That sounds about right. A majority of that won't be through retail.
Reuters probably has a thousand of them and waiting for the magic window to be turned on.
Upvote
0
Year in Review: Richard's Hits and Misses of 2024
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
That sounds about right. A majority of that won't be through retail.
Reuters probably has a thousand of them and waiting for the magic window to be turned on.
If anyone missed it.
https://www.reutersagency.com/authenticity-poc
This is a good example of who some of their R1 customers are and the innovations that come from input.
I'm not sure when this will be turned on for everyone, or if it even will. Maybe it'll be a pay to play thing, but I imagine it's going through real world testing today.
https://www.reutersagency.com/authenticity-poc
This is a good example of who some of their R1 customers are and the innovations that come from input.
I'm not sure when this will be turned on for everyone, or if it even will. Maybe it'll be a pay to play thing, but I imagine it's going through real world testing today.
Upvote
0
Sorry, but you can blame me. I have 4.
It's not really a "mistake" by Canon, but it's interesting that so many major reviewers are not bothering to compare the Sony α1 II with the R5 Mark II. There are a number of ways in which the R5ii is the better of the two cameras!
Even among Canon cameras, well, I guess I'm biased as an R5ii owner, but I think that it is, in many ways, preferable to the R1, and not just because it's cheaper. (I'll admit that there are some advantages to the R1, but I think they're not that big, and, most me, anyway, outweighed by the 45MP sensor.) I would prefer the R5ii to the R1 even if they were the same price, and I think many other people would agree.
While I agree here I think the companies motivations are a bit different. From a spec standpoint the A1II is closer to the R5mii and the A9III is closer to the R1. However as pointed out the R1 is really for corporate clients who have contracts with these companies. The same for the A1II AND the A9III.
While I think the A1II is "better" than the R5mii I don't know if it really justifiesthe extra $2,200. If I was ecosystem agnostic I'd pick the R5mii. I think this highlights a gapaing hole in Sony's lineup as they don't have something comparable to the R5mii/Z8 in that price range which is more for the prosumer and advanced hobbyist. The A7RV is the competitor in terms of price but it is specifically aimed at portraits with a slow sensor and high MP and is already older and discounted.
So Sony/Canon are making the R1/A1II/A9III for their corporate clients where every little upgrade puts them at an advantage and the companies can easily pay the extra $$$ for that mininmal difference.
The R5mii/Z8 give MOST of what a all around flaghsip can do at a much more competitive price as most people aren't in direct competition with others at that level. Sony doesn't have an option here.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, with this logic, there is no way Canon could not have made the right call!
Does anyone think that these agencies would have made a mass exodus to Sony or Nikon (who really doesn't have a low-MP offering to compete with other photojournalist/sports bodies) if the R1 was a 40MP+ body?
Not saying you are wrong, or that Canon made a bad call, just that Canon went the conservative, predictable route in its design choices for the R1. Not a criticism, just an observation, and the difference in sales between a 24MP R1 and a 45MP R1 would have a minuscule impact on Canon's sales volume. So, either way Canon wins.
Like I said above, I'm happy with my R5MII, but would love to have access to an R1 whenever the circumstances warrant it.
Upvote
0
Imho, I think Canon did a really good job this year with almost all of their newly released products!
R5mkii:
I was able to get a hands on the R5mkii and snap a few pics with it in a store. Ergonomics are still great or even slightly improved, if you care for the "video-photo" switch. I do like it, but I don't like the on/ off button on the right hand side ( I know, some people do love it!). What seemed odd to me is that the joystick on the BG still seems to be in an awkward spot. I have the same issue with the BG E10 and I hoped Canon would correct it with its successor. But maybe it is just me. Can´t say anything else about the camera or the R1 (which looks awesome to me!) and I won´t bother with the "should C. do this or that".
Lenses:
Although I didn't purchase a single lens this year (first time since 2017 or 2018) I am really interested in the RF28-70mm F2.8 and one of the f1.4 primes. I don´t get why people don't like them just because it digitally corrected (talking about the 35mm). The RF 14-35mm F4 does it as well and takes stunning pics. Never noticed any downside with it. So, once I made up my mind which prime I´d like to get and/ or once the lineup is complete (are 20mm/ 28mm/ 85mm F1.4 coming?) I'll get one. 20mm would be a no-brainer.
