In this industry, perception is everything. Side by side, spec for spec, the Canon R1 is clearly improved over the R3, but not to the point where it feels like a completely different camera line.
When it was unveiled in April 2021, the R3 felt entirely unexpected – at least in name. A camera like the R3 had been anticipated for years as Canon slowly phased out its 1D-series DSLRs, but the 3-series had been ignored since the EOS-3 in 1998. As such, photographers expected nothing less than a 1-series.
When Canon unveiled the R3 instead, two things happened: First, Canon bought itself more time to Real impress with an eventual R1; you can’t ignore the benefits that three more years of development could bring. Secondly, it created an expectation for the R1 that — now that it’s been announced — could never be met.
Canon has maneuvered itself into a marketing position that is not feasible.
This is a branding problem
There is nothing wrong with the R1. I think the online discourse about this camera will boil down to “this camera sucks,” but that’s terribly shortsighted. The R1 is, in a vacuum, an astonishingly capable camera for both stills and video that will make it easier for top pros to capture iconic moments. That, I think, is the goal of any pro-targeted camera body, and the R1 delivers on that.
But at the same time, the R1 doesn’t exist in a vacuum and will be compared to its contemporaries. We’ve already done an in-depth comparison with the R1’s top competitors , and it’s clear how far Canon still has to go to not only catch up to what Sony and Nikon are doing, but actually differentiate itself significantly from the three-year-old R3. I was asked several times, both at the R1 launch event in Arizona and after returning home, if I felt like I’d shot something with the R1 that I hadn’t been able to with the R3. I had to honestly answer: no.
Which brings us neatly back to the aforementioned online discourse and what a high-end professional who would actually buy the R1 would think. This camera doesn’t feel like the giant leap forward from the R3 that three extra years of development time and an asking price of over $6,000 should have resulted in. Instead of a dramatically better autofocus system, we got a moderately improved system that was easier to use. Instead of a higher-resolution sensor, we got the same resolution with built-in upscaling that only generates JPEGs.
What we did get was a nice, robust pre-burst, longer burst times, reduced noise at high ISOs and a much-improved viewfinder. But these are the kind of features you’d expect to see as improvements to second-generation tech, not banner features of what a true flagship should be. Just look at the EOS R5 II – it’s a perfect example of a series of great upgrades to an existing line-up that make it better. In that case, it’s acceptable to keep the resolution and dynamic range of the previous generation, because it’s not supposed to represent a quantum leap forward in the way that a new flagship does.
With the knowledge we have now, the R3 never made sense
Canon could have avoided much of this setback if it hadn’t called the R3 the R3. It should have been the R1, and this R1 should have been the R1 Mark II. Sure, the technology in what the R3 is would have lagged behind the competition back then, but what Canon launched this week hasn’t changed that.
In my scenario, Canon would only have to deal with that difference. In that light, the upgrades we got this week would feel like nice spec bumps that refined the experience the original offered. Instead, we got that difference relative to the competition and a convoluted product line with two expensive, poorly differentiated products at the top.
I don’t know what held Canon back from calling the R3 the 1-series, but that decision would only be worthwhile if the time the company bought itself actually resulted in major improvements. What the R1 brings to the table compared to the R3 is, frankly, iterative, and rather than impressing us, it leaves us wondering what went wrong.
One theory that the R3 was supposed to be the R1, but Sony surprised Canon with the announcement of the Alpha 1, forcing Canon to pivot or find themselves far surpassed by Sony’s new flagship. I believe that theory to a certain extent, but if the R1 were to come three years later still Outclassed by the Alpha 1, what was the point? It all makes it seem like Canon is stumbling blindly through the mirrorless era, unsure of what to do, how to approach development, or how to price its products. This is troubling behavior from a multi-billion dollar company that has dominated the digital photography market for over a decade. I suppose there was a sign that all was not well when the 5D Mark IV failed to shine, but nearly 10 years later it seems Canon still hasn’t righted the ship.
The R1 was never going to live up to the expectations it brought with it, and that would have been fine, because many of those expectations were pie in the sky. Unfortunately, most photographers — myself included — still expected far more than what we got, even with lower expectations and a more informed view of what was possible.