Official announcement of the Canon EOS R1 is now expected in July

[mpmark]

Perhaps, but there is no way to perfectly segment markets. I've seen cellphone shots win competitions over "pro-level" full-frame cameras, so there is always overlap.

If you are incapable in distinguishing the difference in using a cellphone to a 35mm full frame camera for your photo's, bravo, save some money and use a cellphone

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you are incapable in distinguishing the difference in using a cellphone to a 35mm full frame camera for your photo's, bravo, save some money and use a cellphone

It's certainly situationally dependent. A brightly lit scene with a wide-normal focal length where there's no fast motion and a deep DoF is wanted, sensor size really doesn't make much difference. But there are plenty of situations where the difference is more than obvious.

 

[frankchn]

I certainly not able to answer that question. I do find it pretty interesting that Canon offers two*, Nikon one, Sony zero. And both of Canon’s offerings are—seemingly—about to play in the same space. What’s super interesting is that all three seem to be having moderate success in a contracting market despite these approaches. My only point is that we shouldn’t boil down these things to the old canards about “speed vs mp” when the three leaders are all taking different approaches to the market.

Canon and Nikon had traditionally offered two (1D / 1Ds, and D3 / D3x) for a long time until both of them merged the lineup, so it is not without precedent to offer two. That said, given how close the R1 is to the R3 in terms of market positioning, I can't see them continuing to manufacture the R3 once the R1 launches, so I think Canon will go back to a single integrated grip flagship body like Nikon.

I don't think Sony is going to offer an integrated grip in any camera now or in the future -- one of their "5 fundamentals" for their cameras is "compactness", and adding an integrated grip runs counter to that.

 

[TwoWheeler]

I've been reading the same stuff since the beginning of the year. The only difference is the announcement date is pushed back further every time

I’m never sure if I’m reading about the R5II or cold fusion.

 

[TwoWheeler]

The R1 and Canon ARE DOOMED cuz i\'m using a custom-designed camera that uses a vertically stacked RGB + Greyscale Luma photosite ultra-high-sensivity Super Medium Format 72 mm by 72 mm CMOS sensor with 65,536 by 65,536 pixels at 128-bits wide RGBA colour at 32-bits ber RGBA Channel downsampled to 16-bits per channel via Nyquist resampling)

My lenses are high refractive index optical grade all-acrylic that are native T1.5 across the board on the primes lenses with a few T0.95 Noctilux primes for super low-light applications.

These will all be introduced shortly for sale for a lot cheaper than an R1 !!!

CANON IS DOOOOOOOMED i tell you ... DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED !!!!!!

....

Now all you have to is figure out whether the cameras and lenses described this post are actually real or not ;-)


..


..


..


Yup! ... They are ....

Canon is doooomrd!

V

No Galactic Shutter or Telepathic Autofocus? Probably has a flippy screen too.

Lame.

 

[sanj]

It's certainly situationally dependent. A brightly lit scene with a wide-normal focal length where there's no fast motion and a deep DoF is wanted, sensor size really doesn't make much difference. But there are plenty of situations where the difference is more than obvious.

Depends on where you are viewing it. On my 27 imac, it is always obvious.

 

[Robert Stone]

See, while some might think of the R5ii as being crippled to draw people to the R1, I’d sooner think of it as the R1 having features which are worth more to justify moving up. Market segmentation is part of every camera manufacturer’s plan to be fair.

I’m going to guess that people who need the R1 will know the difference in what they’re paying for. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the R1 have a faster burst rate, less rolling shutter, better AF, more throughput capacity, better/faster connectivity options, a nicer evf, the multi-control button, and above all else - a higher reliability than other bodies to just name a few ideas in addition to those you mentioned in your post. High reliability doesn’t get the attention it deserves. When something HAS to work, people will pay to MAKE SURE it works. And generally, I’ve always felt that high reliability usually comes from systems that are old and shown to work predictably over time - having a system be both new tech AND highly reliable is hard to do, and likely expensive.

I really don’t think most manufacturers move a ton of their top camera bodies, so I don’t really see the R1 competing heavily with the R5. I really can’t see Canon “crippling” the R5 to make the R1 sell better - the R5 isn’t competing with the R1 - it’s competing with the z7, z8, a7rv, a7s, and some here have argued it competes with the a1 as well. Crippling the R5 to make the r1 sell would only give advantages to their competitors.

The Z9 sold like hotcakes and the Z8 obviously. Nikon figured it out and is leaving Canon in the dust if the R1 is 24mp as reported.

 

[Robert Stone]

Canon's flagship body has not been its highest resolution camera since the discontinuation of the 1Ds Mark III, and the gap has been pretty large at times (the 5Ds/5DsR had 50 MP while the 1DX Mark II was 20 MP).

