Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Del Paso]

I'm expecting the R1 at €8000 and the R5 at €5000, I'm very glad not to be the target market for the R1

These are the prices I'm expecting as well...

 

[AlanF]

And another 10% more in Europe...
Edit: It won't be so easy to honestly justify a 10% raise for the R1, no mirror, no shutter. But companies are so inventive...

+ another 10% in UK.

 

[Michael Clark]

As a wildlife photographer you should probably understand it's not always possible to get closer to your wildlife subject.

Most wildlife photographers also know that when they can get closer, they get better photos, too.

 

[Michael Clark]

Crop sensors have mediocre IQ, low light performance and dynamic range.

When you crop an image from a full frame sensor, they also have mediocre IQ, low light performance, & dynamic range.

The advantages of a FF sensor only apply when the entire sensor is used.

 

[Michael Clark]

No way. It doesn't have dual CF Express card slots and it goes against their 4 year pro cam cycle which has been consistent forever.

So "forever" didn't start until 2012? Before that, the release of 1-Series cameras was not nearly as regular.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So "forever" didn't start until 2012?

Perhaps not “forever” but a new Mayan 13-baktun cycle started in 2012, and those last just over 5000 years.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not the first time a 1 Series camera didn't have matched fast card slots. The 1DX2 had a CFast slot and a plain CF slot.

More of the 1-Series cameras have had dissimilar media cards slots than have had twin media card slots of the same type. Only the 1D X, 1D C, and 1D X Mark III had twin card slots (CF, CF, and CFExpress, respectively). The rest either only had one card slot (1D, 1Ds) or two dissimilar slots (1D II, 1D IIn, 1D III, 1D IV, 1Ds II, 1Ds III, 1D X II).

 

[EricN]

When you crop an image from a full frame sensor, they also have mediocre IQ, low light performance, & dynamic range.

The advantages of a FF sensor only apply when the entire sensor is used.

There's another advantage...

 

[GoldWing]

Bandwidth between sensor and the DIGIC chip and processing speed of the DIGIC processing chip likely are limiting factors.

120 fps @ 30 MP 14-bit/pixel ~= 50 Gbits/second.

You can slice that data-rate however you want -- 120 fps @ 30 MP or 60 fps @ 60 MP or 40 fps @ 90 MP, and so on. For a sports/photojournalism focused camera I can see them choosing a lower MP and higher fps.

Note that Thunderbolt 4 maxes out at 40 Gbits/second, so 120 fps @ 30 MP is already higher bandwidth than that. 120 fps @ 60 MP or so might not be realistic.

We all want the 100 MP @ 1000 fps camera, but it is about as unrealistic as asking for the 20-2000mm f/2.8 lens.

Who "needs" 120 fps? Show me the professional photographer or agency advocating for 120fps? Our agency shoots stills and broadcast video. No one needs 120fps for stills.

 

[EricN]

Who "needs" 120 fps? Show me the professional photographer or agency advocating for 120fps? Our agency shoots stills and broadcast video. No one needs 120fps for stills.

Half speed slow motion without losing 60fps in broadcast

 

[frankchn]

Who "needs" 120 fps? Show me the professional photographer or agency advocating for 120fps? Our agency shoots stills and broadcast video. No one needs 120fps for stills.

When I shot college baseball, I was often asked to get ball on bat photos for specific players. 120 fps + pre-shooting makes that trivial. Find the one photo I need from the 100 frame sequence, and delete the rest.

 

[GoldWing]

Bandwidth between sensor and the DIGIC chip and processing speed of the DIGIC processing chip likely are limiting factors.

120 fps @ 30 MP 14-bit/pixel ~= 50 Gbits/second.

You can slice that data-rate however you want -- 120 fps @ 30 MP or 60 fps @ 60 MP or 40 fps @ 90 MP, and so on. For a sports/photojournalism focused camera I can see them choosing a lower MP and higher fps.

Note that Thunderbolt 4 maxes out at 40 Gbits/second, so 120 fps @ 30 MP is already higher bandwidth than that. 120 fps @ 60 MP or so might not be realistic.

We all want the 100 MP @ 1000 fps camera, but it is about as unrealistic as asking for the 20-2000mm f/2.8 lens.

And not one professional needs or wants 120fps. 15fps in skilled hands is just fine. 30fps is just spray and pray. Nikon with their ver. 5 Z9 firmware, seperated video vs still menus. And, the Z9 is just amazing big learning curve but what an amazing tool. For Giggles, some still staff, shot video with the Z9 and it was stunning. That being said, no still sports or PJ needs 120fps.... shoot video for heaven's sake.

 

[AlanF]

And not one professional needs or wants 120fps. 15fps in skilled hands is just fine. 30fps is just spray and pray. Nikon with their ver. 5 Z9 firmware, seperated video vs still menus. And, the Z9 is just amazing big learning curve but what an amazing tool. For Giggles, some still staff, shot video with the Z9 and it was stunning. That being said, no still sports or PJ needs 120fps.... shoot video for heaven's sake.

