Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Del Paso]

The F2's viewfinder is like going to the IMAX cinema. I picked up my dad's F2 to get rid of an expired roll of T-Max and honestly taking the pictures was more fun than looking at them (I might also have messed up the development, but luckily no one knows that ).

The Nikon F2, if Nikon had fitted it with a selective or spot exposure measuring, would have been THE perfect camera. That's the only feature I missed, and the main reason why I often prefered the Leicaflex SLs. Otherwise, the F2 was in every other feature far superior, an absolutely gorgeous camera! And a beauty too!
The mirrorless Nikons are cameras...

 

[neuroanatomist]

My point is that spatial resolution may be better with more pixels, often improved fine detail in images too, however, only in ideal lighting conditions. With less light, the camera sensor with larger pixels will produce superior images, especially in rendering shadows and darker colors. We rarely have ideal light.

My point is what you say is true for the pixels, but not for the picture. Yes, if you’re examining your images at 100%, then the smaller pixels will look noisier. But if you’re viewing images from two full frame sensors with substantially different pixel sizes on the same monitor, they will look essentially the same as far as noise goes, even for images taken in low light. The higher MP image will be downsampled more, mitigating the additional noise.

This issue was beaten to death when the 5Ds came out. Image noise is determined by total light gathered, which is a function of sensor area, not pixel size.

If you 2x2 bin 80 MP down to 20 MP, the noise is the same as a 20 MP sensor, even in low light. That wasn’t always true, with old sensors the photosensitive area of each pixel was sometimes as little as 20-25% of the area and there was a big noise penalty for more pixels. But gapless microlenses obviated that issue, so now a 2x2 array of pixels delivers the same effective output as the equivalent single pixel when viewed at the image level.

Your point is relevant to pixel peepers, not so much to those of us who look at whole images. There are good reasons to choose a lower MP sensor over a higher MP one, but less image noise or better low light performance aren’t among them.

 

[DrD]

My point is what you say is true for the pixels, but not for the picture. Yes, if you’re examining your images at 100%, then the smaller pixels will look noisier. But if you’re viewing images from two full frame sensors with substantially different pixel sizes on the same monitor, they will look essentially the same as far as noise goes, even for images taken in low light. The higher MP image will be downsampled more, mitigating the additional noise.

This issue was beaten to death when the 5Ds came out. Image noise is determined by total light gathered, which is a function of sensor area, not pixel size.

If you 2x2 bin 80 MP down to 20 MP, the noise is the same as a 20 MP sensor, even in low light. That wasn’t always true, with old sensors the photosensitive area of each pixel was sometimes as little as 20-25% of the area and there was a big noise penalty for more pixels. But gapless microlenses obviated that issue, so now a 2x2 array of pixels delivers the same effective output as the equivalent single pixel when viewed at the image level.

Your point is relevant to pixel peepers, not so much to those of us who look at whole images. There are good reasons to choose a lower MP sensor over a higher MP one, but less image noise isn’t one of them.

You are focusing on the vernacular 'noise' when what I was really discussing was low-light performance. My bad, I chose the wrong word.

 

[DrD]

The question is if it averages out when looking at the whole image or not. I suspect very small pixels are worse at some point, even when looking at the whole image. But I don't know when that happens.

Larger pixels capture more photons. This is why the Sony A7S3 has a 12MP sensor, to allow it to capture better low-light video.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You are focusing on the vernacular 'noise' when what I was really discussing was low-light performance. My bad, I chose the wrong word.

Same logic applies. Noise floor impacts DR, etc., all of that applies at the pixel level, not at the picture level. The main determinant of noise, low light performance, ‘image quality’, etc., is sensor size not pixel size.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Larger pixels capture more photons. This is why the Sony A7S3 has a 12MP sensor, to allow it to capture better low-light video.

It’s good to see their marketing strategy is effective. Do you also believe the a9 III’s global shutter has no detrimental effect on DR, like Sony said?

 

[Sporgon]

When introduced around 1964 the now famous Pentax Spotmatic, one of the first cameras to have through the lens metering, was going to be just a spot meter, hence the camera name. However, at the last minute Pentax realised that for the majority of the users spot metering would be an exposure disaster and changed to centre weighted metering, which is what was then generally used across the industry until matrix (intelligent) metering arrived in the mid ‘85s. However, it was too late to change the name and so we had the famous Spotmatic that was actually nothing of the sort. But Centreweightedmatic doesn’t sound so good anyway.
On the net there is always this call for spot meter linked to AF point. I wonder if many of those people understand the implications of this regarding correct exposure ? For instance if you’re following a football player in a white shirt and spot metering you’re going to under expose the image. The reverse if it were a black shirt.
With Canon Evaluative metering the exposure does take in to account where and what the AF point is located on, so in fact Evaluative metering is already “AF point linked metering”.
I agree on the F2, it was the pinnacle of all mechanical SLR development.

 

[Anon]

Do you also believe the a9 III’s global shutter has no detrimental effect on DR, like Sony said?

To be fair, in the higher ISO ranges, where the A9III is likely going to be used, the detrimental effect is not as pronounced as it is at base ISO compared to the A9II. If we assume that it is mostly targeted at A9II users, then the statement holds somewhat true*.

* With a lot of asterisk-text, as per usual

 

[DrD]

It’s good to see their marketing strategy is effective. Do you also believe the a9 III’s global shutter has no detrimental effect on DR, like Sony said?