Canon knows exactly who they are targeting with the R1 (the exact same market as with previous generation 1 series cameras: sports and PJ for the most part). Everyone clamoring for a high resolution sensor in a flagship body is not in the target market. Canon likely never expected to sell an R1 to you in the first place.

The problem is I WOULD be their target audience. I would spend double the money on a 48mp R1s over a 45mp R5 any day (I used 48 because the 1 series all ways has some odd MP number). At this point I’d settle for a 41mp R1, but 24… nope.

I want the vertical grip, better battery, and heartier body and better buttons. And no, adding a vertical grip on the R5 is not an option because it ruins the water resistance/integrity of the sealing.

 

[frankchn]

The problem is I WOULD be their target audience. I would spend double the money on a 48mp R1s over a 45mp R5 any day (I used 48 because the 1 series all ways has some odd MP number). At this point I’d settle for a 41mp R1, but 24… nope.

I want the vertical grip, better battery, and heartier body and better buttons. And no, adding a vertical grip on the R5 is not an option because it ruins the water resistance/integrity of the sealing.

Canon product planning hasn't catered to the potential high resolution 1 series buyers since the 1DX in 2012, which launched with a lower resolution than the 1Ds3. So they obviously don't think the market is big enough to warrant development in that direction over the last 12 years, and I doubt they are going to change their mind now.

Your only option in the market right now for that exact set of specs is the Z9, since the A1 doesn't have a vertical grip either.

 

[Robert Stone]

You are

You are not the target consumer for the R1. And visa versa, R1 is not meant for you. You need something else. Please understand that speed and hi mpx do not go together in any brand. Deep breaths will help.

I don’t care about the speed, I want the vertical grip and heartier better sealed body and better battery. I shoot in environments that call for it. Adding a vertical grip to the R5 isn’t a substitute. I had the 5D Mk II and was planning to upgrade to the 1Dx when it was announced and it had less MP than my 5D and I was waiting for the S version that never came. So for the last decade they’ve lost 50% of the money from me they could have had. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Also, think about the psychological effect, if 90% of sports shooters are Canon and the other 10% are Nikon (or whatever the numbers are) and all these Nikon people have had the 45mp for 2 years and then Canon flops a 24mp… imagine being heckled every day by the Nikon guys (and gals and others). With all those people having to change Mount systems anyway, they are going to be in a position to make a decision and it’s a reason to switch camps to Nikon. Why would you stick to Canon if they aren’t keeping up.

Are sports shooters really needing 200fps? No… it’s a gimmick. And canon is more likely to lose market share by falling behind in image quality to its competitors. I could be wrong but it’s an inflection point because of the forced Mount upgrade.

 

[amorse]

The Z9 sold like hotcakes and the Z8 obviously. Nikon figured it out and is leaving Canon in the dust if the R1 is 24mp as reported.

Both popular cameras from Nikon, but I don’t think canon is really relying on the R1 to make or break their success. Obviously given that they haven’t released a camera (yet) with an integrated grip and higher MP, canon clearly has a different opinion on the matter. In fact, Nikon is the only one who has a current generation higher mp gripped body - even Fuji tried one with the gfx100, then backtracked off the gripped body with the gfx100ii. It seems like Nikon is the only manufacturer who sees a market in that space today.

And I say this as someone who just wants a very high mp body - while there are always some people who want a specific feature or setup, the real question is whether or not there are enough potential buyers to make development of that product profitable. As of today, only Nikon has been able to justify that development cost.

 

[frankchn]

Also, think about the psychological effect, if 90% of sports shooters are Canon and the other 10% are Nikon (or whatever the numbers are) and all these Nikon people have had the 45mp for 2 years and then Canon flops a 24mp… imagine being heckled every day by the Nikon guys (and gals and others). With all those people having to change Mount systems anyway, they are going to be in a position to make a decision and it’s a reason to switch camps to Nikon. Why would you stick to Canon if they aren’t keeping up.

Are sports shooters really needing 200fps? No… it’s a gimmick. And canon is more likely to lose market share by falling behind in image quality to its competitors. I could be wrong but it’s an inflection point because of the forced Mount upgrade.

I don't think the actual professionals care and no one is heckling anyone. They have all the super-tele lenses (600, 800, 1200) they need to get the correct framing without cropping, and 24 MP is enough for a double page spread at 300 dpi in a magazine.

I can tell you a concrete use case for very high frame rates: I used to shoot sports for my college newspaper, and my editor always wanted ball on bat/racket/whatever photos, and 100+ fps with pre-capture will make that a breeze.