To me, it is kind of weird that Canon did a good job with their lenses, but now a lot of people are talking about Sonys 28-70mm F2 and Canon might feel pressure from it. I´d hope for a RF 28-70mm F2 mkii in 2025. I do love this lens, but it is really too heavy and the difference in Sonys offering in this regard is just waaaaay too much imho.
R5mkii:
I was able to get a hands on the R5mkii and snap a few pics with it in a store. Ergonomics are still great or even slightly improved, if you care for the "video-photo" switch. I do like it, but I don't like the on/ off button on the right hand side ( I know, some people do love it!). What seemed odd to me is that the joystick on the BG still seems to be in an awkward spot. I have the same issue with the BG E10 and I hoped Canon would correct it with its successor. But maybe it is just me. Can´t say anything else about the camera or the R1 (which looks awesome to me!) and I won´t bother with the "should C. do this or that".
Lenses:
Although I didn't purchase a single lens this year (first time since 2017 or 2018) I am really interested in the RF28-70mm F2.8 and one of the f1.4 primes. I don´t get why people don't like them just because it digitally corrected (talking about the 35mm). The RF 14-35mm F4 does it as well and takes stunning pics. Never noticed any downside with it. So, once I made up my mind which prime I´d like to get and/ or once the lineup is complete (are 20mm/ 28mm/ 85mm F1.4 coming?) I'll get one. 20mm would be a no-brainer.
To me, it is kind of weird that Canon did a good job with their lenses, but now a lot of people are talking about Sonys 28-70mm F2 and Canon might feel pressure from it. I´d hope for a RF 28-70mm F2 mkii in 2025. I do love this lens, but it is really too heavy and the difference in Sonys offering in this regard is just waaaaay too much imho.
Upvote
0
I think Craig's argument was that Canon's decision on MPs (and other design elements) for the R1 was made in conjunction with users such as Reuters. That is - Canon asked them, or more correctly collaborated with them over years, and that is what they preferred. In that sense it's not a 'conservative' or 'predictable' decision, it's just what the specific target audience for the R1 wanted.Well, with this logic, there is no way Canon could not have made the right call!
Does anyone think that these agencies would have made a mass exodus to Sony or Nikon (who really doesn't have a low-MP offering to compete with other photojournalist/sports bodies) if the R1 was a 40MP+ body?
Not saying you are wrong, or that Canon made a bad call, just that Canon went the conservative, predictable route in its design choices for the R1. Not a criticism, just an observation, and the difference in sales between a 24MP R1 and a 45MP R1 would have a minuscule impact on Canon's sales volume. So, either way Canon wins..
Like I said above, I'm happy with my R5MII, but would love to have access to an R1 whenever the circumstances warrant it.
Upvote
0
I think that’s exactly right. For some reason, certain people seem to think these products are designed by companies in a vacuum and then tossed over the wall to see if the target audience likes them. Anyone who knows anything about product development understands that’s ridiculous.
I think what it really comes down to is certain people think the R1 should have had a higher MP count because that’s what they personally want, and since Canon did not ask them personally, Canon must not have asked anybody. I don’t know if that’s hubris or just stupidity.
Upvote
0
The other 'win' of the R1 and R5II launches were driving used prices on the R3 and R5 down to truly incredible value ranges. I grabbed a used R3 for less than half and R1. I know its not as good, but for my use its not $3k worse. A lot of us don't have to be on the cutting edge, and can get great performance for less money buying the previous generation.
Seriously great tech in both of those new bodies. Can't wait to see it trickle down, and what comes next.
Brian
I grabbed a used R3 for less than half and R1. I know its not as good, but for my use its not $3k worse. A lot of us don't have to be on the cutting edge, and can get great performance for less money buying the previous generation. Seriously great tech in both of those new bodies. Can't wait to see it trickle down, and what comes next.
Brian
Upvote
0
On the flip side hasn’t canon lost multiple agencies recently? Including Reuters for video. Is it possible that canon couldn’t meet those agencies’ demands on a timeline felt to he acceptable? Or perhaps they aren’t that picky and went with the company that offered a better price.
Upvote
0
Most likely, the people making the contracting decisions are not the people using the gear. At a large pharma company where I worked, every bench chemist (a few thousand of them) got a mass spectrometer. They surveyed the chemists, and the brand they ended up purchasing was not the first or second choice of the users. But it was the one that offered the company the best deal.
