Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications

[neuroanatomist]

Have you seen enough to upgrade from the R3? Or is this just a preorder that can be canceled?

I was mainly hoping for cross-type AF and related improvements, and Canon delivered on at least some of that (still unknown if the extreme defocus performance is better).

Other notable improvements for me:

• Finer control over frame rate (10 options vs. 3)
• Faster flash sync (1/400 s)
• Pre-shooting (I read somewhere that it outputs separate RAW files, hope that's true)
• The 2-Stage AF-ON button (Smart Controller is already great functionality, this seems to add the ability to have another custom function to the same button, I'm thinking One Shot <> Servo AF assigned to that)

Some early 'worries' were moot (the B&H specs had a couple of steps back from the R3, e.g.max shutter speed and no flash in ES listed, but those were/are wrong, and they still have 1/320 sync when it's actually 1/400).

So I'd say there's enough there for me to move from the R3 to the R1.

 

[Quack]

we know, we know, Canon is always doomed.

But really though, honest question, how does this look compared to any possible A1 successor? It's not a great look.

If all you care about is specs and think of cameras competing in spec wars, then it may not compare. Many photographers - especially those in the target market - are not chasing after the highest specs because they would rather have a camera that is suited for their purposes. There is not doubt that Canon does a lot of market research. Clearly their market research is the driving force as to the specs of the camera. If you are only interested in the biggest, baddest, highest number specs, then you should not be on a Canon forum and should not own Canon cameras. That is not their philosophy, unlike Sony. Personally, I commend Canon for making cameras for certain target markets, even though they know they will be hammered on the internet and social media.

 

[Daniel Lindblom]

Does it have built in GPS like the EOS R3?

 

[R1-7D]

I was just reading Jeff Cable's blog, as he posted about his experience with the cameras. Of note, Jeff mentioned that you can now turn off the indicator within the viewfinder for the Eye Control AF.

He's the only one I've seen mention this so far.

 

[frankchn]

I was mainly hoping for cross-type AF and related improvements, and Canon delivered on at least some of that (still unknown if the extreme defocus performance is better).

Other notable improvements for me:

• Finer control over frame rate (10 options vs. 3)
• Faster flash sync (1.400 s)
• Pre-shooting (I read somewhere that it outputs separate RAW files, hope that's true)
• The 2-Stage AF-ON button (Smart Controller is already great functionality, this seems to add the ability to have another custom function to the same button, I'm thinking One Shot <> Servo AF assigned to that)

Some early 'worries' were moot (the B&H specs had a couple of steps back from the R3, e.g.max shutter speed and no flash in ES listed, but those were/are wrong, and they still have 1/320 sync when it's actually 1/400).

So I'd say there's enough there for me to move from the R3 to the R1.

Do you feel like the R1 is, for the most part, an R3 Mark II?

 

[trexphotos]

I was kind of hopeful that the R6 mkIII was going to be snuck in with the announcement today. But on the other hand the R1 does look tempting. Plus my Credit card is evil, and should be punished.......

 

[frankchn]

Clearly their market research is the driving force as to the specs of the camera. If you are only interested in the biggest, baddest, highest number specs, then you should not be on a Canon forum and should not own Canon cameras. That is not their philosophy, unlike Sony.

I can see that their sports photographer focus groups telling them 24 MP is fine since most images are just published to digital where 8 MP is plenty, but I am not sure the same focus groups will also tell them, "40 fps is enough" at the same time.

From what I know of them, those folks will take as many fps as they can get away with, even if they may not use all of it all the time.

 

[schneidermax.photo]

Does anybody know, what is that for?

 

[frankchn]

View attachment 218277
Does anybody know, what is that for?

Apparently, "This is a motion sensor for detecting a person’s face or body. Although it may be used in the future to enhance camera performance, it is currently disabled and does not detect faces or bodies. Information from the motion sensor is not stored on the camera, even if a subject is detected."

Guess whatever they were planning for that got cut for the initial release at least.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you feel like the R1 is, for the most part, an R3 Mark II?

I think the R1 is a very reasonable successor to the 1D X III. Given the lack of cross-type AF points across all other Canon MILCs to date, I can certainly see why Canon chose not to call the R3 a 'flagship'.

I'm not sure the R3 was ever intended as more than a one-and-done camera.

