Canon EOS R1 Spotted in the wild at the Monaco GP

[Michael Clark]

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.

There's no such thing as a "smaller, lossless raw file." Any time you reduce resolution or bit depth, you lose information. mRAW and sRAW were not even actual raw files, and anyone who tried to use them to get the full advantages of raw files discovered that very quickly and quit using mRAW/sRAW. That's probably why Canon dropped it and instead introduced minimally compressed raw data (compressing only a certain range of raw values) at full resolution with C-RAW.

 

[Michael Clark]

Well, but the same is true for camera sensors.
Technically, a 24 megapixel sensor has only 24 million subpixels with 1/4 of red pixels, 1/4 of blue pixel and 1/2 of green pixels (bayer-matrix).
The final 6000x4000px jpeg is only interpolated from those subpixel.

It doesn't even have that, since the "red", "green", and "blue" filters in the Bayer mask are not the same colors as the Red, Green, and Blue pixels emitted by our RGB monitors. All three values for each RGB pixel are synthesized from linear monochromatic luminance values in the raw files.

 

[Michael Clark]

I don’t buy into the conspiracy of R3 is the original R1. Canon never let the 1 series falls out of their 4-year schedule, 1DX3 was out in 2020 as schedule. R5 R6 is rushed to retain EF users onto RF, and R3 was a stopgap. It looks like Canon losing face when compared to Z9 a1, but that’s what SonNikon fanbois say all the time.

R3 is a platform Canon test on to make sure they have the fastest camera to trigger Sony. And it worked.

I still can’t believe R1 will be 24MP as they have to put 8k in.

R5 in 2020 was also four years after the 5D Mark IV in 2016 - and the 5D Mark III in 2012, the 5D Mark II in 2008 (and 1Ds Mark III in late 2007 which was really replaced by the 5D Mark III, not the 1D X in 2012) in 2008 - right on schedule.

 

[Michael Clark]

It also went down 3 MP from the 21 MP of the 1Ds3 released 4 years earlier, so even in the 1st 1DX Canon wasn't focused on resolution compared to one of its predecessors. (Canon marketed the 1DX as a successor to both the 1D4 and 1Ds3).

There was also the 5Ds/5DsR at 50 MP (still the highest MP DSLR ever released from any brand), so the gap right now actually has narrowed a bit compared to the 1DX2 at 20 MP vs 5DsR at 50 MP.

Canon may have marketed the 1D X as the replacement for both the 1D Mark IV and the 1Ds Mark III, but they also released the 5D Mark III at the same time they discontinued the 1Ds Mark III within a couple of months of the release of the 1D X.

The 5D Mark III had the same PDAF array as the 1D X (it's the same part number, only the AF software in each camera is slightly different) and a very slight increase in resolution over the 1Ds Mark III. Compare that the the 2008 5D Mark II with a consumer level AF system and which had slightly lower resolution than the 2007 1Ds Mark III.

In reality the 5D Mark III was the replacement for the 1Ds Mark III, just without an integrated grip and larger battery.

 

[Michael Clark]

I don't understand.

Suddenly sports photographers - who shoot mainly 8-bit jpegs - now need 16-bit Raws?

No TV or monitor can display anything above 10-bit bit depth. Sure, a bit more latitude is useful for tricky lighting - but 280 trillion colours?

Why leave the mechanical shutter in there for something that nobody will ever see?

Raw bits are linear monochromatic luminance values. JPEG bits are RGB values (8-bits per color channel or 24 bits per pixel) after logarithmic light curves, de-Bayering, etc. have been applied. Not all bits represent the same things. Having greater bit depth of raw values allows more squeezing and stretching of the linear values into logarithmic values when applying light curves without banding.

 

[walnut]

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.

Counterpoint: Canon already has two pro-level FF 24MP bodies, the jack-of-all-trades R6 II, and the R3 where "...speed and durability are the most important aspects...", so why should Canon triplicate that in another pro body, and one that closely mirrors the features of the R3? Meanwhile the R5 exists as the lone FF option with more than 24MP.

