Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
The next time someone has an interview with Canon, they should ask if the designer responsible for RF rear lens caps going on only one way and the management line that approved the decision were simply fired, or were tarred and feathered and then fired.
Upvote
0
Oh, why couldn't this have been available a month or so ago!Japanese site Mynavi has an interview with the R1 development team. One of the topics is: “What are the criteria for a Canon flagship camera?” and it has an explanation about the name R1 (and the hyphen).
Google translated link.
A short translated extract:
"
What are the criteria for a Canon flagship camera?
...When the EOS R3 was announced, it was clearly stated that "Canon's standards do not warrant the name '1'." So what was the decisive factor that made the EOS R1 meet the standards, but not the EOS R3? The 1 series is often said to be "highly reliable," but that alone lacks specificity. There is a possibility that people will misunderstand, "Is the EOS R3 prone to breakage?" or "Is the EOS R3 vulnerable to rain?" In my experience using the EOS R3 for three years, this has not been the case. Regarding water resistance, I have heard that the EOS R3 had "water resistance to the '1' standard." If there is still a difference with the EOS R1, please tell me specifically what that difference is.
Nonomura : I think there are three major evolutions from the EOS R3 to the EOS R1.
The first is the overwhelming evolution of the AF, which I mentioned earlier. The remaining weak spots in the EOS R3 have been completely overcome, achieving AF performance worthy of a flagship model.
The second is that it is equipped with the best viewfinder in EOS history. It is the largest, brightest, and easiest to see viewfinder to date. In terms of specs, it has 9.44 million dots, a magnification of about 0.9x, and is about three times brighter than the EOS R3.
Thirdly, the readout speed of the CMOS sensor has been improved, enabling delay-free, blackout-free shooting and a significant reduction in rolling shutter distortion. I'm sure there are some people who are hesitant to switch from the EOS-1D X Mark III to a mirrorless camera because they are particular about the ease of viewing through the optical viewfinder, but I feel that the camera now has performance that I can proudly recommend.
Mr. Arakawa: Actually, we couldn't say that the R3 surpassed the EOS-1D X Mark III in terms of shutter speed or viewfinder. That's why we couldn't use the "1" in the name.
Why was the model name "EOS R1"?
- I'd also like to ask about the naming. Why did you choose the name "EOS R1"?Nonomura : Originally, the EOS-1 series of SLR cameras had a hyphen between "EOS" and the "1". This was to prevent the number "1" from being mistaken for the lowercase letter "L" or the capital letter "I". However, since the EOS R series has the letter "R" after "EOS", we decided that the "1" would be correctly recognized even without the hyphen. As a result, we decided on the name "EOS R1" to be consistent with other models in the EOS R series.
--I expected it to be the "EOS-1R." The EOS-1 is a name that has been passed down for many years, and it was a name that was carried over even when it changed from film to digital, so I thought that would not change.
Nonomura-san: To add a little more detail, the first camera to use the "hyphen" + "1" name was the "F-1" released in 1971. The F-1 was the first professional model camera, so EOS cameras followed suit and were named "EOS-1". That trend continued all the way up to the EOS-1D X Mark III.
"
Upvote
0
It wasn’t necessary. Only a select few, very ‘special’ people were confused about the R1’s status (I exclude click revenue-driven ‘reviewers’ who ignored reality for profit).
But the internal perspective is nice.
Upvote
0
The designer was an intern, who has since been promoted to design the hotshoe cover for the R5 Mk II
.
Upvote
0
Yeah, but it skips talking about the A-1 and declares the hyphen was used in EOS-1 so people wouldn't think it was EOSI but, oddly, never discusses why they then used it on the F-1 and why that wasn't confusing for the R1 (or is it the RI?)
The reason it was F-1 was because that was how they got around Nikon's copyrights on F and F2 which F1 would have infringed. Even then, they got a single use permission for that workaround which is why the three versions of the F-1 were all named F-1 (F-1, F-1n and New F-1 in common usage but never as official names). I worked in a camera shop at the time and telling a customer, "No. That accessory for the Canon F-1 won't work on the Canon F-1 but if you want to use it we can give you a good deal on trading in your Canon F-1 on a Canon F-1." It was even worse with the "New F-1" where, during the transition, we had options for customers of New F-1 and Used F-1 and New New F-1 and Used New F-1.
