Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Quack]

I'm kind of curious as to how many of the whiners and complainers in regards to the rumored 30 MP have actually shot with both a 30 MP and 45 MP camera? I have, and the difference is not that much in real life, hand-held shooting. But who cares about reality. Everyone knows you can't shoot wildlife, sports, product, portrait, etc, with only 30 MP!!

Seriously, how stupid can people get. Complaints about Canon being 2 years behind, about nothing really innovative, about this being nothing but an R3 mark II.... Except that the readout speed is 5 TIMES faster than the R3. (Yeah, but it's not global shutter...) No, it's probably better than a global shutter.
And 120 fps compared to the R3's 30fps, (I think it is)...which would be 4 TIMES greater. And 1 second pre-shooting, and a whole lot more.

 

[EricN]

I'm kind of curious as to how many of the whiners and complainers in regards to the rumored 30 MP have actually shot with both a 30 MP and 45 MP camera? I have, and the difference is not that much in real life, hand-held shooting. But who cares about reality. Everyone knows you can't shoot wildlife, sports, product, portrait, etc, with only 30 MP!!

Seriously, how stupid can people get. Complaints about Canon being 2 years behind, about nothing really innovative, about this being nothing but an R3 mark II.... Except that the readout speed is 5 TIMES faster than the R3. (Yeah, but it's not global shutter...) No, it's probably better than a global shutter.
And 120 fps compared to the R3's 30fps, (I think it is)...which would be 4 TIMES greater. And 1 second pre-shooting, and a whole lot more.

The improvements are most likely what Canon's research led them to believe is important to the most people they believe would be willing to buy a 1 series camera. The complainers only care about their personal ideas of what they want and might not even be willing to buy a 1 series camera in the first place.
Not too different from a person complaining about a government in places outside of their area.

 

[sanj]

Canon has provided a brilliant R5 with higher resolution for those who do not want the R1.

 

[Hector1970]

The improvements are most likely what Canon's research led them to believe is important to the most people they believe would be willing to buy a 1 series camera. The complainers only care about their personal ideas of what they want and might not even be willing to buy a 1 series camera in the first place.
Not too different from a person complaining about a government in places outside of their area.

I own 1DXIII, 5DIV, 5DSR and and R5.
I find a big difference between the files. R5 being the best. I am a customer for an R1. I’m not blown away (like I think you should be with a flagship). Maybe if the focusing is incredible I may be tempted. After the long wait it’s nothing amazing. I think they should have called it an R2.

 

[Michael Clark]

The one series has never been high megapixel. It is more a sports camera. This is the highest megapixel count ever on 1-series. EOS 1D X Mark III has just 20 megapixels.

Au contraire!

The 1D X series has never been "high resolution". The 1Ds series, on the other hand, were the highest resolution ILCs in Canon's catalog from the time the 1Ds was introduced in 2002 until the 1Ds Mark III was discontinued in 2012. Not coincidentally the same year the 18 MP 1D X was introduced to replace both the "fast/lower resolution/APS-H" 16MP 1D Mark IV and the "slower/higher resolution/FF" 21MP 1Ds Mark III, the 22MP 5D Mark III was introduced with a pro-grade AF system (the PDAF array is the same part number as in the 1D X) and, at that time, the highest resolution FF EOS body ever. [The previous 5D Mark II had a 9 point AF system with 6 unmarked "assist" AF points in AI Servo AF that was slow, relatively inconsistent from frame to frame, and unusable in low light environments below around EV0.]

 

[danfaz]

I think they should have called it an R2.

 

[thotho]

For someone who will buy two R1´s, the specs are quite disappointing!

As a sports shooter i know my current 20mp doing great, but seeing what 45mp can do with Nikon (in addition to the Nikon 400 f2.8 with built in extender - what i am very sad about Canon does not offer - but I expected more then 30mp...