Why is it so offensive for people to suggest they'd prefer a higher resolution option in the rugged body style, in a market where both Nikon and Sony each offer higher MP body options at differing price points, and especially considering the last time Canon marketed multiple 'integrated-grip' rugged bodies concurrently, they were at differing MP counts?

I derive my income for photography, I'm not a sports or PJ shooter, but I'd love a 1-series or 3-series body with the integrated grip as my primary body. Unfortunately 24MP isn't quite enough for some of the work I shoot and so I had to settle for an R5 + grip instead of an R3, and there are plenty more photographers out there like me.

Sure, maybe Canon doesn't see enough demand to produce such a body—I'd personally be surprised if that is the case—but I don't understand this need for some forum members to denigrate those of us who simply want more MP in a top level body...the R5 isn't the camera a lot of us wanted to buy, but needed to. A choice that doesn't involve switching brands would be lovely.

 

[Michael Clark]

It somewhat surprised me to find that Sony's stills and video camera revenue is actually about 20% higher than Canon over the last year.

How many new cameras has Canon released in that time frame? How many has Sony released? Which were lower end, cheaper cameras and which were higher end, more expensive cameras?

 

[Michael Clark]

Just keep saying R3 S for the algorithms, thanks in advance.

Shouldn't that be R3s? Like 1Ds, 5Ds, etc.?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why is it so offensive for people to suggest they'd prefer a higher resolution option in the rugged body style, in a market where both Nikon and Sony each offer higher MP body options at differing price points, and especially considering the last time Canon marketed multiple 'integrated-grip' rugged bodies concurrently, they were at differing MP counts?

I see. So when someone provides a logical reason why your suggestion was not implemented, you believe that person took offense at your suggestion. Mmmmmkay.

The reality is that Canon has apparently chosen not to follow your suggested strategy. It’s perfectly reasonable to state you’d prefer a high MP R1. It’s not at all reasonable for you to assume Canon is obligated to deliver that. It’s asinine for you to assume that your knowledge of what a majority of R1 buyers want is better than Canon’s. Note that I’m not stating you personally have made those last two claims, but certainly they are common on this forum.

 

[SpecInspector]

Hilarious how so many are repeating the "pros need small files for workflow speed" theory. All recent desktops/laptops are plenty fast enough loading and reviewing 50-60 MB 45Megapixel .CR3 files out of a Canon R5. If you've got problems maybe spend $2k on a new computer instead of a buying another lens.

 

[P-visie]

Hilarious how so many are repeating the "pros need small files for workflow speed" theory. All recent desktops/laptops are plenty fast enough loading and reviewing 50-60 MB 45Megapixel .CR3 files out of a Canon R5. If you've got problems maybe spend $2k on a new computer instead of a buying another lens.

How many professional sports photographers have you spoken about their workflow?
To get an impression about the deadlines and the need for speed, read this blog entry from Jeff Cable: http://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/08/my-photography-workflow-how-i-go.html

 

[Del Paso]

Hilarious how so many are repeating the "pros need small files for workflow speed" theory. All recent desktops/laptops are plenty fast enough loading and reviewing 50-60 MB 45Megapixel .CR3 files out of a Canon R5. If you've got problems maybe spend $2k on a new computer instead of a buying another lens.

Do you think pros want specs or rather reliable and fast tools?
Spec lovers are found among amateurs, not working professionals...

 

[SpecInspector]

Anyone with a recent computer/laptop can sort through R3 or R5 raw images at the same rate. The bottleneck isn't the hardware, it is the human making culling decisions that uses 98% of the time. Ai driven sharpness sorting software could help the human find keepers on image sets with high rates of focus errors (think swallows in flight).

 

[ToonD]

Do you think pros want specs or rather reliable and fast tools?
Spec lovers are found among amateurs, not working professionals...

I know a lot of pros who don't mind shooting Sony a1 during a match. And these guys are sending photos via FTP to their editors with no problems. And although I am a canon shooter and will buy the R1, these 50 MP files are a joy to edit.

