Canon R1 has been announced

[neuroanatomist]

AF is basically the same hardware wise. Just more firmware stuff, but it's minor incremental stuff.

It seems you don't understand how the cross-type AF works. They use alternating row pairs of dual pixels in orthogonal orientations. It's not a firmware change, it requires the splitting of the DPAF photosites to differ from row to row on the sensor, meaning a new architecture was required for the entire sensor, since cross-type AF is available across the full FoV.

The R5 II is much closer to what an R1 should actually be. If they tossed that camera in an R1 form factor with all that proccessing power and features. That would be the buissness and a real competitor Nikon and Sony. An all around flagship for every situation and every photographer with no compromises.

I wonder why Canon didn't do as you suggest, and make the R1 with a higher MP sensor?

I suspect it's because the company that has led the camera market for over two decades, through a 90% contraction in the market and a transition from DSLR to mirrorless while maintaining dominance of that market the entire time, knows a lot more about making and selling cameras than any of us.

Personally, I thought they were making a mistake in discontinuing the EOS M line. It was the most popular camera line for a while, at one point 17% of all cameras sold in the world were M bodies. Canon killed it off anyway. They kept their near-50% market share, and last year they held over 40% of the mirrorless market share (a very solid lead over Sony at 32% and Nikon at 13%) despite killing off the M line. So much for my opinion about what Canon should or should not do.

The bottom line is that they have an excellent track record of producing cameras their customers will buy. It is very unlikely that the R1 will be an exception to that, the whining and second-guessing occurring on the internet has occurred with most new Canon releases. If any of that was actually relevant or impactful, Canon's sales would have slipped. They haven't.

[Fast Glass]

I know exactly how the AF works, I can read literature too. It is a minor incremental improvement fitting a R3 II. This is not game changing or the quad pixel AF kind of improvement.

You may be anti resolution because you look at it with a very narrow set of circumstances and so does Canon. But it is exceedingly useful not just for enlargement, but gives noise reduction software an easier time to weed out detail vs noise, it gives photographers extra room to crop and maintain good resolution, it gives other photographers the detail for huge enlargement. Myself I have a 42" wide printer, the 50mp images have a clear advantage in prints this size. It is YOUR opinion relatively high resolution isn't all that useful. But that's your opinion, not facts. The fact is it makes a big difference for pro's, the very target audience of the R1. The people who print big, people who sell images, people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images. Of all the photographer, pro's are the ones who will benefit the most and use high resolution.

But, it's the whole package deal, this is an R3 II. It is priced accordingly and I'm not mad it exists. But calling it a R1, that just so far away from what it is. It's really an R3 II, and a minor incremental upgrade at that.

A real R1 is best in class in everything, that's what it was promised as. And it's just far away from that.

In my mind, they have still yet to create a camera that can truly differentiate itself from the R3 and worthy of the R1 name.

[Fast Glass]

And the nail in the coffin is that the R3 exists and the R5 II exists. For those that could care less about resolution. The R3 does 99% of what the R1 does. For those that don't have a need for something that serious. R5 II comes in at a significantly cheaper price point and the resolution is just a bonus.

It's a hard sale the R1 because of that. If the R3 didn't exist. It be a no brainer, get an R1, there wouldn't have been a low rez speed camera like it.

[neuroanatomist]

I know exactly how the AF works, I can read literature too. It is a minor incremental improvement fitting a R3 II. This is not game changing or the quad pixel AF kind of improvement.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, having the two orientations in adjacent pairs of rows is functionally equivalent to quad pixel – the alternating orientations are separated by 12 µm on the sensor. Canon has three major patents (and other minor ones) in this space. Quad pixel is likely the most technically difficult to implement. They also had a 'dual cross-type' AF patent (reminiscent of the old dual-cross center points, or column of five, on PDAF sensors), that one also used dual pixels, but the splits were four orientations (horizontal like regular DPAF, vertical like the R1 adds, and also both diagonals).

Incidentally, if you 'know exactly how the AF works' then why did you state, AF is basically the same hardware wise. Just more firmware stuff...? Because that statement makes it clear that you had no idea how the AF works. Rewriting history is hard when it's right there on the page.

