Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Anon]

Why is there so much Sony talk in a Canon forum? Let's stick to the R1?

 

[Bob Howland]

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...

But have you ever been told that you "have a tenuous grip on reality"? If some of the people on this website behaved at work like they do here, I'm pretty sure they would be fired. I suppose Craig needs the clicks.

 

[3kramd5]

Why is there so much Sony talk in a Canon forum? Let's stick to the R1?

Seems to be very little Sony talk. Much more R5 talk.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

My road to the R5 was a bit bumpy, but once I got to the R5, I can testify that it is a truly fantastic camera. Unlike the Z8 which only has two dials, the R5 has three, the R5 is 170g lighter than the Z8, has a better dynamic range, (it doesn't really matter too much to me, but I do want to point it out ), the EVF resolution is higher at R5 compared to Z8, the price of the R5 is currently significantly lower than the price of the Z8, the RAW files (especially C-RAW) of the R5 are significantly smaller, the support for legacy lenses from 1987 onwards is incomparably better with the R5, the display on the R5 can face forward, etc., etc. Probably the Z8 has some comparative advantages over the R5, but those advantages are irrelevant to me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to push something like that on others and claim that it's Nikon therefore doomed or that all those who buy Z8 are not in their right mind.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Seems to be very little Sony talk. Much more R5 talk.

Well, let's get back to the topic...

I see almost no flaws in the future R1 - in light of this latest rumor. It will be a camera that many will want, few will be able (or want) to afford it, but I think it will arouse jealousy among many. And there is no better situation than if Nikon and Sony try (and succeed) to outdo Canon in their next cameras. Competition is almost always a good thing.

But to generalize things solely based on one's own needs or desires is, to say the least, improper.

 

[DrD]

The term 'AI' seems like a marketing tool. What is AI? Companies have been computer/machine help for years in Siri, auto focus, search engines, predictive text etc etc. Now suddenly as this same technology gets better, they call it AI to get milage. Thoughts?

Three is overlap between AI and ML (think Venn diagram), both are based upon algorithms. Deep learning is part of AI but is also a subfield of ML. AI seeks to use fuzzy logic to build logic-based expert systems and can involve Bayesian networks (relying on anterior or assumed probabilities, later revised with more data), whereas ML uses clustering, neural networks, various linear, nonlinear and symbolic approaches to learning. I have been teaching PhD students this stuff for the last 7 years.

From a photography perspective AI algorithms and chips like those used by some Sony cameras, use deep learning techniques to develop the algorithms -> essentially a training exercise. They train the logic system to recognise objects, for instance; birds, vehicles, planes, humans, other animals etc. The more examples the AI algorithm is exposed to, the better it gets at recognising the differences between say a racoon and a honey badger (or could be between different types of birds). You can also train the system to select specific objects against a particular background -> think white bird against a pale sky, or dark sky, or dark bird against a pale/dark sky, not just for focus tracking but for correct exposure also.

These computational models that are developed can become quite large, hence the move to dedicated chips to run these algorithms, alongside the main camera processor. It makes sense to hive them off to a dedicated chip. Whether the R1 will have such a separate chip is not yet known, perhaps it will not need one if the new Digic X2S (whatever it will be called) is powerful enough to run these algorithms whilst doing all the other things it needs to do. My R5 has some AI capabilities - you set the AF method to Servo/People/Eye-detect and you are essentially telling the camera the anterior probability (look for a person or group of persons), once the camera focuses on human(s) it then knows that they have faces at the top of their bodies, what the ratios are between chin/mouth/nose/eyes etc and can select the eyes (usually the nearest to the lens). But what if a person closes their eyes? This would be an illustration where more sophisticated AI would know if the eye was opened or closed, or if they wore spectacles covering the eye, or if those spectacles were actually sunglasses, and so on.

So, AI is real in photography, and not just a marketing term to hype a new model. Do we want more and improved AI in our cameras? Yes!

 

[Del Paso]

Seems to be very little Sony talk. Much more R5 talk.

Even little Soni talk is too much talk!

 

[Del Paso]

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.

And I may add that you've proven that you know what you're talking about!

 

[john1970]

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.

Your reply demonstrates your knowledge of photography! Bravo!

 

[Vilacom]

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.

By your definition ARRI hasn't been competing with RED or Sony for years and their laughable 8.5 megapixel garbage fire of a new release that was the final nail in the coffin that let those other two companies completely dominate the cinema space....wait no, looks like actual professionals don't give a shit about resolution and just want quality output.

