Canon EOS R1 Spotted in the wild at the Monaco GP

[LeeD]

EOS R1 with a Canon FD 50 f1.4. I still have one of those lenses and that will be about as close as I get to owning any part of what's in those photos. It's not a camera for me as I'm more into landscape and astro but it looks like a real beast for those needing the specs and horsepower it's going to deliver.

 

[David - Sydney]

Any real reason one of these would take an e-sim?

Cost, power/battery hit and what the problem being solved would be.
Besides that, would be the design/setup effort, collaboration with some carriers for testing and the need to have 5G antenna/chipset for roaming frequencies.

Spitballing....
It would be similar to Apple watch/iPad etc with eSim in them or IoT devices. Most IoT are low bandwidth data outputs eg remote temperature sensors but devices like Cradlepoint can be used for backup/redudant internet links for higher bandwidth applications. Internet screens on fridges haven't exactly taken off.

Installing the eSim also needs at least basic SW which Canon would need to develop. The LAN/USB-C/wifi would be used for setup connectivity.

But what would you do once connection to the mobile network is established?
Basic FTP for file transfer giving a 4th option to ethernet/bluetooth/wifi (WFT-E8A for previous 1D or similar to WFT-R10A for R5)
They could use Android and have a backend server for over-the-air cloud storage for instance.
Unlikely to use a browser etc to access the internet as they wouldn't have input capability eg I wouldn't imagine a bluetooth keyboard but maybe voice commands.

Firmware updates for security patches would be a lot more frequent than the <10 updates over 4 years that we have seen lately so ongoing R&D support would be higher.

 

[David - Sydney]

I’m guessing the same LP-E19 battery used in the R3 and 1D X II and III.

Did the LP-E19 get the capacity bump that theLC-E6 variants did?
LC-E6 (1800mAh) to LP-E6N (3.5% bump to 1865mAh in 2014) to LP-E6NH (13% bump to 2130mAh in 2019)
It would be good to have USB-C charging direct to the battery.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I totally butchered the process of moving the posts about the cryptography thing. So the missing messages are my mistake.

 

[uPhotic]

The lack of scanning shouldn't stop the camera being used though ie not for security to use the camera.

I would have thought that on a power cycle you would have to reauthenticate. Just like locking your phone or computer.

Encrypting the files would be problematic I think or.... maybe the data could be somehow encrypted into the image itself without impacting quality.

I don't think it would be used to encrypt images. More as theft prevention of the camera.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would have thought that on a power cycle you would have to reauthenticate. Just like locking your phone or computer.

I don't think it would be used to encrypt images. More as theft prevention of the camera.

Yes, rebooting would generally mean re-authenticating the user but doesn't have to ie it could be stored in non volatile memory as the last user.

But what is the purpose (assuming it is a fingerprint scanner)?
If it is for security to operate the camera then re-authentication is needed but I believe that this wouldn't be acceptable for users ie a feature that isn't used for a majority of users.
My guess is that theft is not a prime issue for users but tagging/encrypting the operator's identity within the image is a key issue for both image theft and photojournalism authentication.

The hassle of a fingerprint would be annoying but.... there is a large viewfinder and a better/simpler authentication option is to read the IRIS and embed identity that way?!? Canon is already tracking the direction so it would seem (IMHO) a cheaper option rather than a hardware reader.
It wouldn't work for video/live view mode though.

 

[HotPixels]

Not sure what rumoured specs really beat out the A1, Z9, Z8? Maybe if the precapture is properly implemented that would beat them out. So far the only FF camera that does pre-capture right is the A9III.
FPS beat Z9/Z8 but not A1.
Resolution matches Z9/Z8 but is behind A1.
Rumored 30% over R3 sensor scan speed is slightly faster but all four cameras are so close to each other it will make no difference in actual results.

Otherwise the rumoured specs don't really show any major advancements compared to 3+ yo A1 and 2+ yo Z9.

A1II should be announced end of 2024 and available end of 2024 or early 2025 (essentially one year after the A9III). Z9II sometime next year?? Will the R5II just fall 4 years behind again or will Canon have something in there that will keep up with the updates to the other brand's top cameras? No idea, we shall see.

The resolution difference between the R5 II, Z9/Z8 and A1 is negligible.

One advantage of the R5II over the A1 would be price, but of course it really depends on which system you own.

The use of eye control AF would be a feature not seen in Sony nor Nikon.

