Canon EOS R1 Spotted in the wild at the Monaco GP

[Quack]

...Someone's gonna say, "Those files would be too big for pro sports photogs." Maybe true. But they can use the R3. They're a tiny group. They've gotten by with far less.

Again, not quite sure why people are so dense in this area. The camera is made for news and sports photographers where speed and durability are the most important aspects. Therefore 24 MP not 45. Canon has a pro level 45 MP camera, so why should they duplicate that in a camera where 45 MP becomes a minus not a plus. If Canon were smart, they would call the R5 II the "flagship" so that gear-heads - who seem more concerned with how they will look to their friends - won't be embarrassed if they have an R5 II while their buddies have Z9's and A1's. It seems like it is not really about the camera, but about what the camera is called. Pretty stupid.

 

[neuroanatomist]

t seems like it is not really about the camera, but about what the camera is called. Pretty stupid.

I disagree. Not about your characterization of the essential nature of the whining, but that it’s about the ‘flagship’ designation/nomenclature.

I think it’s more that people were expecting a higher MP count, or even a much higher MP count, and are upset that Canon isn’t delivering what they expected. What’s asinine is that very few of those complaining would have bought the R1 regardless of the MP count.

It’s not surprising. People have been making statements on this forum for years that show they believe they know more about making and selling cameras than the company that’s led the market for two decades and dominates it today. In the end, their whining blows away like the irrelevant chaff it is, and Canon keeps delivering cameras that actual buyers purchase.

 

[JohnC]

I don't get the higher megapixel desire, not for what this camera is designed for. I could understand maybe a little more, but not in the 50mp plus range.

I get that you can crop more, but there are things you give up as well...usually low light performance, noise characteristics at higher ISO settings, etc.

Then again I'm not in the target audience anyway since I shoot primarily landscape. For my use I do t even wanted an integrated grip due to size and weight. Not sure I would want much more resolution than the R5 gives me either, at least in a full frame sensor size.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I suppose the problem is the word "flagship", which I think a lot of people consider means "the best in all ways"

This was not really a thing until Sony introduced the a1.
The a9 was considered their flagship up until that point.
Sony's system is completely arbitrary so they can make any camera their flagship at any time.
Canon is stuck with the R1 and Nikon is stuck with the Z9.
Of course, Canon could make an R1S or R1X.

 

[tomislavmoze]

This was not really a thing until Sony introduced the a1.
The a9 was considered their flagship up until that point.
Sony's system is completely arbitrary so they can make any camera their flagship at any time.
Canon is stuck with the R1 and Nikon is stuck with the Z9.
Of course, Canon could make an R1S or R1X.

The main confusion comes from this now old rumour from canon rumours
“jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything.“
With that statement most of us presumed that the R1 will be camera for everything.
Also 1series at one point was the highest mpx camera from canon with its 1Ds series so people where hopeful that it’s gonna happen again.

 

[P-visie]

The main confusion comes from this now old rumour from canon rumours
“jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything.“
With that statement most of us presumed that the R1 will be camera for everything.
Also 1series at one point was the highest mpx camera from canon with its 1Ds series so people where hopeful that it’s gonna happen again.

The ‘Jack of all trades, …’ statement was a quote from a source. That post was written in October 2021.

See: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r1-is-coming-here-are-a-few-things-to-expect/

 

[tomislavmoze]

The ‘Jack of all trades, …’ statement was a quote from a source. That post was written in October 2021.

See: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r1-is-coming-here-are-a-few-things-to-expect/

I know, but somehow for an unknown reason a lot of people concluded that this came from canon directly.
I do think there is a big need for a big high mpx body.
As people mentioned R3 worth be ideal to have that version.
We will found out soon, I was actually hoping for R1 to be high mpx body with ability to create smaller lossless RAW files to cover all the needs for almost everyone.

 

[P-visie]

I know, but somehow for an unknown reason a lot of people concluded that this came from canon directly.
I do think there is a big need for a big high mpx body.
As people mentioned R3 worth be ideal to have that version.
We will found out soon, I was actually hoping for R1 to be high mpx body with ability to create smaller lossless RAW files to cover all the needs for almost everyone.

Yes, Petapixel helped spreading ‘The jack of all trades’ slogan (link). Later rumors about the R1 being 100 mpx helped making these kind of rumors become ‘reality’ about the R1 in a lot of people's minds.

I do not know how big the need for a high (i.e. 45+ mpx) body with the specs similar to the R1 / R3 is. I suspect Canon will have done their marketing research and have concluded that the combination of R1 and R5 Mk II covers their intended market. Another reason may be that the technology for a high mpx, very high speed R1-like camera isn’t there yet.

