As I understand it you seem to suggest that Canon should be prepared to cater for two broad constituencies. The first being those working professions for whom this is a tool of the trade and will purchase it based on their pragmatic assessment of their professional needs and the benefits its features offer to fulfil them - and I would totally agree with that. However, it is critical to understand what each market is comprised of, what benefits it values, and what features are required to offer value to them.
In the case of the R1, it is professionals in the sports, news and journalism fraternities who are the stated clients - and they have consistently maintained over many years been adamant that they don't need or want anything more than 24MP - and that is not just a matter of the sensor alone. Sensor size has impacts on focusing, frame rate, processing time, buffering, storage space and transmission to their agencies or clients, who also have no use for large files that will end up on web pages or at most double-page magazine spreads. In that world speed and agility is everything. Larger sensors are, to them an anathema because all through that pipeline they require too many resources. Canon was absolutely clear about the results of their consultations with their clients in that respect. Canon asked, the clients spoke, and Canon has provided. That's how the market works. If the configuration is not suitable, for your purposes, then you are not in the intended market, so pick another model. That's how it works in all industries.
The other group would seem to be (excuse the vernacular) more focused on feature than function and who, as you yourself seem to say, will never leverage these tools for work, but may enjoy owning the tech. We can all get along with much less sophisticated gear - I make that point frequently. I still shoot on occasion with my old gear to make the point that technique is more important than tech. That said, as an engineer and retired professional photographer, I love tech as much as the next person, but I would not spend money on a camera that have a use for. I would rather save my money for the glass, which will likely have more of an impact on my images and be a longer-lasting investment.
Did it ever occur to you that such tech- oriented people will, almost by definition, never be satisfied? There will always be some element in these miracles of engineering that they lust after because some reviewer suggests that is a flaw, or another brand has prioritized a different feature set? Each of these brands have their strengths. Just like there are many brands and models of cars - for a reason.
I shoot Canon, Fuji Nikon, Olympus and Sony - I say that to make the point that I am not being a Canon fan boy. I have, at times, been highly critical of one or two Canon models, and in particular how they have been marketed. However, I have done so being specific in the issue, how that issue impacts the performance of the unit and how it does not service its constituent market. I usually comment on how that could be improved, if I feel I can competently make that offering.
The simple truth is that if they were not all offering good product they would not have a market. It is also significant to follow the market share, where Canon remains dominant, so they are obviously doing something right for their wide range of customers. Certainly not perfect but neither are the others... Personally, I think that variance and brand differential are good things - they make the market more agile and can cater for a wider variety of shooting needs. Imagine if suddenly only one brand existed - I would be like something out of the Soviet Union. 🙂
cheers, TREVOR
The mark of good photographer is less what they hold in their hand, it's more what they hold in their head;
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris
