The 1 Series Arrives for the RF Mount

[docsmith]

Canon does not tend to excel in specs. They aren't even trying to excel at specs. Canon excels at the camera in hand dependably capturing images. That is what I am waiting for, firsthand reviews capturing images in challenging situations. Show me what this camera can do that others before could not.

I am sure there are those that will want more than 24 MP. But clearly, there are those that are fine with 24 MP (R3, R6, R8, and now the R1). If you want more MP, you are either looking at the R5 or another brand.

 

[CanonGrunt]

I don't think that is true anymore with the cinema and 5 series. They seem to be trying to give us new features that people ask for since the R5. For the 1 series you are probably correct. I also don't think the 1 series is their big seller like the rest of their line up and maybe suited just for pros that need a camera that works and works fast. It's funny how much crap Canon gets for a camera people aren't going to buy.

They don’t sell 1 series at numbers anything like the lower models. A good bit of why they unified the line with the 1dx. 1 series cameras are meant to be fast, reliable, beefy work horses, and this is just that. Old reliable, dependable, trusted.

Also, this thing has a lot more features in it than people seem to be willing to admit to. 24 mp has always been enough for media, National Geographic, Reuters, et cetera.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if they use the r3 line to make a high resolution camera with and revamp it. Also wouldn’t be surprised if that line dies off.

 

[Lt Colonel]

A new Canon Camera introduction without Rudy Winston. Just doesn't seem right.

 

[ShutterWhisperer]

The R1 looks like a very promising camera. I’m considering upgrading, but I wanted to get some insights on a few specific points.

While I don’t need more than 24-megapixel resolution, as my clients typically request downsized images from my R5, I am very interested in the noise performance at high ISO levels. Currently, with my R5, I can just about manage to shoot at ISO 6400 without the noise becoming too problematic.

For those who have had the chance to test the new R1, how does it compare to the R5 in terms of noise at ISO 6400? Can anyone share their experience or even better, provide some sample images? I’m looking to understand if the R1 offers a significant improvement in this area.

 

[Gogo7]

It’s glorious? Please!!! Is not ! Is just an R3 mark2

 

[uPhotic]

I have a crazy conspiracy theory about the R1. The sensor that was for the R1 (quad pixel, more pixels as well, similar fps and readout) had an issue. So they put a R3 mark II sensor in it to get it pushed out for Olympics. Not meaning to take away from this camera with its auto focus that is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

They would have made more people happy by making cross type dual pixel layer on the r5mII sensor and placing it in here. But then again that is not what pros want, too many pixels. 36 seems perfect imo (maybe 40 which gives 8k (fake 8k aka 7680 by 5120). Maybe that's too much. I'm not the target market so who knows.

I'll happily pick up the R5II when on sale or with bonus stuff around the black friday/thanksgiving/christmas season. Here in NZ and in Aus I think we have been rewarded with the price. Was expecting it to be a couple hundred more

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R1 looks like a very promising camera. I’m considering upgrading, but I wanted to get some insights on a few specific points.

While I don’t need more than 24-megapixel resolution, as my clients typically request downsized images from my R5, I am very interested in the noise performance at high ISO levels. Currently, with my R5, I can just about manage to shoot at ISO 6400 without the noise becoming too problematic.

For those who have had the chance to test the new R1, how does it compare to the R5 in terms of noise at ISO 6400? Can anyone share their experience or even better, provide some sample images? I’m looking to understand if the R1 offers a significant improvement in this area.

You'll likely have to wait a while. But I infer from Canon bumping the native ISO range up by a stop relative to the R3 and R5/R5II, that there is improvement.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have a crazy conspiracy theory

Yes, yes you do.

 

[meywd]

The R1 looks like a very promising camera. I’m considering upgrading, but I wanted to get some insights on a few specific points.

While I don’t need more than 24-megapixel resolution, as my clients typically request downsized images from my R5, I am very interested in the noise performance at high ISO levels. Currently, with my R5, I can just about manage to shoot at ISO 6400 without the noise becoming too problematic.

For those who have had the chance to test the new R1, how does it compare to the R5 in terms of noise at ISO 6400? Can anyone share their experience or even better, provide some sample images? I’m looking to understand if the R1 offers a significant improvement in this area.

As is from camera
R3
ISO 25600
ƒ/9
Room light

 

[Deleted member 396628]

^^This. The people who are the target audience, will buy the camera. I’d guess that 99% of the people complaining about it on the Internet we’re never going to buy it anyway.

Pre-ordered two. And cancelled 15 minutes into the Canon presentation.

 

[tpatana]

Not preordering until I know what the little window on bottom left corner is.

 

[landon]

With that, Canon has finally complete the mirrorless line-up. Now just focusing on improving other iterations and cine cams, and new innovative products.

 

[DBounce]

I preordered the R1, and have been watching reviews. But honestly, I’m not seeing the killer features that were rumored. No DGO, No Global shutter, smaller rear LCD. Sure the AF looks fantastic… but Sony already has fantastic AF, so at this point we are just splitting hairs.


I’ll wait a bit… they don’t ship till November. But there’s a reasonable chance I’ll cancel. This feels and looks too much like an incremental update to the R3… a camera I sold after purchasing the A9III… which was actually revolutionary on many levels. I had hoped Canon was going to release something game changing… but they instead gave us a refresh of the R3. I am somewhat disappointed… I had hoped for more given the amount of time this camera had been under development.