 

[amorse]

I know, but somehow for an unknown reason a lot of people concluded that this came from canon directly.
I do think there is a big need for a big high mpx body.
As people mentioned R3 worth be ideal to have that version.
We will found out soon, I was actually hoping for R1 to be high mpx body with ability to create smaller lossless RAW files to cover all the needs for almost everyone.

I mean, as someone who really wants a high mp body, I do wonder if there’s really a lot of demand for a gripped high mp body. I mean, the only one on the market is the Z 9, and Fuji had the gfx 100, but in their mark 2 they moved away from a gripped body. Either it’s a niche that’s under serviced, or too small to service. Maybe you’re right and Canon ends up building in some sort of multi-resolution option for the R1 and solves that problem once and for all - could be a lot more manageable than creating a whole other line to service what may be a small market.

 

[JohnC]

I mean, as someone who really wants a high mp body, I do wonder if there’s really a lot of demand for a gripped high mp body. I mean, the only one on the market is the Z 9, and Fuji had the gfx 100, but in their mark 2 they moved away from a gripped body. Either it’s a niche that’s under serviced, or too small to service. Maybe you’re right and Canon ends up building in some sort of multi-resolution option for the R1 and solves that problem once and for all - could be a lot more manageable than creating a whole other line to service what may be a small market.

Agreed, pretty much my thoughts.

 

[koenkooi]

[…] create smaller lossless RAW files to cover all the needs for almost everyone.

The only way to do both lossless and RAW is cropping. Anything else is resampled and not RAW anymore, so goodbye to massive whitebalance adjustments in post and magic highlight recovery, or the CFA is a variant of quad-bayer and that reduces both the colour accuracy and spatial resolution in fullres mode.

If you really want fewer megapixels, but still use the whole sensor, give HEIF a try on recent (R3 or newer, the R5 era forces fake-HDR) bodies. That gets you 10-bit files in a much wider colourspace than JPEG, processed by the excellent in-camera engine.
It’s not RAW, but practically the same as the sRAW/mRAW format that the DSLRs had. That was also not RAW, but most people just looked at the name and cried victory.

Adobe handles HEIF import a lot better since the last major update to Camera Raw, export is still non-existent.

People on the dpreview forum got very, very upset at the above suggestion, they wanted resampled RAW and anything that didn’t have raw in its name was unacceptable! I guess I understand why apple called the DNG mode ‘proraw’, even it it wasn’t raw.

 

[LSXPhotog]

100+ MP sounds like pixel shift to me.

I do hope Canon will offer a handheld option for pixelshift like we’ve seen already from Olympus/OM-Systems. The need for a tripod and JPEG only kind of kills the feature of being useful for me personally, but I also don’t know how many people actually use it from any camera brand in general. It’s usually too cumbersome and requires propriety software to generate an image. But as the technology matures, I can only imagine what limitations could be lifted. Sadly, I don’t think flash will ever be an option just in my limited understanding of how it currently works…but that would be really cool.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I suppose the problem is the word "flagship", which I think a lot of people consider means "the best in all ways" but Canon seems not to (nor surely did it mean that originally).

THIS! Absolutely THIS.

I still personally think a bump to 30-36mp would have been a welcome addition, but it likely would have impacted resolution scaling performance for video as well as others areas of data throughput. That said, I would rather have a camera with its only practical limitation being image resolution because I prefer 24-26mp (sweet spot) and only need resolution higher resolution for the commercial and magazine work I do. The R5 comes in and handles that job very nicely and then goes back into the bag.

I make the majority of my income covering motorsports, events and shooting video - currently, the R3 is arguable the best camera in the world at this job with all things considered. The R1 will no doubt best the R3 in all of these categories and offer up a new, modern battery that I’ve been yearning for. It’s currently one of the few weaknesses I deal with on my R3 (I currently use up the health of 2 LP-E19 batteries a year, something I simply didn’t experience with my 1DXII.) So the R3 is my personal “flagship” camera and comes with me to every single job - photo and video.

I completely understand that my needs aren’t the needs of other photographers. Resolution may take priority for more photographers out there…but I also think that many people have set unrealistic standards for how much resolution they think they need. Just like 8 years ago a 40+mp camera may have been considered Sci-Fi space technology and now it’s considered “not enough” for a YouTuber that has never made a print or been hired for a commercial job in their life. Haha But progress is progress. I agree that it’s frustrating to see no increase in resolution from Canon while other manufacturers appear to be moving ahead. I’m just not sure there is that much importance on pushing those boundaries from a practical application, and I’m sure Canon agrees with that…

I still want a 100mp camera!!

