Thomas A Anderson wrote:
EOSSpeedLite wrote:
Thomas A Anderson wrote:
EOSSpeedLite wrote:
Thomas A Anderson wrote:
More resolution. IBIS. Stacked CMOS. Moderate performance and video bumps. I'll buy it.
The EOS R was Canon's first attempt to claw back market share from Sony with their first full-frame mirrorless.
The EOS R was Canon's Pilot project body for mirrorless entry. And the pilot sold very well, even with its warts, and that informed Canon marketing that the waters were safe to continue the development of future RF bodies, as they have.
I'd like someone who uses terms like "prototype" or "pilot" to point out where Canon has ever indicated anything like that.
It's too obvious that the R was in fact a pilot into the mirrorless full-frame market. That body was a jack of all genres of shooting,
Again, did anyone accuse the 5DIV of this same thing? The two are nearly identical.
No, they are not even close to being identical. Different UI/UX, same censor, but R's is tweaked, different AF tech, RF lenses have the ring feature...they are more different than the same. The R is the 1st body for the RF mount, so yes, it was a pilot. The market spoke when it said "we do not like the thumb slide interface" and Canon responded with that feature missing from all the later R bodies. The market likes the lens ring, so its found on all subsequent RF lenses.
but not a master at any, especially when you compare it with Sony's similar-class bodies, which mostly were superior to the R.
I'm afraid I don't compare it to Sony. I compare it to the typical segmentation Canon uses.
You may not, but Canon does. You forget, the R is Canon's answer to Sony...you keep forgetting this.
You make the mistake of looking for specific "words" from Canon instead of focusing on specific behaviors of Canon,
They created an entirely new control for the body. They spend years developing a new mount. They spent years developing new lenses. None of that points to a desire to throw something at the wall to see what stuck. They may have played it safe with a smaller, cheaper 5DIV, but that was just a smart place to start.
I've been a product owner as a part of my career for years, so I understand this and see it as very, very likely. Yes, then spent years developing the RF mount, the other R-centric tech, but the UI/UX?? that was probably decided relatively recently in the scheme of product research. Even Canon themselves, if you research their videos and interview coming out of the very Japanese C level managers have spoken about the R as a probing product. And that is why you well unlikely see an EOS Mark II. It has already performed its reason for being.
and the features Canon gave the R, which all shout "Pilot', "Marketing Probe", and "Desperate Answer to Competitors", as well as "Proof of Concept".
Again, the 5DIV was the result of a long evolution of bodies. There's nothing about the R that appears to be some sort of test.
Yes, there are many things new about the R. The number of AF points, the tracking is different, face, body, eyes, the mount, the UI/UX, the form-factor (size)...you keep forgetting these things.
And when the R came out, Canon said on record that they would look closely at its sales,
Canon looks at the sales of every camera they ever release.
Wrong, they look at a pilot differently...its new for them, its the first body for a brand new mount.
and comments from their customers, to help them determine if they should continue developing DSLR bodies, and EF lenses.
.....yeah, and they decided to concentrate on FF ILC bodies. I'm at a loss to see how this relates in any way to the discussion except to say that having many segments of FF ILC seems like a no brainer here.
If you had a background in product development, product ownership, product life-cycle, you'd understand. I think you'd rather argue than consider a different way of seeing what Canon did.
The R also gave Canon the ability to gauge what the coming line of RF bodies should do, how should they be categorized, priced as, etc.
Sure. So did the RP. And the R3, R5, and R6. There is literally never a time they aren't doing market research.
Yes, they all did, but not like the Pilot project: EOS R. You make the mistake of perceiving the EOS R as just another new body. It was the Pilot, and even Canon sees it as a pilot if you research the videos and interviews and articles.
The EOS R tried to be all things to all shooters; a camera for wildlife/birders, for portrait shooters, landscapers, and almost everything in between. It was a jack of all trades, a mount for the super awesome first batch of RF lenses, the RF 28-70L f2, the f1.2 primes, but a master of none. It was not an A-player...it was a good start, a strong C-player.
Is that how the 5DIV was ever described? The R is a smaller, cheaper 5DIV and I don't recall anyone ever describing it as all things to all people or a jack of all trades or a master of none.
The 5DIV is compared to like cameras (DSLR) from other competitors.
That's not really what Canon does. See all the complaints that Canon is falling behind for 20 years while dominating the market anyway.
Actually, it is what Canon does...for the DSLR segment, their bodies got a little behind but they were still competitive in many categories. Where they fell behind was in the mirrorlessspace, late to the party, DR, high ISO low noise, and other features.
The R was compared to the offerings of Canon's competitors. This is very obvious.
I disagree. Canon has never pushed features ahead just to match Sony or anyone else. That's why everyone is always talking about the fictitious "cripple hammer."
Never said they were ahead of Sony, but they certainly were competitive, and it's not just the body, but also the mount....only Canon has the RF mount, RF lenses, etc. So on balance, the net effect of the R + the f1.2 primes, the f2 normal zoom, the 35mm f1.8, and the other initial RF lenses in sum was a tour de force, even if the EOS R body was still a bit behind Sony.
Why do you think the EOS R sold out like hot cakes? It was because although it was behind Sony in IQ, it was a mount you could use the best in class RF f1.2 primes, the f2 zoom...that pointed to far more exciting bodies coming beyond the horizon.
The R has served it's mission and I believe that that line is DONE.
I am very clear on your position with regard to the R's future.
No Mark II...but there will be Mark II's the R6, R5, R7, R3 too and the R1 as well. Look at Canon's history!
I have and do. None of those bodies fits the bill of an R, neither in price point or in feature set. The spiritual successors you claim are either vastly more expensive or 10MP lower, which isn't how Canon iterates on their model lines. And abandoning the R price point and feature set would also imply there's no reason to keep the much lower spec, much cheaper RP around either.
That is where you are stuck...you think they have to "fit the bill", in order to "replace the R". They do not because the R was the Pilot, a harbinger of things to come. probe of the market. It fulfilled that purpose brilliantly and now it's time for us all to forget about the R.
And if you compare the 5D4 with the R5,
Why would I compare those two? The R5 is an enormous leap over the 5DIV, and that's not how successors follow in their segments.
Because both are "5" series bodies, even if one is a DSLR and the other mirrorless. I bring this up to show just how far we have come with the R5.
the 5D4 looks blah, frumpy, old, tired. Especially the 1 to 1.5 stop wider DR of the R5, the at least 1 stop of cleaner noise, better AF, and tracking.
Of course. We shall see. Canon doesn't typically create a segment with a price point only to abandon it, but they also do some weird things occasionally. My money is on something slotted right in that $2,399 spot with modestly better specs within a year.
But they have not abanded it. They channeled the R into many other bodies having distinct missions, for different customers shooting different genres. The replacement for R are RP, R6, R5, R3, R7, and the coming R1. You alone choose what the true replacement is for you, personally. For me its the R5, not the R3, but maybe the R1.
Thomas, which body is YOUR R replacement?
Canon does not need to replace the R, because Canon already replaced the EOS R with many other models, niched models, and each serves its niche very well.
I'd be very surprised if Canon releases an EOS R Mark II...that would seem weird from a marketing point of view.
Just my opinion...
R $2,299 Sept 2018
RP $1,299 Feb 2019
R6 $2,499 July 2020
R5 $3,899 July 2020
R3 $5,999 April 2021
So Canon has rarely replaced a full frame camera in under four years (not in 15 years). Why would Canon have replaced the R early and with wildly different price point and feature sets?
-- hide signature --
The best photographers talk about pictures & techniques. Posers & Fanboys talk about brands.
