Canon EOS R1 Spotted in the wild at the Monaco GP

[kaihp]

For now, I'm trying to spread some vibes for the R3 to become the R3 S. Same body size, big megapickles with a standard set of video features. (I personally don't like battery grips).

You're not alone in that dislike. I was overhearing a conversation between a Canon rep and a fashion photographer, who was complaining about the wiggling between the battery grip and the R5. The photographer really wanted an R5 with integrated grip.

So now there are two of you. A few more and Canon will surely built an extra product to satisfy the demand. /s.
But yeah, I like the integrated battery grip too (bit I alrealy got that in the R3).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I dont understand the complaints about Mpx.

Canon already has the R3 and I have one.
I honestly thought the R3 would be 45 MP and the R1 would be 24 MP.
Once the R3 came out with only 24 MP, a lot of us expected the R1 to be 45.
I also have an R5.
If the R5 II does have a stacked sensor then I will get one instead of getting an R1 and keep my R3.
I would be happy with that but some people want a pro 45 MP body like the Z 9.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

R5MkII has to have a similar (or close) readout to beat the 45mpixel Z8/Z9.

4 ms readout would be fine.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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:

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/?Model1

Full article on his testing/methods/analysis etc: https://github.com/horshack-dpreview/RollingShutter

That does not contradict Canon Rumors Guy's point.
There are different people testing with different methods yielding different results.
CineD is only testing for video but at least their tests are consistent.
However, I would not call their tests scientific.
I really do not care about read-out speed.
The only thing that I care about is the fastest-moving thing that a camera can capture without motion blur or distortion.
If enough people care then maybe CIPA should come up with a testing standard.
Either that or maybe IMATEST could make a test for it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If these specs hold true on the R1 (R3mkII), then I can't wait to see the R5mkII.

They are rumored to come out the same time.

 

[tron]

I'm doing 80% landscape photography and 20% action. My R5 has been doing very well with some caveats.

The rumoured specs for the R5II don't tick the boxes for me yet. A 16-bit readout and therefore high dynamic range might be very interesting but it's a pure speculation at the moment. Apart from that, the R5II looks like a largely incremental update (again according to the most recent rumours from this site). AF improvements are not enough for me to put a preorder.

There are hidden tick-boxes that might convince me. For example, if Canon addresses the hot pixels problem. The hot pixels are a real disaster when shooting long exposures with the R5. But Canon will never tell us in a press-release that they've eliminated hot pixels. We will only know that after the release.

If you are shooting stills but not timelapses why not activate long exposure noise reduction? It will take twice the time but will eliminate those hot pixels. I even use it on astrophotography (I rarely shoot timelapses where it has to be off). I have used R5 twice for astro only but I use this technique since the 5Dxseries

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Yes, Lightroom does automatically map out all the hot pixels it can find but with more difficult background structures in the image it sometimes struggles.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem to remove the hot pixels from the shadows.

One trick I use for astrophotography is to deactive LENR and take the dark-images later on manually (covering the lens/mount) and subtract them from the image in post. Then you can maximize your time in the field. The only important thing is to use the same settings (exposure time & ISO) and get them roughly temperature matched. Fortunately, Canon includes the sensor temperature in the EXIF data so you can select the matching ones very easy.

It's not that easy to match the temperature However it would be easier to just take one dark frame on the location and then use it with several shots.

I was thinking of taking separate dark frames but was too lazy to try. Also it would be very annoying to match the duration, temperature and subtract from every (keeper) image.

What software do you use to subtract the dark frames?

However, this means that with every improvment in the heat dissapation (which is part of the rumors for the R5II), this will also improve the number of hot pixels even if that's not officially stated.

I wonder if turning off the camera or LCD/EVF for a couple of minutes before taking a long exposure may help. Need to stop readout cycles for a while so that the sensor cools down. I'll need to do some tests.

