Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[sanj]

As a professional nature and adventure photographer, the prospect of having just 30mp is a big drawback for me and would make me consider not getting this camera. I’ve used the R5 for a few years now and it’s been amazing, and when I get back to some of old photos taken in the 1Dx Mk 2 and 3, I find the resolution extremely limiting. I find the image files captured with the 5D Mk IV much more useful for working with than 1Dx.

I’ve also played around with the R3 and I find the Raw files a lot better on the R5. Even found that noise performance is better with a higher resolution - not because the R5 has less noise or grain, but because the files have so much more information that it becomes much easier to remove any noise in post. Combined with the need to print for magazines and large fine art prints.

I don’t think I’d settle for less resolution than the R5 after having used it for years, so no matter all the other specs which potentially are great, that’s a possible dealbreaker for me.

As an extreme nature photographer, I’m taking very dynamic photos in challenging conditions, and not able to have the perfect lens for every job because the moment would be gone - and having the versatility that comes with added resolution is a total game changer.

So honestly I think they dropped the ball on this one (if res specs are true) and I might just get the R5 Cine instead on a good price for second body or wait for the R5 Mk II.

I think the real user group who cares more about speed (that is already amazing) over resolution is a very small group of people. Probably they spend more time reviewing specs than using the camera itself. Building an extremely rugged all round camera that has the best possible image quality is however a much more appealing proposition if you ask me.

Sir. I am assuming that you need higher MPX for the need to crop for reach. For reach, longer telephoto works much better than cropping. Cropping enhances problems including atmospheric haze, camera shake, focus on the wrong eye etc. Since you are a professional, I think you will agree that a camera that does not miss a shot due to focus, lesser fps etc is much more desirable than a higher MPX camera. Saying that 30 mpx is limiting is saying that 800 mm and above are not enough. I do wildlife work regularly and know first hand that such situations are rare. I wish this camera was 50 mpx, but I doubt that then it would be same fps etc. It is a choice.

 

[sanj]

I’m not sure that is correct. From my point of view, as a user of 50mp cameras it demonstrates to me the rather huge void between those of us here on the likes of CR that enjoy making images and viewing them at 200% on a 5K monitor, and those who are needing to just make a high quality, sharp, high resolution picture, where the requirement is to just view the whole image, not start picking it apart at 200%. I guess the vast amount of people in the latter group are those that buy 1 series.
If you’re in the latter group 30mp is high resolution.

From my point of view, Canon is providing the maximum mpx it can while being able to give speed etc. Sir.

 

[sanj]

Can’t argue with what you want, but when I look at current Wildlife photography awards, like the National Geographic for instance, I see many of the photographers choose cameras that are relatively ‘low’ mp. Clearly those people they have put other features above higher mp.

They invest in lenses and such. They prefer a camera that helps in getting the shot via focus accuracy, fps etc. As processing power increases, Canon will keep increasing mpx.

 

[FaolainWolf]

Upon further reflection . . . it's all about expectations. If you're expecting the R1 to compete with the 1Dx and R3, this is all good news. According to these specs, the R1 should be a step forward. But if you thought Canon might step up and FINALLY compete with the 3-year old Sony a1 . . . well, the rumored specs aren't even trying. We can be disappointed (and I am), but Canon's clearly not worried about that. They're not even pretending to compete with the a1 or the Z9 with this camera. IF the specs are as rumored, the R1 will be the ultimate camera for committed Canon loyalists and those who prefer their images with less resolution. And it's a safe niche! Nobody else is trying to make a 1Dx. Now . . . where does that place a Canon shooter who wants greater resolution and ISN'T blindly committed to the brand? Well . . . either the R5ii steps WAAAAAAAY up to take on the a1 and Z9, or we start anticipating the Sony a1ii announcement. (So . . . when is the a1ii announcement going to happen?) If I'm a professional making images at the Olympics? Given all the options out there, I'm not sure this is the camera I want. The technology has changed. Small images are no longer the virtue they once were.

 

[Gunnar]

Can’t argue with what you want, but when I look at current Wildlife photography awards, like the National Geographic for instance, I see many of the photographers choose cameras that are relatively ‘low’ mp. Clearly those people they have put other features above higher mp.

Do you have personal experience working with Nat Geo? Because I do. And let’s not put them too high on a pedestal. I don’t put my worth in what National Geographic does, but in being the best possible artist I can be creating incredible stories.

 

[Sporgon]

Do you have personal experience working with Nat Geo? Because I do. And let’s not put them too high on a pedestal. I don’t put my worth in what National Geographic does, but in being the best possible artist I can be creating incredible stories.

No. I make the comment because I’ve been mildly surprised that a number of these professional (or full time amateur) photographers who specialise in wildlife, and have seen successfully published, don’t currently appear to value ‘high’ mp above other features. Undoubtedly this will change in time as those kind of sub to mid twenties mp cameras are no longer made, but then the definition of ‘low’ mp is rising in time, so as now seems to be the case, the ‘low’ mp 30mp sensor may in future be chosen by those kinds of photographers.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Eletronic shutter are still rolling shutter.

It claims to have a <0.8 microsecond read time.
I can't think of anything that moves that fast.
Not that I believe that claim, but there would be no drawback to a rolling shutter so fast.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They're not even pretending to compete with the a1 or the Z9 with this camera.

So you define ‘compete’ as the number of MP. That might be the only thing that matters to you, and that’s fine. You might consider that others have different priorities, and that Canon is more likely to understand the priorities of their market than you.