 

[Navism]

Watch some YouTube. It seems no one talk about yhe R1 small sensor on the left hand side.
Anyone know?

 

[mimbu]

Such a huge letdown of a camera after so much build-up. I want the innovative Canon of the 1980s and 1990s back.

 

[Besisika]

The R1 looks like a very promising camera. I’m considering upgrading, but I wanted to get some insights on a few specific points.

While I don’t need more than 24-megapixel resolution, as my clients typically request downsized images from my R5, I am very interested in the noise performance at high ISO levels. Currently, with my R5, I can just about manage to shoot at ISO 6400 without the noise becoming too problematic.

For those who have had the chance to test the new R1, how does it compare to the R5 in terms of noise at ISO 6400? Can anyone share their experience or even better, provide some sample images? I’m looking to understand if the R1 offers a significant improvement in this area.

It is kind of funny seeing someone who shares the same point with you, when you least expect it.
I own an R5 and I need an upgrade. I don't see the R5 II as an upgrade for my need at all. The R1 is. It resolves few issues I have with my R5.
Like you, I am very interested in the noise improvement compared to the R5. I own both the R5 and an old 1DX II and I can say that the 1DX II on video side is holding up pretty well. I expect the R1 to be way better than the 1DX II, also better than the R5 II because of the pixel count. They want 75MP, I need 24.
8K raw file size is huge, both 29.95 and 59.95, even the light versions. That is the reason I don't use it on a daily basis. 6K is another matter. That 6K raw light 59.95fps seems the best solution for me, and if noise is better than the R5 II then I am at home.
But for me the main selling point is the 1/400th sync speed. They say that 14-bit is on all modes. On my R5, the electronic is only 12. I do portrait and this gives me back 1-stop of light compared to my current R5. At 1/400th sec, I won't be using HSS any longer, so I am getting 3 stops of light back in total. 4-stop ND filter will work great on a -7.5 EV. Instead of shooting at full power, I will be shooting at 1/8th of power. Less batteries, more flash duration, more stable color, and less irate model.
On top, I am getting 8.5 IBIS, C-log2, and a co processor when I shoot sports, which I do rarely nowadays.
To me, this is the camera I should have bought since my 1DX II.
Of-course, it is too early to say. Let's see how the pros judge it before jumping. Maybe the R3 II will be better. For now, the R3 I is only CLOG3 and sync speed 1/250th: not good enough.

 

[ShutterWhisperer]

It is kind of funny seeing someone who shares the same point with you, when you least expect it.
I own an R5 and I need an upgrade. I don't see the R5 II as an upgrade for my need at all. The R1 is. It resolves few issues I have with my R5.
Like you, I am very interested in the noise improvement compared to the R5. I own both the R5 and an old 1DX II and I can say that the 1DX II on video side is holding up pretty well. I expect the R1 to be way better than the 1DX II, also better than the R5 II because of the pixel count. They want 75MP, I need 24.
8K raw file size is huge, both 29.95 and 59.95, even the light versions. That is the reason I don't use it on a daily basis. 6K is another matter. That 6K raw light 59.95fps seems the best solution for me, and if noise is better than the R5 II then I am at home.
But for me the main selling point is the 1/400th sync speed. They say that 14-bit is on all modes. On my R5, the electronic is only 12. I do portrait and this gives me back 1-stop of light compared to my current R5. At 1/400th sec, I won't be using HSS any longer, so I am getting 3 stops of light back in total. 4-stop ND filter will work great on a -7.5 EV. Instead of shooting at full power, I will be shooting at 1/8th of power. Less batteries, more flash duration, more stable color, and less irate model.
On top, I am getting 8.5 IBIS, C-log2, and a co processor when I shoot sports, which I do rarely nowadays.
To me, this is the camera I should have bought since my 1DX II.
Of-course, it is too early to say. Let's see how the pros judge it before jumping. Maybe the R3 II will be better. For now, the R3 I is only CLOG3 and sync speed 1/250th: not good enough.

Thank you for sharing your serious thoughts. Sometimes, I get the feeling that very few people posting here actually make a living from photography, so it's refreshing to see your perspective.

What I'm hoping to achieve with an upgrade from the R5 includes:

• Noticeably improved noise levels: Especially in low-light conditions.
• Advanced wireless file transfer capabilities: I’m aware of the external grip option (£1000+), but a more integrated solution would be ideal.
• Reliable eye focus: Eye focus that consistently works unlike the R3 where it depends on what shape of eye you have.
• Better battery life.

I’m curious to hear if others share these priorities or have found solutions to these needs with their current gear. Thanks again for the valuable discussion!

 

[Del Paso]

Canon doesn’t care what you want them to do. They care what camera buyers in aggregate want them to do. Their domination of the market with nearly 50% share says their understanding of the market is vastly superior to yours.

Let me please complete your correct answer. Canon do not care what keyboard warriors want them to do. When designing pro cameras, they cater to the needs of real pros, and not to would-be ones or internet spec-lovers.

 

[SpecInspector]

24 mpixels and no onboard GPS. I won't be upgrading my R3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

no onboard GPS.

The R1 has onboard GPS. But you weren't going to buy it anyway, were you?