Similarly, do sports shooters really need 50 MP? No. Almost all the photos they shoot ends up on web photo galleries at 4 MP anyway. No one is making 60x40 fine art prints from their photos. Even if they are, 60x40 at 24 MP gets you 100 ppi, bump that up to 45 MP and that gets you 137 ppi. Better? Yeah. Big difference? No.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also, think about the psychological effect, if 90% of sports shooters are Canon and the other 10% are Nikon (or whatever the numbers are) and all these Nikon people have had the 45mp for 2 years and then Canon flops a 24mp…

Yeah, I'm sure Canon has no real idea what sports shooters are looking for. Go back to your cave, troll.

 

[Billybob]

The Z9 sold like hotcakes and the Z8 obviously. Nikon figured it out and is leaving Canon in the dust if the R1 is 24mp as reported.

Yes, they did by releasing the Z9 in December 2021 and the Z8 18 months later allowing Nikon to sell as many Z9s as it could produce without worrying about cannibalization for a year and a half. If, instead, Nikon had released the two bodies simultaneously, I--and many other Nikon shooters--would have likely opted for the Z8 instead of the Z9. In fact, several of my Nikon-shooting friends who purchased Z9s either traded in their Z9s or added a Z8 to their kit. Without significantly different release dates, there will be some cannibalization if the feature sets are as similar as are the features shared by the two Z cameras. Moreover, many who prefer an integrated grip body but with a higher pixel count will have a difficult decision to make.

 

[sanj]

I don’t care about the speed, I want the vertical grip and heartier better sealed body and better battery. I shoot in environments that call for it. Adding a vertical grip to the R5 isn’t a substitute. I had the 5D Mk II and was planning to upgrade to the 1Dx when it was announced and it had less MP than my 5D and I was waiting for the S version that never came. So for the last decade they’ve lost 50% of the money from me they could have had. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Also, think about the psychological effect, if 90% of sports shooters are Canon and the other 10% are Nikon (or whatever the numbers are) and all these Nikon people have had the 45mp for 2 years and then Canon flops a 24mp… imagine being heckled every day by the Nikon guys (and gals and others). With all those people having to change Mount systems anyway, they are going to be in a position to make a decision and it’s a reason to switch camps to Nikon. Why would you stick to Canon if they aren’t keeping up.

Are sports shooters really needing 200fps? No… it’s a gimmick. And canon is more likely to lose market share by falling behind in image quality to its competitors. I could be wrong but it’s an inflection point because of the forced Mount upgrade.

I agree with some of what you say. Rest does not make sense to me. Heckling? 200 fps? Image quality??? What image quality are you referring to? R1 will have great IQ, if not the best in it's class (35mm).

 

[charly1d]

No me importa la velocidad, quiero el agarre vertical y un cuerpo más sellado más abundante y una mejor batería. Disparo en entornos que lo necesitan. Añadir un agarre vertical al R5 no es un sustituto. Tenía el 5D Mk II y estaba planeando actualizar al 1Dx cuando se anunció y tenía menos MP que mi 5D y estaba esperando la versión S que nunca llegó. Así que durante la última década han perdido el 50 % del dinero que podrían haber tenido. Estoy seguro de que no soy el único.

Boy, you need a psychiatrist.
I saw your site and for what you do, a Canon TX with ektar 100 would be enough.

Go back to your sonicueva!!!!!

 

[sanj]

Boy, you need a psychiatrist.
I saw your site and for what you do, a Canon TX with ektar 100 would be enough.

Go back to your sonicueva!!!!!

Hahahaha. Brutal.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Unless the 24mp rumors are wrong. ALL other brands were 45+mp 2 years ago, I wanted to buy an R1 so badly, but canon is letting me down. The R5 II is not a substitute.

The rumored R5 II would not be like the Z 9 but it would be just like the a1.
No other brands have anything like it.
Unless "ALL other brands" only includes Nikon.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Here, Calumet writes that the R1 will have 30 megapixel. Maybe a typo. (In German, please scroll down a bit).
https://www.calumetphoto.de/magazin...ign=launch_cw24_canon-eos-r1_all_cal_20240613

Those are pretty much the old rumored specs from weibo.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The part that confuses me about that is that all other manufacturers' flagships have significantly higher megapixel sensors. Surely their target audience there is at least partially the same, is it not?

"All of the others" would be Nikon and Sony,
Nikon pretty much cannibalized the Z 9 with the Z 8.
Canon needs to compete against the Z 8.
Going after the Z 9 now would not make much sense.
Although, it does not make much sense to have the R1 and R3 targeting the same market either.
On the other hand, the R3 is now the more affordable alternative for pros who pay for their own gear.