Canon EOS R1 Spotted in the wild at the Monaco GP
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
SO freaking excited for this, my 100-300 2.8 is just waiting to get slapped on this bad boy. I certainly wouldn't have minded 30 or more MP but with the new CF express 4.0 standard and 24mp you'll be able to goddamn fall asleep on the shutter and not ever outrun the buffer.
Official release cannot come soon enough!!
Official release cannot come soon enough!!
Upvote
0
Die hard? Certainly not. Have all three systems off and on. Owned R5 for half a year, had R3 on loan from CPS a couple times. Owned Z9 twice. Have used Z8 only once. Currently shoot A1. Recently had A9III for 3 week loaner and didn't fall in love so won't be getting one permanently.
What else have I owned...how about Canon 7D, 7DII, 5DII, 5DIII, 5DSR, 5DIV, 1DIV, 1DX, 1DXII; Nikon D500, D850, Z50, Z7, Z8 (loaner), Z9; Sony A9, A9II, A7RIV, A7RV (loaner), A1, A9III (loaner).
I never said the A1 has pre-capture. I said the A9III is the only FF camera that has a good implementation and the current Canon implementation is a JOKE...as others pointed out to you after your post. That is why I said if the R5II has a good implementation of pre-capture that would be a differentiating factor from the A1/Z9/Z8 competition. If it has the implementation in current Canon camera then it is as useful as the A1's implementation...ie should just not exist at all.
Yes, A1 requires Compressed RAW to max out the FPS....as the A9 and A9II did to reach 20FPS. Only the A9III finally bucks that trend and can shoot 120FPS in all formats. This may be a deal breaker for some. For me it isn't as I've shot in Compressed on all my Sony cameras to date and have no issues with IQ for my subject matter. I also shot Canon in CRAW and shot Nikon in HE* so I never choose the Lossless RAW formats anyways as I prioritize, buffer clearing and card space over Lossless as I've never been able to see a difference in my subject matter. Others may differ in this and make choices accordingly.
R3 is 24MP, if it wasn't faster in some things compared to 50MP, I'd be very disappointed. R3 is my favourite ergonomic camera I've ever used. If Canon could do an R3S with R5II sensor in the R3 body that would be ideal...I might even buy back in (I still have a backpack full of EF Canon glass I adapt on Sony for now).
A1 price is high when compared to Z9/Z8. Compared to Canon...well hard to compare as they don't have a camera that has similar specs. R5II may be that camera and then for sure if current rumour of $3,999 is correct it will make the A1 look more overpriced then it is already appears. But we are getting 3.5 years into A1 lifespan so hard to compare as the market has changed. We will really have to wait for A1II to do a true price/feature comparison between A1II, R5II, R1 (more likely this will be compared to A9III) and Z8 or maybe future Z8II.
White balance??? no idea, I shoot a fixed K value on all my cameras so have no experience with AWB.
Upvote
1
The Canon R3 S ...that is, a higher megapixel version version of the R3...an R3 Mk II so to speak...would be a welcome addition to me camera bag. If an R3 S were to launch later this year, I'd definitely buy the R3 S early next year, if it were available then. Until then, fingers crossed for Canon to release an R3 S camera!
Upvote
0
I did enjoy the EOS-1Ds days.... I'd love to see them give a shot. If we don't buy it, then that's that.
Upvote
0
Nah. More interested in the sensor. I'm not the market for this one.
I dont understand the complaints about Mpx. The 1-Series Camera from Canon is a Profi-Tool, not for everyone. It is a specialised niche-product for People who are earning their money with certain types of photos - for instance Sport. Canon serves their demands and does so successfully.
As far as I know, sports-photographer sell jpegs within a very short time after the pics are taken. Those pics are not extensively edited in Photoshop prior to selling, beacuse there is not time for it. They must be perfect when taken. And the camera must deliver photos which need no further editing. This is exactly, what a 1Dx (I, II, III) can do and what is expected from an R1. This is it, what the professionals want, nothing else. They want to sell their photos very fast and need a tool which delivers high quality-pics instantly. Mpx doesnt matter in this case, only speed.