Will be a good workhorse of cause, but a little "hmmm" remains

I am a sports shooter (still using two 1DX) and was also disappointed with 30 MP. A few months ago, I tried the Nikon Z9 with the latest 400 2.8 with inbuilt extender.

Read my previous post about why I will not switch from 1DX to Z9 (spoiler: too much noise at high ISO).

 

[schneidermax.photo]

I'm kind of curious as to how many of the whiners and complainers in regards to the rumored 30 MP have actually shot with both a 30 MP and 45 MP camera? I have, and the difference is not that much in real life, hand-held shooting. But who cares about reality. Everyone knows you can't shoot wildlife, sports, product, portrait, etc, with only 30 MP!!

Seriously, how stupid can people get. Complaints about Canon being 2 years behind, about nothing really innovative, about this being nothing but an R3 mark II.... Except that the readout speed is 5 TIMES faster than the R3. (Yeah, but it's not global shutter...) No, it's probably better than a global shutter.
And 120 fps compared to the R3's 30fps, (I think it is)...which would be 4 TIMES greater. And 1 second pre-shooting, and a whole lot more.

Of the new RF system i do own the R5 and R6, so old and new world + mp sizes are well known...
I`m kind of curious as to how many of the people here earn their living for them and their family with photography?

120 fps will be to much to use, many of us sports shooters will use slower modes (to many pics to go through).
in stadiums we seek the cropping possibility of distance shots to gets better -> which is in my initialy named Nikon MP + Lens Combi better)

pre-shooting will be fun!

 

[scyrene]

I am actually more of a tele kind of guy, but I kind of like extreme focal lengths (fun!) and, as it happened, I had received the 10-20 right before the trip. So I had to give it a spin.

A shocking revelation! I thought your favourite focal length was 35mm

 

[schneidermax.photo]

I am a sports shooter (still using two 1DX) and was also disappointed with 30 MP. A few months ago, I tried the Nikon Z9 with the latest 400 2.8 with inbuilt extender.

Read my previous post about why I will not switch from 1DX to Z9 (spoiler: too much noise at high ISO).

Thanks for sharing!

I am a sports shooter too

regarding noise - some say with the Nikon it makes also a difference in jpg and raw
can you say something about that rumor?

 

[Del Paso]

A shocking revelation! I thought your favourite focal length was 35mm

You're feeding his lacrimal glands...

 

[thotho]

Thanks for sharing!

I am a sports shooter too

regarding noise - some say with the Nikon it makes also a difference in jpg and raw
can you say something about that rumor?

No idea... Shooting in RAW is not an option as I often send photos from the camera.

 

[schneidermax.photo]

No idea... Shooting in RAW is not an option as I often send photos from the camera.

same here...

 

[scyrene]

As a sports shooter i know my current 20mp doing great, but seeing what 45mp can do with Nikon (in addition to the Nikon 400 f2.8 with built in extender - what i am very sad about Canon does not offer - but I expected more then 30mp...

Genuine question, what can be done with that setup (that's distinctive)?

 

[roby17269]

A shocking revelation! I thought your favourite focal length was 35mm

Nope, never said that!
My favorite fl is actually 85mm...
But I like fast primes and there are plenty of circumstances (at least in my own experience) where 85 or 50 are too long but 24 is too wide and 35 would be perfect.
Sure I could use a zoom... but I am a self-styled prime snob

 

[scyrene]

Nope, never said that!
My favorite fl is actually 85mm...
But I like fast primes and there are plenty of circumstances (at least in my own experience) where 85 or 50 are too long but 24 is too wide and 35 would be perfect.
Sure I could use a zoom... but I am a self-styled prime snob

I tease In seriousness there's no zooms wider than f/1.8(?) so it's fair enough to prefer primes.

 

[shadowsports]

No idea... Shooting in RAW is not an option as I often send photos from the camera.

same here...

You can shoot in RAW and send files to Canon Connect as .JPG. If you have iOS (RAW and .JPG) is supported. If Android, only .JPG is currently supported.