 

[frankchn]

Small thing, but the R1 has a lower resolution rear LCD panel compared to the R3 (2.1M dots compared to 4.15M dots). Seems like a downgrade for no real reason here.

 

[cinejunkie]

I wonder if the R1 and C400 share the same sensor?

 

[scyrene]

Order placed, 6:01am. Shipping date listed as 01Nov2024.

What features swayed it for you?

 

[scyrene]

I was mainly hoping for cross-type AF and related improvements, and Canon delivered on at least some of that (still unknown if the extreme defocus performance is better).

Other notable improvements for me:

• Finer control over frame rate (10 options vs. 3)
• Faster flash sync (1/400 s)
• Pre-shooting (I read somewhere that it outputs separate RAW files, hope that's true)
• The 2-Stage AF-ON button (Smart Controller is already great functionality, this seems to add the ability to have another custom function to the same button, I'm thinking One Shot <> Servo AF assigned to that)

Some early 'worries' were moot (the B&H specs had a couple of steps back from the R3, e.g.max shutter speed and no flash in ES listed, but those were/are wrong, and they still have 1/320 sync when it's actually 1/400).

So I'd say there's enough there for me to move from the R3 to the R1.

Sorry, only just seen this. Ignore my question!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry, only just seen this. Ignore my question!

No worries! I will add, I am curious about the implementation of the AF-ON dual functionality. Double-tap? Something else?

 

[koenkooi]

No worries! I will add, I am curious about the implementation of the AF-ON dual functionality. Double-tap? Something else?

Half-press and full-press according to Kai and Lok.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I mean I get it, I don't really feel like selling ~$10K worth of lenses to switch systems for a marginally better body. But also there is no other reasonable way to judge these products.

Of course there is. Personally, I judge a new camera or lens by the capabilities it offers compared to my current gear. What could I do with the new product that I want to do, but can’t with my current gear? As you point out, for those with high-end gear switching systems involves overcoming substantial inertia. There are those who choose to run multiple systems (e.g. a mainly Canon shooter who gets a Nikon MILC and one of their mid-range PF supertele lenses for birds/wildlife or a Fuji medium format and a couple of lenses for landscapes). But for the most part, it seems relatively few users of high end kits switch systems. Given that, it seems fruitless to compare across brands if you're not inclined to switch.

Comparing against Canon's prior work is degenerate because they could just give us 100 extra pixels model-to-model and that would always be "better than the last one!"

I'm sure you're aware that is not what is happening. Both the R1 and R5II are have obvious advantages over their predecessors (the 1D X III and R5). In many cases, those advantages won't be sufficient to attract owners of those immediate predecessors, but that's ok...the target audience of a new update is typically not owners of the immediate predecessor, but rather owners of older models in the same line and owners of models from a lower line (e.g. the R5II is mainly aimed at 5-series DSLR owners, and to a lesser extent owners of 6-series DSLRs, the EOS R and R6).

Keep in mind that Canon maintains a market share of ~50%, and given the useful life of a camera that equates to an installed base of 70-80% of ILC users. So while other brands need to compete with Canon for Canon's customers, Canon needs to appeal mainly to Canon owners, i.e. the majority of camera owners.

 

[charly1d]

I can see that their sports photographer focus groups telling them 24 MP is fine since most images are just published to digital where 8 MP is plenty, but I am not sure the same focus groups will also tell them, "40 fps is enough" at the same time.

From what I know of them, those folks will take as many fps as they can get away with, even if they may not use all of it all the time.

I do not belong to the privileged group that canon consults, but as a sports photographer, mainly polo and rugby, I will tell you that if you need 40 or more fps to do your job is that you do not know what you're doing.

 

[koenkooi]

I do not belong to the privileged group that canon consults, but as a sports photographer, mainly polo and rugby, I will tell you that if you need 40 or more fps to do your job is that you do not know what you're doing.

I do find it strange that the R1 has similar specs as my R8: 24MP and 40fps. I expected the R1 to have something extra, just for marketing purposes.

The R3 has the special 195fps mode, does the R1 have something similar?

 

[frankchn]

I do not belong to the privileged group that canon consults, but as a sports photographer, mainly polo and rugby, I will tell you that if you need 40 or more fps to do your job is that you do not know what you're doing.

One instance where I wished I had a very high FPS + precapture camera was when I was a sports photographer for my college newspaper, and my editor always wanted ball on bat/racket/paddle photos for specific players.

With those two features, that assignment would be trivial.