Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[GoldWing]

I was expecting a high resolution studio type camera. While 30 mpix on my R has been great, I expected more resolution from the R1.

Edit: I don't know where I thought I'd read the R1 is going to be 30 mpix. My bad. 45-60 sounds great.

Why is Canon scared to let the user decide? Make it 50 MP and let us make the file size, based on our needs.

 

[frankchn]

Why is Canon scared to let the user decide? Make it 50 MP and let us make the file size, based on our needs.

Bandwidth between sensor and the DIGIC chip and processing speed of the DIGIC processing chip likely are limiting factors.

120 fps @ 30 MP 14-bit/pixel ~= 50 Gbits/second.

You can slice that data-rate however you want -- 120 fps @ 30 MP or 60 fps @ 60 MP or 40 fps @ 90 MP, and so on. For a sports/photojournalism focused camera I can see them choosing a lower MP and higher fps.

Note that Thunderbolt 4 maxes out at 40 Gbits/second, so 120 fps @ 30 MP is already higher bandwidth than that. 120 fps @ 60 MP or so might not be realistic.

We all want the 100 MP @ 1000 fps camera, but it is about as unrealistic as asking for the 20-2000mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[koenkooi]

Bandwidth between sensor and the DIGIC chip and processing speed of the DIGIC processing chip likely are limiting factors.

120 fps @ 30 MP 14-bit/pixel ~= 50 Gbits/second.

You can slice that data-rate however you want -- 120 fps @ 30 MP or 60 fps @ 60 MP or 40 fps @ 90 MP, and so on. For a sports/photojournalism focused camera I can see them choosing a lower MP and higher fps.

Note that Thunderbolt 4 maxes out at 40 Gbits/second, so 120 fps @ 30 MP is already higher bandwidth than that. 120 fps @ 60 MP or so might not be realistic.

We all want the 100 MP @ 1000 fps camera, but it is about as unrealistic as asking for the 20-2000mm f/2.8 lens.

DDR4 at 2166MT/s gets 54Gb/s easily in real life (had to measure that at work last week) and cfe 4.0 type B support 32gbit/s before overhead, so buffer clearing should be quite fast as well.

I suspect the digic has the sensor DMA its data straight to RAM, so the sensor speed is likely the limiting factor. The R3 can already do 195fps with clever deferred processing, so I think 120fps isn’t improbable.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We all want the 100 MP @ 1000 fps camera, but it is about as unrealistic as asking for the 20-2000mm f/2.8 lens.

Then we have nothing to worry about, @HarryFilm already made the latter so no doubt he can provide the former as well.

 

[EricN]

DDR4 at 2166MT/s gets 54Gb/s easily in real life (had to measure that at work last week) and cfe 4.0 type B support 32gbit/s before overhead, so buffer clearing should be quite fast as well.

I suspect the digic has the sensor DMA its data straight to RAM, so the sensor speed is likely the limiting factor. The R3 can already do 195fps with clever deferred processing, so I think 120fps isn’t improbable.

How long can that be sustainable without increasing heat or dropping voltage?

 

[koenkooi]

How long can that be sustainable without increasing heat or dropping voltage?

RAM doesn’t really have power management, it’s off, idle or busy, so the throughput or fill state doesn’t matter much.
Apart from cost, this is a big factor for bodies with LP-E17 batteries having such tiny buffers: less ram, less power drain.

The sensor and digic will likely use more power with faster fps, but I bet you’ll run into buffering issues before heat/power drain becomes an issue.

I haven’t heard people complaining about pre-capture draining their batteries with sony/nikon/om, I would think that would be a huge power drain!

 

[Ozarker]

Then we have nothing to worry about, @HarryFilm already made the latter so no doubt he can provide the former as well.

Dunno. "Harry Film" sounds like a porn exclusive operation that isn't aware it's digital.

 

[john1970]

I think the R3, like the original EOS 3, will be a one-and-done camera in the model lineup.

I second your prediction.

 

[Del Paso]

I think the R3, like the original EOS 3, will be a one-and-done camera in the model lineup.

I hope not, the R3 is, unlike most 1 series cameras, an affordable professional camera. The R1 will cost lots more, I'm afraid!

 

[frankchn]

I hope not, the R3 is, unlike most 1 series cameras, an affordable professional camera. The R1 will cost lots more, I'm afraid!

Well it shouldn't be that much more. The 1DX MSRP was $6800, 1DX2 was $6000, 1DX3 was $6500, and R3 MSRP at launch was $6000. I expect an R1 to come in around those prices.