Upvote
0
Am I really going to poke the bear????
Anyways, I like the Youtube Channel "Photography Online." Definitely skewed landscape, with occasional wildlife. This month's edition, they talk about resolution. Love their methods, dislike their methods, here is what a few pro-photographers in Skye UK have to say about it.
And for those of you that have an aversion to Youtube, a series of basic tests with random people in a bar, looking at electronic devices (Phone, iPad, to 5000K computer screen) trying to identify the sharpest and least sharp scaling of the same image to different MP (6 MP to 45 MP)...and....They can't do it. If anything they gravitate towards the 6 MP image which makes me wonder about compression artifacts of high res images viewed on devices.
Second test, people looking at an image printed at from 72, 150, 240, 300 and 450 DPI. 2 meters away, people couldn't tell the difference. Up close, they could identify the 72 DPI image but could not distinguish between the others. Then they use 150 DPI to scale what potential print size of different sensors. Of course, 6,000 pixels / 150 = 40 inch print, without upscaling/etc.
This fits with my experience, I have been good with printed results as long as I am >150 ppi. Of course, 300 dpi is out there as well.
Anyways, I like the Youtube Channel "Photography Online." Definitely skewed landscape, with occasional wildlife. This month's edition, they talk about resolution. Love their methods, dislike their methods, here is what a few pro-photographers in Skye UK have to say about it.
And for those of you that have an aversion to Youtube, a series of basic tests with random people in a bar, looking at electronic devices (Phone, iPad, to 5000K computer screen) trying to identify the sharpest and least sharp scaling of the same image to different MP (6 MP to 45 MP)...and....They can't do it. If anything they gravitate towards the 6 MP image which makes me wonder about compression artifacts of high res images viewed on devices.
Second test, people looking at an image printed at from 72, 150, 240, 300 and 450 DPI. 2 meters away, people couldn't tell the difference. Up close, they could identify the 72 DPI image but could not distinguish between the others. Then they use 150 DPI to scale what potential print size of different sensors. Of course, 6,000 pixels / 150 = 40 inch print, without upscaling/etc.
This fits with my experience, I have been good with printed results as long as I am >150 ppi. Of course, 300 dpi is out there as well.
Upvote
0
Having worked with 5DS cameras for the past eight, nearly nine years, the conclusion I’ve come to is that the biggest benefit of 50mp is ogling it at 200% on a 5K screen, and marvelling at the output size and detail. But who’s going to see it like that ? Me and perhaps my long suffering wife. Beyond that, for viewing the who picture, even printed at exhibition size, as @docsmith has pointed out, it’s offering nothing more than 20mp.
Upvote
0
6 Mpx is about the upper size of most of my crops of birds in flight and perched small birds, which is usually from I a long lens and high Mpx sensor. It's cropping from the sensor which usually limits me. Filling the frame is a luxury.
Upvote
0
I am similar. And I really do not want to diminish those that have found a reason for more MP. Significant cropping is one example. This is one reason why I tried to point out Photography Online tend to be from the perspective of landscape photographers (even though they do some wildlife). Also, as I have watched them off and on for a while, several of them do shoot either a 5DsR or a R5. It really is up to the photographer.
Upvote
0
Yea but the R5 body has a bunch of drawbacks that professionals aren’t happy with that the R3/1 has. Better ergonomics / V-grip, better battery (especially important in mirrorless because of how much the EVF drains the battery), internal GPS, the IR button (dual because of v-grip).
The 5 is just not a pro camera anymore (IMO) because of these limitations. It’s the reason I bought an R3 instead. So there’s plenty of reason the R3 II (or S) could be a high resolution version. It doesn’t make sense that it’s the same resolution as the R1. But I do hope it continues. The $4,000 pricepoint was the sweet spot for me. But if it’s $6,000 like the R1 but has 48mp (or whatever) I’d still buy it.
I’ve made some prints lately and I’m just not happy with the 24mp. It’s just short of the resolution needed for competitive prints compared to all the galleries now filled with images from medium format Fuji GFX (and the like). Heck Leica has a 60mp camera. The least they can do for us is give us this pro body high rez, and the R5 is not it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