Image.Canon allows RAW upload and processing to the cloud, and the ability to auto send images to Google Drive, Adobe, etc.

I think there are possibilities worth exploring.

Canon consistently delivers. Is the R1 going to be perfect, no. No camera ever is. Granted I really enjoy the 45MP of my R5 C, but I also recognize that quality over quantity matters and in the case of the R1 with 2 Digic X processors its going to be a magnificent camera at 30MP. Its internal image processing and AI will be superior to my 45MP and unless you are looking to heavily crop, the extra MP's are not needed. I believe Sports shooters are going to appreciate it's speed.

 

[thotho]

You can shoot in RAW and send files to Canon Connect as .JPG. If you have iOS (RAW and .JPG) is supported. If Android, only .JPG is currently supported.

Image.Canon allows RAW upload and processing to the cloud, and the ability to auto send images to Google Drive, Adobe, etc.

I think there are possibilities worth exploring.

Canon consistently delivers. Is the R1 going to be perfect, no. No camera ever is. Granted I really enjoy the 45MP of my R5 C, but I also recognize that quality over quantity matters and in the case of the R1 with 2 Digic X processors its going to be a magnificent camera at 30MP. Its internal image processing and AI will be superior to my 45MP and unless you are looking to heavily crop, the extra MP's are not needed. I believe Sports shooters are going to appreciate it's speed.

Thanks mate! Good to know. But we were talking about the Z9 as he was asking about the difference when shooting JPG or RAW

 

[Tony5787]

I'm kind of curious as to how many of the whiners and complainers in regards to the rumored 30 MP have actually shot with both a 30 MP and 45 MP camera? I have, and the difference is not that much in real life, hand-held shooting. But who cares about reality. Everyone knows you can't shoot wildlife, sports, product, portrait, etc, with only 30 MP!!

Seriously, how stupid can people get. Complaints about Canon being 2 years behind, about nothing really innovative, about this being nothing but an R3 mark II.... Except that the readout speed is 5 TIMES faster than the R3. (Yeah, but it's not global shutter...) No, it's probably better than a global shutter.
And 120 fps compared to the R3's 30fps, (I think it is)...which would be 4 TIMES greater. And 1 second pre-shooting, and a whole lot more.

I shoot birds and wildlife and I've owned both the R3 and R5 since launch and have shot extensively with them, the R3 is by far my favorite body (so much so that I'm about to sell the R5 because it doesn't get enough usage anymore). 30fps is already too many frames in 95% of situations, 120fps will be overkill in all but 99% of situations. Readout speed is also plenty fast on the R3, I've shot in plenty of situations where the R5 exhibits rolling shutter and I've never seen it a single time with the R3. Dynamic range and low light performance with the R3 are already the best of any body I've ever used, I've comfortably shot at ISO 32,000 and gotten shockingly clean results after running the files through DXO Pure RAW.

The only thing that the R3 lacks is resolution in certain situations where the subject is either incredibly small and erratic like swallows in flight or very far away. Yes extenders exist and I own both RF extenders and will not hesitate to put a 2x on my RF 400mm but the fact of the matter is that the results are cleaner when cropping in on a sensor like the R5 with a 1.4x or bare. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to buy an R1 as soon as it's released but instead of my original plan of keeping my R3 I'll most likely sell it because there's too much overlap. Hopefully the claims about 16 bit RAW will improve image quality enough that upscaling in those edge case scenarios will be sufficient.

 

[koenkooi]

[…]Hopefully the claims about 16 bit RAW will improve image quality enough that upscaling in those edge case scenarios will be sufficient.

It might be a 16 bit capable file format that gets filled with 14 bit image data. Like how the R5 fills a 14 bit file with 12 bit data when using the electronic shutter.
Special modes like bracketing or hdr might produce a true 16 bit file, but I strongly suspect regular shooting won’t.