It's so good that we have someone on CR who speaks for every professional without exception.

 

[AUGS]

Who "needs" 120 fps? Show me the professional photographer or agency advocating for 120fps? Our agency shoots stills and broadcast video. No one needs 120fps for stills.

Why is Canon scared to let the user decide? Make it 50 MP and let us make the file size, based on our needs.

A little hypocritical, perhaps?

 

[Michael Clark]

Only point I disagree with is that they believe their software is great. It’s a virtual certainty that they’ve got design and product folks in house who know DPP isn’t very good. But the higher up product folks know they don’t “need” to make it better. If I were a shareholder I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the business decision, but as an end user I just thinking “if something is worth doing right…”

And as a guy who leads a software design team, if they don’t have a team who think DPP needs an overhaul, they need to hire better folks.

Part of the issue that affects the lack of attention to DPP is that in Japanese culture hardware designers and engineers are top of the heap. Software designers are seen as only a half step, if that, above menial workers.

 

[Michael Clark]

People put different meaning in 'image quality', but many aspects of image quality can be measured. Noise, resolution, sharpness, blown highlights...

On the other hand, some of the most important aspects of a photograph are not so easy to measure: the emotional response it will invoke in each viewer, the story it tells, the historical significance of the event it documents and how well it communicates that, etc...

 

[Michael Clark]

And how many people with big whites do you see at the baseline of any NFL, NBL, soccer, kricket, rugby, etc. stadium each weekend...?
I'd guess those are a few more than your 100 people each year.
Just my 2 ct.

Many of whom are no longer getting directly (or even indirectly) paid to be there. Many of those folks are well-heeled enthusiasts with connections to one or the other of the teams who are more than happy to let folks with enough money to buy their own equipment and are somewhat competent with using that gear shoot uncompensated for them. The club gets rights to the use the photos as they wish. The shooter spends less on gear than a seat license and renting a luxury suite for the season costs, and they get to be on the sideline as long as they can behave themselves.

 

[Michael Clark]

Always wished Canon would put some secret sauce in there.... But it never happened.

I can get subtle color variations out of DPP that I can't get out of any other raw conversion product. Maybe I just know how to use it better than I know how to use the others? But for me, the Canon software allows finer control of the gradations between "0" and "1".

For example: The exposure sliders move in 1/6 stop increments when you click to either side of the marker. But the box to the right of the slider lets me punch in numbers in 0.01 stop increments. +0.17 is slightly too dark and +0.33 is slightly too bright? No problem. I can enter +0.23, +0.24, +0.25, +0.26, +0.27, +0.28, etc. until it's exactly where I want it. It's the same with almost all of the settings.

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe I don’t understand the technology, but why don’t these camera manufacturers simply make a 48 mp sensor that can also shoot pixel binned 24 MP? You would have “the camera to rule them all”. They would both be full frame as opposed to lowering the MP with a crop, but each would have the unique benefits associated with those MP’s. This would make the camera appealing to everyone.

Since pixel dimensions are both horizontal and vertical, a binned version of a 48MP sensor with each line skipped in both directions would be a 12MP image, not a 24MP image. To get 24MP you'd need to start with a 96MP sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

Then Canon introduced the 5D2 with the same pixel count as the 1Ds3 and the market for the 1Ds3 disappeared. A local camera store ended up selling their two1Ds3 bodies on ebay. Nikon had a comparable model, the D3X, that they replaced with a less rugged body and 50% more pixels but selling for 60% less money.

The reality of cameras in the R1 and Z9 class is that they are built for professionals who absolutely have to get the shot but then are often purchased by wealthy amateurs like Neuro. The professionals don't need a lot of pixels because their images are rarely enlarged to wall-filling size. You can get a very nice 20x30 print with a 12.8MP body and I have a couple waterfall landscape prints on my living room wall to prove it.

About your kit, what provoked you to buy MFT? I'm getting to the age where light weight equipment is desirable and I very nearly bought a duplicate OMD setup. Mostly it was nostalgia for the days when I backpacked and walked up creeks to photograph waterfalls. Anyway, I bought a Canon R7, about the same size as the OM-1, instead.

It wasn't a mere coincidence that the 1D X was introduced in 2012 to "replace" both the 1D Mark IV and the 1Ds Mark III the same year that the 5D Mark III was introduced as Canon's highest megapixel DSLR to date - and with a 1-Series class AF system that the 5D and 5D Mark II sorely lacked.

Uncle Roger said, "The 5D III is no minor-upgrade camera; it’s an entirely new camera using the old camera’s name. Its autofocus system is certainly not a minor upgrade–it’s moved over to the big-boy camera side."

Canon recognized that the vast majority of 1Ds bodies were being used as studio cameras. So they moved their highest resolution body (relative to the time period in question), the 1Ds with all kinds of weather sealing, durability, and larger batteries it didn't really need, to the 5-Series with less weather sealing, durability, and smaller batteries which could be made cheaper, sold cheaper, and still probably net more in profits than the 1D s bodies had netted.