It’s often said here that any current high-end camera can take great pictures. I think that’s true. Probably the bean counters know that, as well.
Upvote
0
That is if you have the money for a 600 f4.<opinionated>Trigger Warning: I detest cropping and any mention of it beyond perspective and some subtle composition. Use the right lens or get closer.
I am only a hobbyist and the 100-400 with 2x is not enough, yes you can get a blind and wait 12 hours, but I am not at that level yet, plus we have other things to do in life.
Still I got the R3 instead of the R5, why?
AF,
Low Light/High ISO,
The file sizes
Upvote
0
Those are all solid reasons to pick a R3 over an R5 and essentially are the same reasons to pick a R1 over (or in addition to) a R5 Mk2.
Upvote
0
That´s true! Ich grabbed a mint condition used R5 with less than 7.000 shutter count for about 2.k €. And I am a very happy customerThe other 'win' of the R1 and R5II launches were driving used prices on the R3 and R5 down to truly incredible value ranges.
Seriously great tech in both of those new bodies. Can't wait to see it trickle down, and what comes next.
Brian
Upvote
0
AP signed with Sony. But Sony basically gives them the cameras for free and it is more of a publicity stunt and not about making money.
Upvote
0
Well, with this logic, there is no way Canon could not have made the right call!
Does anyone think that these agencies would have made a mass exodus to Sony or Nikon (who really doesn't have a low-MP offering to compete with other photojournalist/sports bodies) if the R1 was a 40MP+ body?
Not saying you are wrong, or that Canon made a bad call, just that Canon went the conservative, predictable route in its design choices for the R1. Not a criticism, just an observation, and the difference in sales between a 24MP R1 and a 45MP R1 would have a minuscule impact on Canon's sales volume. So, either way Canon wins.
Like I said above, I'm happy with my R5MII, but would love to have access to an R1 whenever the circumstances warrant it.
Nothing to do with "logic", only what's true. Listen to your customers and good things happen. Isn't that what everyone wants from a company? Or just not in this case? You aren't the customer. The customer knows 40+ mp is pointless, and the camera wouldn't be as good either.
It's the same thing that was said after the 1dx, the 1dx2, the 1dx3, the r3...... and here we are.... again. Yet Canon continues to dominate that tiny segment of the market, a market that isn't going to get bigger by any meaningful amount.
Nikon barely has agency customers, and Sony has to basically give their stuff away.
If you're happy with whatever it is you desired and purchased, have at it. Just don't go knocking on the doors of others.....
Upvote
0
I think the argument being made here is that Canon picked a very specific segment, sports/agency shooters and tailored their 1 series to that. Canon could have picked a different segment, e.g. wildlife and potentially have sold more 1 series bodies. We don't (and obviously can't) know the sales numbers for such imaginary bodies, but it's fun to speculate.
The fact that Canon is happy with the 1 series sales numbers doesn't rule out that a different design could've sold more units and/or would have been more profitable. It also doesn't rule out that a different design could've sold a lot less units. We don't (can't) know and this is the internet, so we argue here instead of taking pictures
It is also a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy, Canon knows that market very well and the sales match their expectations, so they will keep going further and further in that direction. I don't mind that, I don't like transporting gripped bodies, the 1 series is out of my price range and I've convinced myself that 24MP isn't enough for the non-family camera
Upvote
0
I think the argument being made here is that Canon picked a very specific segment, sports/agency shooters and tailored their 1 series to that. Canon could have picked a different segment, e.g. wildlife and potentially have sold more 1 series bodies. We don't (and obviously can't) know the sales numbers for such imaginary bodies, but it's fun to speculate.
The fact that Canon is happy with the 1 series sales numbers doesn't rule out that a different design could've sold more units and/or would have been more profitable. It also doesn't rule out that a different design could've sold a lot less units. We don't (can't) know and this is the internet, so we argue here instead of taking pictures
It is also a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy, Canon knows that market very well and the sales match their expectations, so they will keep going further and further in that direction. I don't mind that, I don't like transporting gripped bodies, the 1 series is out of my price range and I've convinced myself that 24MP isn't enough for the non-family camera
Don't lump "wildlife photographers" into the more pixels camp.
Upvote
0
Yeah, that was overgeneralizing a bit, but I think you get my main point.
Upvote
0
I get it.
I keep getting sucked into the pixel thing... No more!
I'll hit Costco for a jar of 45 pickles.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