My 5DIV had banding problem (also in the shadows at high ISO), the R5 has no banding but hot pixels instead...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wouldn’t call the R5 a pro level camera for wildlife. The files look terrible in electronic shutter because of the drop in bit rate…

I guess you shoot still wildlife in bright daylight. Maybe in zoo enclosures? Or maybe I’m doing something wrong, because even with fast lenses like the 100-300/2.8 and 600/4, I routinely need shutter speeds that push the ISO above 640. With your vast knowledge, I’m sure you’re aware there’s no loss of DR from ES (compared to mechanical) on the R5 at ISO 800 and higher.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

If you are shooting stills but not timelapses why not activate long exposure noise reduction? It will take twice the time but will eliminate those hot pixels. I even use it on astrophotography (I rarely shoot timelapses where it has to be off). I have used R5 twice for astro only but I use this technique since the 5Dxseries

Yeah I've already mentioned it above. With an example of hot pixels coming out of LENR...

 

[Canon Rumors]

You're not alone in that dislike. I was overhearing a conversation between a Canon rep and a fashion photographer, who was complaining about the wiggling between the battery grip and the R5. The photographer really wanted an R5 with integrated grip.

So now there are two of you. A few more and Canon will surely built an extra product to satisfy the demand. /s.
But yeah, I like the integrated battery grip too (bit I alrealy got that in the R3).

I think it's something they have to try, as I say to others. If we don't buy it... then that's that. I think it would be a slow burn type of camera and do well.

 

[koenkooi]

I think it's something they have to try, as I say to others. If we don't buy it... then that's that. I think it would be a slow burn type of camera and do well.

I would guess that a "Z9, but a lot lighter, with RF mount, from Canon" would have some appeal to the gripped shooter market. It would mean we'll have to endure more whinging from people hung up on which ships have a flag.

 

[scyrene]

Also [...] the 1.0x-1.4x-2.0x Extender [...] would give the lens edge to Canon.

This was a forum misunderstanding, wasn't the possibility of a variable extender starting at 1x thoroughly debunked by people who know about such things?

 

[Canon Rumors]

This was a forum misunderstanding, wasn't the possibility of a variable extender starting at 1x thoroughly debunked by people who know about such things?

That was my fault.

Here's one of the patents on the topic

 

[arbitrage]

That does not contradict Canon Rumors Guy's point.
There are different people testing with different methods yielding different results.
CineD is only testing for video but at least their tests are consistent.
However, I would not call their tests scientific.
I really do not care about read-out speed.
The only thing that I care about is the fastest-moving thing that a camera can capture without motion blur or distortion.
If enough people care then maybe CIPA should come up with a testing standard.
Either that or maybe IMATEST could make a test for it.

Why do you think I was trying to contradict CRG's post? He asked if anyone knew of a good database of stills scan speeds and I provided the most conclusive one out there.
All of the results provided for video line up with the CineD numbers it is just that snapsy tested even more frame rates and resolutions to show that read speeds do differ in different modes even on a given camera.
All the stills speeds line up with other sources that have tested some of those cameras.

This is an easy thing to test....it is not complicated once you know how to setup the test. It is scientific and if you read through the second link from my post he explains everything.

If you want to be able to capture the fastest panning motion possible without any slight leaning lines in the background or slight distortion in the wingtip then you buy an A9III....everything else can show leaning lines if panned fast enough. In my experience a scan speed like the A9/A9II was acceptable but not perfect. Getting to R3 speed is fast enough for me but getting to Z9/A1 speed is even better. R5 was acceptable to me for not ruining bird's wings but unacceptable for leaning vertical lines in the background even on a moderate panning speed. Clean backgrounds were a must for BIF with an R5 in ES.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Why do you think I was trying to contradict CRG's post? He asked if anyone knew of a good database of stills scan speeds and I provided the most conclusive one out there.
All of the results provided for video line up with the CineD numbers it is just that snapsy tested even more frame rates and resolutions to show that read speeds do differ in different modes even on a given camera.
All the stills speeds line up with other sources that have tested some of those cameras.

This is an easy thing to test....it is not complicated once you know how to setup the test. It is scientific and if you read through the second link from my post he explains everything.

