We get it - you don't llike the R. But pretty much every description you have come up with it only describes your bias - not the camera. "Mediocre, gimmick-laden"...that very well could describe Sony's early mirrorless full-frame ventures. Yes, the R didn't have IBIS or two card slots. Other than that it was essentially a mirrorless 5D IV - costing about $1000 less. Was the 5D IV mediocre in your mind? Gimmick-laden? Oh, I forgot, that swip bar! Everybody hated it except for those few who actually learned that you could use it as just another button. But most folks clearly didn't learn how to use it thus decided to make fun of it. I briefly owned the Sony A7 II - one of those cameras that Canon was so afraid of apparently. I wouldn't trade my R for that camera in a million years. Sure, spec lovers thought those Sonys were great, but my Sony A7 II underexposed by 1 1/2 stops, the EVF was so dim, I often reached up to take off my sunglasses, but wasn't wearing any, and the ergonomics and usability were about as bad as a camera could get. (And I won't even mention the awful weather sealing or still-not-any-good dust removal..oh, I guess i did mention it.) Yes, Canon up until that time made boring, conservative cameras that worked, were comfortable, easy to use, and did all the fundamental things as well or better than anyone (things like exposure and color...)Good points, its just a bit weird that they decided to launch exotic pro glass but the only camera it would fit on was a mediocre, gimmick-laden model. My guess is that the main reason why a more hi-end body didn't appear first is that they were having problems developing their IBIS modules. The public, rightly or wrongly were demanding IBIS, but Canon weren't ready, so they just pumped out the stop-gap low-spec R. Another indicator that they were well and truly caught on the hop, is the naming system, which leaves a gaping hole between the R5 and R6, and no clear division of names between the FF and APS models.