My guess is that the A1 will be an incremental upgrade, using the same processor, adding the AI chip, and the better flip out screen. The R5II most likely will also have the latest AI AF enhancements as well. I also expect the Z9 II to be an incremental upgrade. All camera companies are on a longer timeline for upgrades as the market won't support dramatic improvement with each iteration. So I don't think you'll see the R5 II fall 4 years behind these cameras. Rather I think they will all maintain rough parity and it comes down to which system you own.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Question: Would a 16 bit raw file need a new file format, eg. CR4? I wonder if the R5 M2 also has 16 bit files and therefore a mechanical shutter.

The way the CR3 format works, if Canon were to add 16-bit support, I think they wouldn't need to change the format specification, however old CR3 decoders, such as libraw, ACR and Canon's own software (DPP), might fail to read the new CR3 files.
Also Canon may introduce additions to CR3, for example, for more advanced lossy/lossless compression.

In practice it doesn't matter too much if Canon keeps CR3 format or invents a CR4 format - most likely old software won't be able to support it right away.

 

[David - Sydney]

The way the CR3 format works, if Canon were to add 16-bit support, I think they wouldn't need to change the format specification, however old CR3 decoders, such as libraw, ACR and Canon's own software (DPP), might fail to read the new CR3 files.
Also Canon may introduce additions to CR3, for example, for more advanced lossy/lossless compression.

In practice it doesn't matter too much if Canon keeps CR3 format or invents a CR4 format - most likely old software won't be able to support it right away.

CR3 already supports different bit depths eg 14 and 12 bit for MS/ES from R5. I suspect that 16 bit files will be seen as corrupt by ACR until an updated version is released.

 

[David - Sydney]

I totally butchered the process of moving the posts about the cryptography thing. So the missing messages are my mistake.

yep, something crashed big time... but the site appears to be back up now
Although no comments under the crypto post

 

[DhlcadR6]

Maybe if the precapture is properly implemented that would beat them out. So far the only FF camera that does pre-capture right is the A9III.

Die hard Sony user? Pre-capture from R7 to R6ii/R3 is ok. Your highly praised a1 doesn't have it.

FPS beat Z9/Z8 but not A1.

A1 under 14bit uncompressed 50MP RAW is not reaching 20fps, 15fps roughly. Only jpeg/lossy RAW with CFA/V90 cards allows the 50MP 30fps.
It is not fast at all.

Even if you move the goal post to jpeg only, R3 is still much faster.

A1 is a overpriced with caveats and problematic White Balance algorithm. Stop praising it.

 

[dougsv]

I would hold my horses about expecting 16 bit on the R5ii. The current FF "standard" sensor technology is not there yet to take advantage of 16 bit - even most DMF don't really take advantage of it (afaik only Phase One does). You can see it when comparing GFX100ii's (or equivalent) 16 bit vs 14 bit in Photonstophotos, the DR curves are exactly the same. Jim Kasson also has done some tests with it and found that you might only see a very very small difference in base ISO that is negligible in real life:

GFX 100S shadow performance with 14 and 16 bit precision - the last word

This is the second in a series of posts about the Fujifilm GFX 100S. If you look on the right side of this page, scroll down to the Categories section, and select GFX 100S from the dropdown list, you can see all the reviews. When I tested the GFX 100, I found the 16-bit mode

blog.kasson.com

GFX 100 EDR - the last word

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series;

blog.kasson.com

Basically, to take advantage of higher bit depth, a sensor needs to be able to reach a certain level of DR. Once I saw the calculation to correlate the bit depth to the minimum needed DR, and no FF sensor is even close to it. Photonstophotos has a plot somewhere based on this correlation saying which cameras can actually take advantage of offering a higher bit depth then they currently do (I am at work and for some reason Photonstophotos doesn't open here, so I can't hunt their links).

Canon doesn't have a history of offering very technical specs that make no real life difference just to show bigger numbers, that's more of a big S thing. If the R1 really has a 16 bit option, I expect that the DGO properties of the sensor will be what makes it worth it, and it will put every other FF (and probably the cheaper DMF ones) sensor behind in DR and high iso performance (just like the C70's sensor does to other APSC cameras). I believe this can be true and it will be the main differentiator of the R1 in comparison to the R3 or a9ii. Also, if it is true, I believe it will be the first (FF?) camera to offer proper DGO in photo mode?

 

[koenkooi]

CR3 already supports different bit depths eg 14 and 12 bit for MS/ES from R5. I suspect that 16 bit files will be seen as corrupt by ACR until an updated version is released.

