I think that it is generally agreed that CIPA would only represent a photographer's usage if they use it like CIPA
If we used it as CIPA. But nobody does.
I'm at the point that I'm not sure fudging would hurt anything, because CIPA is useless to begin with: The 1DX is rated for 1120 shots at 23C and the R3 at 440-860 shots. But for my uses, they get very similar "shotage" - roughly 4000.I think that it is generally agreed that CIPA would only represent a photographer's usage if they use it like CIPA
There is no alternative though so at least it is a common measure as there isn't anything else. OEMs may be able to optimise for CIPA results but Canon hasn't (or doesn't want to) do this. Fudging the figures - a la VW/fuel efficiency - would hurt the brand far more than low CIPA results generally
I find that perplexing because the R3 consumes a lot more power unless you turn off IBIS and are using the backscreen for both cameras.
If the R3 takes less effort to get the shot due to better/faster/etc AF+EVF you might get the same number of shots, but spend less time looking through the EVF.
Maybe they will make it manual focus only because so many people complained about the 1.2 lenses weight
In many types of markets, the supplier gives you three option: the obviously too-cheap option (f/1.8) , the obviously too-expensive option (f/1.2L), and the "this is the option we'd like you to purchase" option (f/1.4).
I'm not sure that makes sense. Rather, I would think that any product at any price level would be intended to provide an appropriate return on investment and be profitable. Consider that what you call the 'obviously too-cheap option (f/1.8)' is always among the top-selling lenses...precisely because the cost is low. If Canon wanted people to buy an f/1.4 version instead, they would raise the price of the f/1.8 or not offer it at all.
When Canon introduced the EF lineup, the 1.0 and 1.8 were the initial versions, both professional-quality build. After 2-3 years they finally introduced the 50/1.4, just as this time. I believe Canon actually WANTS everyone to buy a 1.2 and/or a 1.8 NOW, so they have something to shoot with until the 1.4 comes out, and THEN buy a 50/1.4 AS WELL once that comes out.
The 85/1.8 was one of my first lenses – I started with the T1i/500D and since I learned in my film SLR days lens > body, I bought the camera as body-only and got the EF-S 17-55/2.8 instead of the kit lens, and bought the 85/1.8 at the same time. It's a great little lens, the only problem is some wicked purple fringing.
It's a complicated question, but there probably is a rational business / economic basis for keeping (using the lens example) a range of relatively low volume (and low profit) selling lenses in the portfolio. Maybe because, to the type of consumer you are targeting, having a range of specialist lenses available, is important, whether they actually buy them or not, and without which they won't buy into the system to start with. For the lower-$ lenses, these tend to be kit-oriented, and sold to people who may not buy another IL (or maybe only 1 or 2 lower / medium price ones). For the buyers of higher $ value bodies, a bigger range of lenses is needed - including the high end (big $s but presumably with a healthy profit margin), but also mid-range specialist lenses they may want the option to acquire / replace in the future.
I think any company has sales, it is some form of this concept. This almost always happens: I learn about the sale, so I look at what is available, but the item I really want is not on sale and I feel a big temptation to buy it anyway.
That example's a little more nefarious - like when a shop advertises in a big way a SALE! of Canon lenses - 30% OFF!, and you quickly work out there were only about two specimens available which went in the first 30 seconds, but you have turned up there (physically or online) psyched up to buy, and your attention turns to some other similar attractive lenses which are not really discounted at all, and ...
Some users don’t want the RF 50mm f1.8 due to the STM motor or they feel optically it doesn’t suit their needs. Simultaneously the 50mm f1.2 RF is too large, too heavy and too expensive for them as well so they own neither. So a potentially smaller, lighter option at f1.4 is what they would buy if Canon made one. I suspect for very reasons is why Sony made a 50mm f1.4 GM because so many users practically begged them for one. Sigma also released a 50mm f1.4 DG DN art which has very very similar performance to the GM while being slightly larger but much much cheaper.
I'm surprised 1) to hear you think the RF50/1.8 is "just horrible" or that 2) you think an RF50/1.4 would be either better (if a double Gaussian design) or smaller than the Sigma (if a modern high-sharpness design).