If I'm a professional making images at the Olympics? Given all the options out there, I'm not sure this is the camera I want.

But…are you? How many of them have you talked to about what they want? Do you believe Canon has not considered their desires?

 

[neuroanatomist]

It claims to have a <0.8 microsecond read time.
I can't think of anything that moves that fast.
Not that I believe that claim, but there would be no drawback to a rolling shutter so fast.

It’s milliseconds, not microseconds. Been pointed out several times already. 0.8 ms is about 5x faster than current stacked sensors.

 

[Quack]

.... But if you thought Canon might step up and FINALLY compete with the 3-year old Sony a1 . . . well, the rumored specs aren't even trying. We can be disappointed (and I am), but Canon's clearly not worried about that. They're not even pretending to compete with the a1 or the Z9 with this camera. IF the specs are as rumored, the R1 will be the ultimate camera for committed Canon loyalists and those who prefer their images with less resolution. ...

It's all about MPs. Yeah, more MPs!!!!! MPs are all that matters!!!!!!!!

Try not to sound like a fool.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Upon further reflection . . . it's all about expectations. If you're expecting the R1 to compete with the 1Dx and R3, this is all good news. According to these specs, the R1 should be a step forward. But if you thought Canon might step up and FINALLY compete with the 3-year old Sony a1 . . . well, the rumored specs aren't even trying. We can be disappointed (and I am), but Canon's clearly not worried about that. They're not even pretending to compete with the a1 or the Z9 with this camera. IF the specs are as rumored, the R1 will be the ultimate camera for committed Canon loyalists and those who prefer their images with less resolution. And it's a safe niche! Nobody else is trying to make a 1Dx. Now . . . where does that place a Canon shooter who wants greater resolution and ISN'T blindly committed to the brand? Well . . . either the R5ii steps WAAAAAAAY up to take on the a1 and Z9, or we start anticipating the Sony a1ii announcement. (So . . . when is the a1ii announcement going to happen?) If I'm a professional making images at the Olympics? Given all the options out there, I'm not sure this is the camera I want. The technology has changed. Small images are no longer the virtue they once were.

So the days of doom are finally upon us, upon us blind Canon devotees?

 

[neuroanatomist]

So the days of doom are finally upon us, upon us blind Canon devotees?

Yes, apparently nearly 50% of all camera buyers are Canon devotees who only use Canon cameras because of blind loyalty to the brand. Clearly Canon can’t compete with Sony and Nikon, so they’ve given up trying. DOOM!!!

 

[3kramd5]

If I'm a professional making images at the Olympics? Given all the options out there, I'm not sure this is the camera I want. The technology has changed. Small images are no longer the virtue they once were.

Tell that to Sony, whose new Olympics-intended camera has maintained 24MP for three iterations, and whose a7s line has maintained 12MP for three iterations.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Yes, apparently nearly 50% of all camera buyers are Canon devotees who only use Canon cameras because of blind loyalty to the brand. Clearly Canon can’t compete with Sony and Nikon, so they’ve given up trying. DOOM!!!

I've already heard all kinds of insults from those experts - that I'm blind, that I'm stupid, loyal to the abuser, that I can't see beyond my nose, that I'm crazy, that I don't understand and know almost nothing, that I let Canon beat me and its products with a cripple hammer...

 

[Deleted member 383640]

By the way, I have nothing against Nikon, on the contrary, I really like the brand and I think I understand their policy. Sony is the complete opposite of everything I personally want, but I have no problem accepting that someone likes Sony. However, what I find completely unacceptable in people is extracting and squeezing individual details and presenting them as the only merit. That would be like me being mean and showing a chart (and I will show it) where you can clearly see that Nikon is catastrophically behind Canon in terms of dynamic range. Especially at the value of ISO 400, the difference is completely unacceptable for me (of course not, this is all just a joke of mine) and I'm sure that Nikon will fail because of it.

 

[Sporgon]

Thank goodness you didn’t include the D5 & 6 !

 

[neuroanatomist]

That would be like me being mean and showing a chart (and I will show it) where you can clearly see that Nikon is catastrophically behind Canon in terms of dynamic range.

Sony has claimed the global shutter in the a9III does not result in a loss of DR. I doubt Sony outright lied, but rather told the truth from a certain point of view (I believe I've already mentioned that old guy with the ghostly blue glow). I presume they mean that the a9III has equivalent DR to its predecessor at the same ISO. Except that the base ISO of the a9III is 250, where the a9II delivers a bit under 10 stops of DR.

The rumor above indicates that the R1 will have better DR than the R3, which is already 2 stops better than the a9III is likely to be with both cameras at base ISO. I know there are many people here who will remember those that claimed Canon was doomed because Sony cameras (and Nikon cameras with Sony sensors) had much better low ISO DR, and Canon just wasn't competitive. Lol.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry, my bad. We shouldn’t be talking about DR anymore. Megapixels are waaaayyyyy more important.

That’s why Canon is still doomed.

 

[John Wilde]

Small images are no longer the virtue they once were.

Are you referring to the 24MP Sony a9 III?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Are you referring to the 24MP Sony a9 III?

No, no, see because that camera has a global shutter, which is why it’s so much better than anything Canon offers.

See, Sony gives people a choice – a faster camera with lower MP or a slower camera with higher MP. Canon doesn’t offer anything even remotely like that.