Those who need something else will take another tool.
As far as I know, sports-photographer sell jpegs within a very short time after the pics are taken. Those pics are not extensively edited in Photoshop prior to selling, beacuse there is not time for it. They must be perfect when taken. And the camera must deliver photos which need no further editing. This is exactly, what a 1Dx (I, II, III) can do and what is expected from an R1. This is it, what the professionals want, nothing else. They want to sell their photos very fast and need a tool which delivers high quality-pics instantly. Mpx doesnt matter in this case, only speed.
Those who need something else will take another tool.
Upvote
0
"Readout of about 2ms (Claimed)"
This is less than a previous claim of 0.8msec I had read in this site.
I understand it is a rumors site and anyway it is really good. But, R5MkII has to have a similar (or close) readout to beat the 45mpixel Z8/Z9.
This is less than a previous claim of 0.8msec I had read in this site.
I understand it is a rumors site and anyway it is really good. But, R5MkII has to have a similar (or close) readout to beat the 45mpixel Z8/Z9.
Upvote
0
That's why source links exist.
Claimed Z9 readout speeds are all over the place and the R5 is nowhere near that.
In regards to the Z9, lots of shooters have had issues with rolling shutter and stills.
If you look at rolling shutter for video from CineD (transparent testing methodology), both the Z9 (14.5ms) are R5 (15.5ms) are well behind the R3 (9.5ms). The Sony A1 sits at 8.1ms.
There is no database of legitimate testing of stills readout speeds that I have come across. Please let me know if you have found one.
Upvote
0
Well, sensor resolution is a very "digital" matter. You can get a microscope and count the pixels. It can resolve images with that resolution, and as far as I know near perfect contrast.
Lens resolution is a curve, of course. As details get finer, they get less contrasty. You might be able to resolve a fine detail, only if it is made of black and white lines, and even the sensor only sees slightly lighter and darker mid-grey. And even then, resolution varies across the image field, typically falling as you move to the corners, and will vary according to whether the detail in question is radial or sagittal.
For people concerned with readout speed, such as sports photography, you'd want less resolution on the sensor (being less pixels to read out) and to spend more money on the lens (so that it can render as high contrast as possible for those pixels).
But a more general purpose shooter probably would want the limit to be about the same on both, to the extent you can even compare the digital sensor resolution with the analog lens resolution. A lens that can deliver 200MP at 90% contrast is a waste of money on a 10MP sensor. A 200MP sensor would be a waste of money with a lens that can only deliver 25MP at 50% contrast.
Upvote
0
Here is a great and recent resource made by a long-time member of both DPReview forums and FM Forums (Horshack/snapsy). He has tested a lot of cameras both in stills and video modes. Further info available through that site:
Full article on his testing/methods/analysis etc: https://github.com/horshack-dpreview/RollingShutter
Upvote
0
Yes, I think you saw that I said it was sharper than the sharpest Canon lens from the 90s. :-D
I think it's spec is excellent. 24-105 covers my needs most of the time, and has all the time I've shot. F/4, I've argued at length in other posts, is, I think, the modern-day "f/2.8" due to the facts that 1) we use our photos at far higher magnification now than before, so the f/4 bokeh is bigger now than f/2.8 was 10-20 years ago, and, due to low noise, high ISO yielding fast shutters that limit subject blur, and IS/IBIS, and basically perfect focus, the difference between in-focus subjects and out-of-focus bokeh is far clearer now than ever before. (And on EF we couldn't even use the AF properly without f/2.8, so that reason to buy f/2.8 zooms is gone now too.)
I would like Canon to make a second, bigger, heavier, more expensive, but also sharper 24-105/4. The EF era had two, with the first being the size of the RF, but softer, and the second being bigger than the RF but almost as sharp. I had a 16-lens EF outfit so I actually kept the smaller version since I had f/2.8 lenses and lots of primes for serious shooting.
Upvote
0
a1 in full sensor video (so 8k24) has also around 15 ms. Its 8 ms figure comes from 4K60, which is lineskipped/pixel binned. Video RS is just different from photo as there are other factors in place.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