You may be anti resolution because you look at it with a very narrow set of circumstances and so does Canon. But it is exceedingly useful not just for enlargement, but gives noise reduction software an easier time to weed out detail vs noise, it gives photographers extra room to crop and maintain good resolution, it gives other photographers the detail for huge enlargement. Myself I have a 42" wide printer, the 50mp images have a clear advantage in prints this size.

I'm not anti-resolution, by any means. I know the resolution I need, and that's what I need. I have ample focal length available, out to 1200mm f/8 with very good IQ, and my 'distance' shooting is typically at 840mm f/5.6. Any more 'reach' provided by smaller pixels at that point becomes moot due to the effects of atmosphere and diffraction.

It is YOUR opinion relatively high resolution isn't all that useful. But that's your opinion, not facts. The fact is it makes a big difference for pro's, the very target audience of the R1. The people who print big, people who sell images, people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images. Of all the photographer, pro's are the ones who will benefit the most and use high resolution.

I see. So my opinion that higher resolution isn't all that useful (to me) is not a fact. But your opinion that higher resolution makes a big difference for professionals is a fact. LOL. No, that's not how it works.

I have not and do not suggest that my needs represent those of anyone but me. When I state that I don't need more than 24 MP, I am not saying that no one does. What you are doing is suggesting that because you personally need/want more than 24 MP, a majority of others do, as well. You are entitled to your opinions, not to your own facts. Some people truly cannot grasp that opinions ≠ facts, and/or would not know a fact if it bit them on the butt. One need look no further than politics to see that in action.

Who do you think is more likely to know what most 'people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images' want in a sensor? You, or the company that dominates the industry? If you think that the answer is you, that's ludicrous. Some people suggest that Sony and Nikon do make higher MP bodies, and while that's true, the fact is that Canon does dominate the industry so a smart competitor would make something the dominant player doesn't, specifically because they don't. It's why Sony moved to mirrorless in the first place, they were smart enough not to try and compete with Canon and Nikon in DSLRs. Of course, now Canon has committed fully to mirrorless, and they solidly lead that market segment now, as well.

In my mind, they have still yet to create a camera that can truly differentiate itself from the R3 and worthy of the R1 name.

That's perfectly fine. If you don't want it, don't buy it. I often ask people, if the higher MP count is so important to you, why are you still with Canon? You commented that you could afford two R1's if you wanted. So why haven't you bought a Fuji GFX with 100 MP? Or a Sony a7r5 with 60 MP? Or if you have, good for you!

Canon is going to make the cameras that their market research indicates people will buy. History has shown they are very, very good at making that determination. You're welcome to disagree with them, but odds are high that their assessment of the needs of professionals and amateurs is far, far more accurate than yours.

[Fast Glass]

Basically the same is NOT equivalant to "The same thing". You are putting words in my mouth. And second, this is NOT the same as quad pixel AF. It is a cheat way of trying to achieve the same thing but it isn't and will not perform the same. This is an incremental improvement of dual pixel AF, that's all.

And once again, you are putting words in my mouth, I gave factual reasons why resolution DOES make a big difference and the point was if there was a camera with high resolution appealed the most and mattered the most to particular segment. It is the segment the R1 is aimed at. Pro's. You have been anti resolution for years and been beyond vocal about it. What YOU like is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

Maybe people are invested in the system and there are lenses that only exist in that system. It's ussually not feasible in the high end realm to swap when you got 10's of thousands invested. Like I do. And Canon right now just dropped the ball on the true profesional segment. They are already behind everyone. With the release of the Z9 II and A1 II. Those systems will utterly wipe the floor not only in things that matter like AF. But in every aspect.

You are conveniently cherry picking the resolution aspect like you love to do. While completely ignoring that this is 99% the same as a the R3. These are NOT game changing improvements, it's litteraly the same body, same features tweaked and improved some. But it's still fundamentally an R3 II. And a minor improvement at that.

[Fast Glass]

Canon is making cameras based on what they want, not what the market wants. And they pulled an Olympus with the R1, making minor improvements and trying to sell it as an generational improvement.

And also I don't appreciate you demonizing everyone just because people are disappointed in a camera manufacturer. They have a right to be. They don't need to jump ship just because they are complaining. Lots of products came to exist because people were vocal about what they want and critical of the brands shortcomings.

We had 2 pro speed bodies already, at the very least they needed to make a generational upgrade. And they miserably failed at that.