Like people constantly talk about how Canon needs an answer to the A1, the reality is(and this is backed up by MANY MANY comparison articles and reviews) the R5 ALREADY competes very very well against the A1(https://fstoppers.com/gear/would-prefer-canon-eos-r5-or-sony-a1-562249 , https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-A1-vs-Canon-EOS-R5 , literally every single comparison article or video out there comes to basically the same conclusion) but costs half as much. $3399 vs $6498. Like I'd pretty cheerfully argue that the R5 is probably the best value professional/prosumer camera on the market right now at $3400 and you're getting about 95% of the A1's performance, very much to the point that no one will ever see any difference outside of another professional with side by side comparison. Love wildlife shooting? Buy an R5, the new 200-800 lens and you're still not up to the cost of the A1 for the body alone, use that $1000 on a weekend trip to do some shooting!

As to your question, where does it place a Canon Shooter who want's greater resolution? Depends on what else they want, if they purely are looking for only higher megapixels...well they can wait for an R5 mk2 which will probably be in that 50-60 range, or stay at 45 with more advanced AF and shooting modes which should do fine, they can go for an R7 for the higher pixel density on the subject for a pseudo 80ish megapixel effective picture, or they can switch to a different system of course. But if they say want to stick with a system that allows them to spend $1900 an get a 200-800mm lens, they may have to accept that maybe 45 megapixels is gonna be whats available for the near future and put more focus on composition with that greater reach so cropping is less of a factor.

 

[MiJax]

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

Even 0.8 of a millisecond seems outlandish for a Canon (or anyone) right now. I'd argue that's probably 3+ generations away. Just 2-3 years ago, Canon was the slowest readout in the big leagues (excluding the 4/3rds folks). Now, someone is trying to tell me they figured out how to do it 5x better than the class leaders... Just seems suspect. I'm not gonna give this entire rumor a lot of weight.

The stated rumor spec of 0.8 microseconds could have some validity if they were measuring some lag in a global sensor's output, but that's the only way that this spec makes any sense. However, a global sensor is in conflict with the flash sync, not to mention, the omission of it being a global sensor. Just doesn't pass the sniff test, IMO.

The fact of the matter is, the wait is almost over should be breaking cover soon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even 0.8 of a millisecond seems outlandish for a Canon (or anyone) right now. I'd argue that's probably 3+ generations away. Just 2-3 years ago, Canon was the slowest readout in the big leagues (excluding the 4/3rds folks).

Just 2-3 years ago the R5 was released, and at ~15 ms readout speed, it’s the fastest non-stacked CMOS sensor in an ILC, and it’s FF. The R6II/R8 are even faster. They’re twice as fast as other brands’ non-stacked FF sensors. Among stacked sensors, the R3 is ~30% slower than some, but it’s faster than APS-C and m4/3 stacked Fuji/OM sensors.

 

[Dragon]

The term "16 bit DGO-RAW" is interesting. The C70 had DGO, but no RAW output, so this would suggest a processing step to capture and blend both gain channels into a RAW file. If it has DGO similar to the C70, and DPAF, then we are really looking at a 120 MP sensor that has to be read out at these high rates and that is pretty impressive, not to mention that 16 bit output could offer two more full stops of Dynamic range. Somehow I think this is going to be a very interesting camera to more than just the sports shooters. This could be the first truly "ISO independent" camera.

 

[Pixel]

I really wished that Canon would make spot metering linked to the AF point for 5 series cameras, but to my knowledge (and I may be incorrect) Canon has typically reserved this feature for a 1-series cameras. I find this odd because both Sony and Nikon offer this across more than their flagship cameras.

Call me crazy but when I started seeing a live view of my exposure in the EVF, metering suddenly meant very little to me anymore. ‍

 

[Dragon]

Call me crazy but when I started seeing a live view of my exposure in the EVF, metering suddenly meant very little to me anymore. ‍

Spot metering is still very handy for back-lit subjects.

 

[Pixel]

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.

The flagship is mainly marketed to the news and sports photographers so yes, it's a smaller market. They know full well it's not going to sell R5 quantities.

 

[Pixel]

Spot metering is still very handy for back-lit subjects.

I guess but I still think I can dial it in more accurately just by looking at it, lol.

 

[Dragon]

I guess but I still think I can dial it in more accurately just by looking at it, lol.

Only if you have the time. Dial-in is not so handy for fast moving subjects.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Spot metering is still very handy for back-lit subjects.

All my R cameras have always done light metering in such a way that they determined the exposure according to "face priority". Namely, even in fully backlit scenes, if I'm in AF servo mode with face tracking, and I'm in that mode most of the time, the light metering is maintained flawlessly. So I could say that my experience is that all R's have some sort of light metering tied to the focus point - for my use case it works great.

 

[fox40phil]

No 4k240?!?!