 

[Del Paso]

Counterpoint: Canon already has two pro-level FF 24MP bodies, the jack-of-all-trades R6 II, and the R3 where "...speed and durability are the most important aspects...", so why should Canon triplicate that in another pro body, and one that closely mirrors the features of the R3? Meanwhile the R5 exists as the lone FF option with more than 24MP.

Why is it so offensive for people to suggest they'd prefer a higher resolution option in the rugged body style, in a market where both Nikon and Sony each offer higher MP body options at differing price points, and especially considering the last time Canon marketed multiple 'integrated-grip' rugged bodies concurrently, they were at differing MP counts?

I derive my income for photography, I'm not a sports or PJ shooter, but I'd love a 1-series or 3-series body with the integrated grip as my primary body. Unfortunately 24MP isn't quite enough for some of the work I shoot and so I had to settle for an R5 + grip instead of an R3, and there are plenty more photographers out there like me.

Sure, maybe Canon doesn't see enough demand to produce such a body—I'd personally be surprised if that is the case—but I don't understand this need for some forum members to denigrate those of us who simply want more MP in a top level body...the R5 isn't the camera a lot of us wanted to buy, but needed to. A choice that doesn't involve switching brands would be lovely.

The logical reaction would be for you to buy a Nikon plus your beloved Tamron 35-150, instead of complaining. This is at least what I would do if I were so dissatisfied with Canon's offer...

 

[ToonD]

How many professional sports photographers have you spoken about their workflow?
To get an impression about the deadlines and the need for speed, read this blog entry from Jeff Cable: http://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/08/my-photography-workflow-how-i-go.html

But have you spoken to lets say 10 professional sports photographers personally or do you repeat what the Canon marketing people are telling you?

 

[neuroanatomist]

But have you spoken to lets say 10 professional sports photographers personally or do you repeat what the Canon marketing people are telling you?

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that Canon's marketing folks somehow decided in a vacuum that a 24 MP camera was want the majority of buyers wanted, then made up reasons for it? Seems far more likely that they solicited input from their major customers and top-shelf photographers, and likely that number was significantly higher than 10.

Or is the real problem here that they didn't ask you?

 

[ToonD]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that Canon's marketing folks somehow decided in a vacuum that a 24 MP camera was want the majority of buyers wanted, then made up reasons for it? Seems far more likely that they solicited input from their major customers and top-shelf photographers, and likely that number was significantly higher than 10.

Or is the real problem here that they didn't ask you?

No problem at all. In fact I gave feedback to the Canon rep of my country in the past and I will be doing that in the future. And I understand that I'm a little fish. But I also understand that Canon is a company which main goal is to make money and that's fine. But I find it annoying that there are some people on this forum who have no knowledge on the subject of the sports photography business and telling me that there is no need for more then 24 MP. That's all.

 

[P-visie]

But have you spoken to lets say 10 professional sports photographers personally or do you repeat what the Canon marketing people are telling you?

No, I’m not in the habit of parroting other people. I’ve read multiple posts, written by respected professional sports photographers, using different brands of equipment. All stress the need for speed when selecting the best photo’s, even during the game, from multiple thousands of photo’s.

Edit: where have I stated that there is no need for more than 24MP?

 

[ToonD]

No, I’m not in the habit of parroting other people. I’ve read multiple posts, written by respected professional sports photographers, using different brands of equipment. All stress the need for speed when selecting the best photo’s, even during the game, from multiple thousands of photo’s.

Edit: where have I stated that there is no need for more than 24MP?

About the 24 MP. That's my misunderstanding, excuse me. About the thousand of photos. Thats not how it works during or direct after the match. Either you send via FTP to an editor or your own laptop only the photos that matter not the whole bunch. If you import photos via cardreader you only import tagged photos. So for example during a football match you only have to deal with 100-150 photos. With modern laptops, 5g etc. no problem at all. Perhaps if you shoot for Getty or AP on the Olympics it's a different story. But they are mostly hard wired to the internet with own connections.