I've watched both Tool's 24MP head to head R3 vs A9III test shot comparison and Jared Polin's real world sports photo comparison and the A9III does suffer as a result of the global shutter. No doubt about it.

 

[Anon]

However, it was too late to change the name and so we had the famous Spotmatic that was actually nothing of the sort. But Centreweightedmatic doesn’t sound so good anyway.

Also the name does not quite fit on the body :

 

[DrD]

Same logic applies. Noise floor impacts DR, etc., all of that applies at the pixel level, not at the picture level. The main determinant of noise, low light performance, ‘image quality’, etc., is sensor size not pixel size.

Image quality is seriously impacted by choice of lens. This is the other aspect of higher MP sensors that nobody here is talking about. Which RF lenses can resolve high-resolution (say 60MP) sensors, corner-to-corner?

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

If I’m honest, I’m not really blown away by the specs.. Usually Canon is better than their specs so we’ll see. The sync speed is weird not being “any speed” like the Sony when you have pure electronic shutter. Resolution is disappointing , I expected 45 at least. AF will, as always, be the most interesting aspect. Sony have issues with sharpness using the the fully electronic, hopefully Canon as solved that as well.

No mention of Quadpixel AF?

I have been saving my pennies to move up to the R1 but if it ends up with the rumored resolution, I'll stick with my R5 at least until the R5-II comes out.

 

[danfaz]

For instance if you’re following a football player in a white shirt and spot metering you’re going to under expose the image. The reverse if it were a black shirt.

What about when the player is wearing black pants & white shirt?

 

[koenkooi]

When introduced around 1964 the now famous Pentax Spotmatic, one of the first cameras to have through the lens metering, was going to be just a spot meter, hence the camera name. However, at the last minute Pentax realised that for the majority of the users spot metering would be an exposure disaster and changed to centre weighted metering, which is what was then generally used across the industry until matrix (intelligent) metering arrived in the mid ‘85s. However, it was too late to change the name and so we had the famous Spotmatic that was actually nothing of the sort. But Centreweightedmatic doesn’t sound so good anyway.
On the net there is always this call for spot meter linked to AF point. I wonder if many of those people understand the implications of this regarding correct exposure ? For instance if you’re following a football player in a white shirt and spot metering you’re going to under expose the image. The reverse if it were a black shirt.
With Canon Evaluative metering the exposure does take in to account where and what the AF point is located on, so in fact Evaluative metering is already “AF point linked metering”.
I agree on the F2, it was the pinnacle of all mechanical SLR development.

With face+eye detect AF I would hope it would meter on the face, not the shirt.

 

[koenkooi]

Image quality is seriously impacted by choice of lens. This is the other aspect of higher MP sensors that nobody here is talking about. Which RF lenses can resolve high-resolution (say 60MP) sensors, corner-to-corner?

We can make an informed guess by comparing corner+center performance on the R5 to the center performance on the R7. The R7 resolution matches a 82MP FF sensor.

And for looking at corner performance, are you focusing the lens on that corner or focusing on the center and assuming zero field curvature?

 

[DrD]

We can make an informed guess by comparing corner+center performance on the R5 to the center performance on the R7. The R7 resolution matches a 82MP FF sensor.

And for looking at corner performance, are you focusing the lens on that corner or focusing on the center and assuming zero field curvature?

tbh I am thinking about a lens I have the 28-70 and a respected YT lens tester Chris Frost, who tested the lens 4 years ago on an R, then recently again on the R5 and R7. His conclusions were that corner sharpness was noticeably less on the higher MP of the R5 (than on the 30MP R), but the R7 struggled with this lens. For portrait photographers, they may not care, clearly landscape ones do care about the ability to resolve details across the frame. So to answer your question, it is corner performance (could be important in sports too depending on the composition).

 

[danfaz]

tbh I am thinking about a lens I have the 28-70 and a respected YT lens tester Chris Frost, who tested the lens 4 years ago on an R, then recently again on the R5 and R7. His conclusions were that corner sharpness was noticeably less on the higher MP of the R5 (than on the 30MP R),

I saw that, too, but I wonder if he might have had a bad lens. He does rent those, so is it possible the lens was out-of-spec? I think it would be odd Canon only made the 28-70 to be sharp with 30MP on a brand new mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

However, it was too late to change the name and so we had the famous Spotmatic that was actually nothing of the sort.

Nonsense. After all, if Canon renamed the R1 to the R3 at the last minute, why couldn't Pentax have done the same? Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy!

 

[DrD]

I saw that, too, but I wonder if he might have had a bad lens. He does rent those, so is it possible the lens was out-of-spec? I think it would be odd Canon only made the 28-70 to be sharp with 30MP on a brand new mount.

L lens quality control is high (I imagine). I don't know if the lens he used had any issues, perhaps he should have included a lower res body like R6II or R8 as well. I should test mine at 70 mm against my 70-200 at f2.8, at 50 mm against my 50 f1.2 but at f2, likewise at 28 and 35 with my 15-35 at f2.8. Preferably, outside on a tripod, in the hills etc., with a real world natural scene. Weather permitting, I will do this soon, as I am very curious about it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To be fair, in the higher ISO ranges, where the A9III is likely going to be used, the detrimental effect is not as pronounced as it is at base ISO compared to the A9II. If we assume that it is mostly targeted at A9II users, then the statement holds somewhat true*.

* With a lot of asterisk-text, as per usual

As I've said before, I suspect that their statement derives from the DR at ISO 250 being similar to the a9II, conveniently ignoring the fact that the a9II has a base ISO of 100 with a stop more DR.