definition should be, in your personal opinion.

 

[MikeGalos]

Not the 'traditional definition according to Mike', not 'flexible enough to handle whatever assignment came the photographer's way', or whatever you seem to think the definition should be, in your personal opinion.

Once again, not my personal opinion. That was the definition used by all the major camera vendors including Canon prior to the technology limits forcing a change in the early days of full-frame digital.

You might want to look back at things like the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 and Minolta XK (AKA X-1 and XM) and Pentax LX for examples of vendors using that definition.

 

[Sporgon]

I thought a flagship has to float ? I very much doubt that an R1, Z9 or A1 would float unaided. However, an R100 might for a while, and it doesn’t have an AA filter.
Makes for a better flagship IMO.