 

[tomislavmoze]

The only way to do both lossless and RAW is cropping. Anything else is resampled and not RAW anymore, so goodbye to massive whitebalance adjustments in post and magic highlight recovery, or the CFA is a variant of quad-bayer and that reduces the both the colour accuracy and spatial resolution in fullres mode.

If you really want fewer megapixels, but still use the whole sensor, give HEIF a try on recent (R3 or newer, the R5 era forces fake-HDR) bodies. That gets you 10-bit files in a much wider colourspace than JPEG, processed by the excellent in-camera engine.
It’s not RAW, but practically the same as the sRAW/mRAW format that the DSLRs had. That was also not RAW, but most people just looked at the name and cried victory.

Adobe handles HEIF import a lot better since the last major update to Camera Raw, export is still non-existent.

People on the dpreview forum got very, very upset at the above suggestion, they wanted resampled RAW and anything that didn’t have raw in its name was unacceptable! I guess I understand why apple called the DNG mode ‘proraw’, even it it wasn’t raw.

I dont know what technology or processing Black Magic uses but with their 12k camera you can shoot raw video in both 12k ,8k and 4K I was hoping for something like that.

 

[koenkooi]

I dont know what technology or processing Black Magic uses but with their 12k camera you can shoot raw video in both 12k ,8k and 4K I was hoping for something like that.

No, you shoot BRAW, which is analog to canons raw-lite in video mode Both are also not raw, but raw “enough” to be much better than jpeg/mpeg!

 

[Alexander Ch. Wulz]

#] The INFO button is now also integrated into the vertical handle.


That's good, but the INFO button should then be swapped with the Q button.

The INFO button would then be in approximately the same thumb position in both landscape and portrait format.

Just something to think about and discuss ...

 

[TwoWheeler]

I checked that and came back with this, "The product registered with the ID DS126925 is Aldehyde Dehydrogenase, Yeast. It’s a biochemical research/analysis product by MilliporeSigma"

Third party yeast???

Take that, haters!

 

[uPhotic]

The only way to do both lossless and RAW is cropping. Anything else is resampled and not RAW anymore, so goodbye to massive whitebalance adjustments in post and magic highlight recovery, or the CFA is a variant of quad-bayer and that reduces the both the colour accuracy and spatial resolution in fullres mode.

The quad-bayer based pixel layout would cause worse accuracy than a true high mp sensor. However it is better than no higher resolution based sensor. Look at the A7sIII. That has impressive high iso performance. Now use the quad bayer layout for adding a quad pixel autofocus, adding a form of DGO which uses two of the pixels at one gain and another two at another.

I believe that is different to what canon does now for DGO though. I believe now they take the same output from the photosites then have two pipelines for it one at one gain one at another. They would most likely do this method if implemented as this has been tried and tested in the cinema line.

All this high res mode will do is allow canon to keep people at bay in terms of resolution complaints at only 24mp (if rumors are true). Would also still allow for lossless raw in both modes as all it will do is combine the individual photosites into one level for the 24mp mode. This doesn't cause compression and would be just the same as one bigger pixel. Then for the larger 96mp? version it would also allow for more resolution although would appear lower than a true 96mp.

I'm not sure what effective resolution but it may be somewhere halfway between based on what some companies using the tech do. That would be about 48mp resolving power which is around r5/z8/z9/a1.

 

[Ozarker]

Again, not quite sure why people are so dense in this area. The camera is made for news and sports photographers where speed and durability are the most important aspects. Therefore 24 MP not 45. Canon has a pro level 45 MP camera, so why should they duplicate that in a camera where 45 MP becomes a minus not a plus. If Canon were smart, they would call the R5 II the "flagship" so that gear-heads - who seem more concerned with how they will look to their friends - won't be embarrassed if they have an R5 II while their buddies have Z9's and A1's. It seems like it is not really about the camera, but about what the camera is called. Pretty stupid.

Well, I guess in your world 45mp would be duplicated by 30mp. Never said 45mp. Never said I wanted the camera. Just said I expected 30mp would be where this lands. That ain't dense, Jethro. If you can't follow a simple civil conversation and keep it that way, butt out.

Somehow I think birders, landscape, and nature photogs have far more claim on durability than some behind the rail snapper.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I mean, the only one on the market is the Z 9

I know a photographer who sold her Z 9's and bought Z 8's.
A lot of the demand was because there was no similar camera without a built-in grip.
No matter what the demand is, it is just confusing for the R1 and R3 specs to be so similar.