If you want to be able to capture the fastest panning motion possible without any slight leaning lines in the background or slight distortion in the wingtip then you buy an A9III....everything else can show leaning lines if panned fast enough. In my experience a scan speed like the A9/A9II was acceptable but not perfect. Getting to R3 speed is fast enough for me but getting to Z9/A1 speed is even better. R5 was acceptable to me for not ruining bird's wings but unacceptable for leaning vertical lines in the background even on a moderate panning speed. Clean backgrounds were a must for BIF with an R5 in ES.

I haven't gotten to your link yet, dealing with back end fun-times.

 

[Berowne]

.... but some people want a pro 45 MP body like the Z 9.

Obviously Canon does not want it, and they decide.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I must be some kind luddite, but I don't think I have ever actually shot ES other than to hear the FPS... then back to mechanical I go.

 

[Fbimages]

I guess you shoot still wildlife in bright daylight. Maybe in zoo enclosures? Or maybe I’m doing something wrong, because even with fast lenses like the 100-300/2.8 and 600/4, I routinely need shutter speeds that push the ISO above 640. With your vast knowledge, I’m sure you’re aware there’s no loss of DR from ES (compared to mechanical) on the R5 at ISO 800 and higher.

There is more to bit depth than dynamic range itself, the colours take a hit as well and that is not changing the rolling shutter issue either. I don't wory about dynamic range past base ISO, it is not my priority. And you are right, my niche is midday sun, cloudless sky zoo wildlife photography.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Not a fan of 24mp for photo, but am for video. Majority of the time I used the R5 for my photo work and then the R3 for video and some photo work. That type of R3 photo work was for events and anything low light.

If the R5 II can outdo the R3, then I’m pretty sure it will be my new go to and bypass the R1. Definitely still “want” the R1 tho… so idk lol ugh

The bold confirmation that this is now a 24mp sensor has me a bit perplexed. I for one was excited at the idea of a mild increase in resolution - however small it may be. I’ve preached for quite some time that 24-26mp is a sweet spot for event/wedding coverage, motorsports, and journalism - just based on the incredible number of photos I capture in a single day or weekend. Anything beyond that resolution really doesn’t provide much benefit for online or print publishing with these photos that aren’t receiving pixel-level editing. Still, I wouldn’t scoff at the idea of a 10-15mp increase in resolution - especially if there is potentially a new compression format.

The R3 is already the greatest camera I’ve ever worked with and held in my hands. It’s the most enjoyable camera to use and I truly consider it an ergonomic masterpiece. So the question becomes “what do I really need my R3 hardware to do better?” The top 3 categories there would be BATTERY, true CLOG2 (and XFAVC would be killer too when shooting alongside Cinema line), quicker sensor readout, and dual CFExpress B (4.0 would be nice as well). I will say that if it’s truly a DGO sensor I will lose my mind with daydreaming about the potential that brings to video and stills capture.

Right now, the rumors and images suggest all of these may be true. I would have still accepted more resolution, but I also wished at this point we could have seen a higher MP camera that could shoot at variable resolutions in RAW. Selfishly, it would be ideal if I could do all my jobs with single camera ergonomics and battery type that I could shoot in 24mp or 45+mp based on the assignment. But I still enjoy a high resolution body - once you’ve tasted it, it’s hard to edit at the pixel-level with less resolution. LOL

The R5 Mark II could be the high resolution stacked sensor camera many have been looking for from Canon - it does sound more appealing by the minute. Perhaps we’ll see a new battery to replace the LP-E6NH? It would be REALLY cool if you could run an R1 battery in the grip for increased performance like the D850 provided with its grip that accepted D5 batteries.

 

[mpmark]

I think the question whether the R3 is meant to be an R1 is sort of irrelevant anyway. At launch, the R3 is priced ($6k) right between the two other flagships: Z9 ($5.5k) and A1 ($6.5k). It is sort of inevitable that the R3 will be treated like a flagship and compared to the other two cameras, whether Canon brands it as an R1, R3, R1000, or whatever.

I think if Canon launched the R3 at its current price ($4.5k), we won't even be having this conversation.

who honestly cares what is or isn't a "flagship", seriously what is the obsession with determining this? I see so many posts arguing whether the R3 was the flagship, who gives a flying frick, Its a camera, it has specs, you like it? buy it, you dont? don't buy it. People, worry about better things in life