The 12-bit modes still use the 14-bit format for storing the data.
To find out that the M50 would scale down to 12-bit in its 10fps mode you had to plot a histogram of the pixel data and spot the gaps. The pixel data is still stored as 14-bit, regardless of the sensor configuration.

 

[koenkooi]

Die hard Sony user? Pre-capture from R7 to R6ii/R3 is ok. Your highly praised a1 doesn't have it. […]

For me, it’s a pain to use! Enabling it is a tedious as usual, you might be able to assign it to a button or put it in ‘My Menu’. The capturing part is OK, not great. But then it locks up the camera till it writes out the buffer to card completely. That can take a full minute! So you can’t take any photo’s during that time.
And afterwards you have a single, huge file that only DPP4 can read. And DPP4 doesn’t allow you to extract all the frames at once, you have to manually export them, one at a time.

Contrast that to other vendors where the pre-capture mode doesn’t lock you out of the camera and all the frames are regular, separate files on the card.

 

[Emyr Evans]

For me, it’s a pain to use! Enabling it is a tedious as usual, you might be able to assign it to a button or put it in ‘My Menu’. The capturing part is OK, not great. But then it locks up the camera till it writes out the buffer to card completely. That can take a full minute! So you can’t take any photo’s during that time.
And afterwards you have a single, huge file that only DPP4 can read. And DPP4 doesn’t allow you to extract all the frames at once, you have to manually export them, one at a time.

Contrast that to other vendors where the pre-capture mode doesn’t lock you out of the camera and all the frames are regular, separate files on the card.

The A9lll seems to have the best implementation currently - let's hope th R1 and R5ii get a similar workflow, hopefully with it being assignable to a button.

 

[Gendra]

Pre-capture from R7 to R6ii/R3 is ok.

Wait WHAT? The current way with a single roll-file where you either have to do the selection in camera or use DPP to extract the single RAW files one by one at a time?????
I'm sorry to say, but I am convinced that there are only very few people on this planet who would come up with a more crappy solution than the current implementation.
Or to put it into other words:
If i were a politician, I would pass a law that explicitly bans every canon employee even remotely involved in implementing that feature from ever touching a computer again. <--- That's how bad the current pre-capture is.

And even worse: Canon showed that they could do better, because IIRC the high-speed-burst of the R3 is perfectly able to write single RAW files instead of that sh***ty roll-file.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

CR3 already supports different bit depths eg 14 and 12 bit for MS/ES from R5. I suspect that 16 bit files will be seen as corrupt by ACR until an updated version is released.

It won't be seen as "corrupt", it'll be seen as "unsupported".
Although the error message doesn't really matter in practice. You won't be able to use raw files from R1 or R5II with ACR until those cameras as have been supported by Adobe.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The 12-bit modes still use the 14-bit format for storing the data.

The pixel data is still stored as 14-bit, regardless of the sensor configuration.

I don't think so

GitHub - lclevy/canon_cr3: Describing the Canon CR3 fileformat from Canon M50 / EOS R / SX70 HS / EOS RP...

Describing the Canon CR3 fileformat from Canon M50 / EOS R / SX70 HS / EOS RP... - lclevy/canon_cr3

github.com

 

[AlanF]

Die hard Sony user? Pre-capture from R7 to R6ii/R3 is ok. Your highly praised a1 doesn't have it.



A1 under 14bit uncompressed 50MP RAW is not reaching 20fps, 15fps roughly. Only jpeg/lossy RAW with CFA/V90 cards allows the 50MP 30fps.
It is not fast at all.

Even if you move the goal post to jpeg only, R3 is still much faster.

A1 is a overpriced with caveats and problematic White Balance algorithm. Stop praising it.

@arbitrage is not a diehard Sony user. He goes backwards and forwards from Canon, Nikon and Sony and compares them all with consummate knowledge, impartially and in depth, and sometimes buys to test. He is one of the very best bird photographers, especially BIF. He is about the fairest and most knowledgeable guy out there.

 

[koenkooi]

I don't think so

GitHub - lclevy/canon_cr3: Describing the Canon CR3 fileformat from Canon M50 / EOS R / SX70 HS / EOS RP...

Describing the Canon CR3 fileformat from Canon M50 / EOS R / SX70 HS / EOS RP... - lclevy/canon_cr3

github.com

That says it has a field to specify the bitdepth, but as we saw with the M50 in H+, that field will say 14, when it isn’t.
I’ll try to make time today to inspect on of my R8 ES images, that should show ‘12’ in those fields.