 

[Del Paso]

Well it shouldn't be that much more. The 1DX MSRP was $6800, 1DX2 was $6000, 1DX3 was $6500, and R3 MSRP at launch was $6000. I expect an R1 to come in around those prices.

Yes, but, unlike the R3's, the 1 DX price has never dropped, at least in most European countries.
Calumet Germany: R3 = Euro 4999, 1 DX = 6999...

 

[frankchn]

Yes, but, unlike the R3's, the 1 DX price has never dropped, at least in most European countries.
Calumet Germany: R3 = Euro 4999, 1 DX = 6999...

Total cost of ownership might not change too much. If Canon can hold the new prices steady, then used prices will also stay higher when you go sell your camera.

 

[Del Paso]

Total cost of ownership might not change too much. If Canon can hold the new prices steady, then used prices will also stay higher when you go sell your camera.

Disagree.
2000 Euro is a huge difference. That's about the price I expect for the future RF 1,4/35.
And, if you sell your 1 series after 5-6 years, expect a huge loss. Far less if you bought your new camera, R3 for example, with a huge discount and at a much lower price.
PS: I'm speaking out of the perspective one doesn't need the advantages of the R1, only the pro quality of an R3.

 

[frankchn]

Disagree.
2000 Euro is a huge difference. That's about the price I expect for the future RF 1,4/35.
And, if you sell your 1 series after 5-6 years, expect a huge loss. Far less if you bought your new camera, R3 for example, with a huge discount and at a much lower price.
PS: I'm speaking out of the perspective one doesn't need the advantages of the R1, only the pro quality of an R3.

You would have to buy the R3 now (i.e. 3 years into the lifecycle) to get the nice discount. In that case, either an R1 or an R3II is not a consideration at launch, since you are getting no discounts off MSRP until a couple of years into the lifecycle.

I tend to buy my cameras at launch, so I am paying full MSRP either way (i.e. I paid $6,500 on the 1DX3 and $6,000 on the R3). Having no discounts on the cameras 3 years later means potentially better prices for used cameras 4 years down the road when I upgrade, which makes my total cost of ownership lower.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I tend to buy my cameras at launch, so I am paying full MSRP either way

Same.

Having no discounts on the cameras 3 years later means potentially better prices for used cameras 4 years down the road when I upgrade, which makes my total cost of ownership lower.

True in theory (as you say, ‘potentially’), not sure it’s true in reality.

Today, KEH will pay $2500 for the R3 that I bought at launch for $6000. They’d pay just $1900 for the 1D X III that I didn’t buy for $6500 at launch, despite the fact that the R3 has seen good discounts recently and the 1D X III has remained at full price.

 

[Del Paso]

You would have to buy the R3 now (i.e. 3 years into the lifecycle) to get the nice discount. In that case, either an R1 or an R3II is not a consideration at launch, since you are getting no discounts off MSRP until a couple of years into the lifecycle.

I tend to buy my cameras at launch, so I am paying full MSRP either way (i.e. I paid $6,500 on the 1DX3 and $6,000 on the R3). Having no discounts on the cameras 3 years later means potentially better prices for used cameras 4 years down the road when I upgrade, which makes my total cost of ownership lower.

In Europe, you'd get about 1700 -1900 for a 1 DX3, but, like it the USA, around 2500 for an R3. If you take into account that at launch, the R3 cost 1000 Euro less...

 

[frankchn]

Today, KEH will pay $2500 for the R3 that I bought at launch for $6000. They’d pay just $1900 for the 1D X III that I didn’t buy for $6500 at launch, despite the fact that the R3 has seen good discounts recently and the 1D X III has remained at full price.

I suspect that is due to the fact that the 1DX3 is end-of-line for the EF mount, so used demand isn't there as everyone moves to RF.

It would be interesting to get historical data about the used price drops (in terms of %age from MSRP) of used 1DXes when 1DX2 launched (and 1DX2s when 1DX3 launched) vs the drop in R3 prices when the new flagship launches, but I can't find the historical data anywhere.

 

[john1970]

I hope not, the R3 is, unlike most 1 series cameras, an affordable professional camera. The R1 will cost lots more, I'm afraid!

I do not think Canon can go too high in price. The Nikon Z9 is $5500 and the Sony A9 III is $6000. I almost suspect the price will be $6500. The R3 is now selling new for $4500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do not think Canon can go too high in price. The Nikon Z9 is $5500 and the Sony A9 III is $6000. I almost suspect the price will be $6500. The R3 is now selling new for $4500.

I can see $7K or a bit higher, Canon being Canon. But $6500 also makes sense and I hope that’s where it lands (or lower, but I doubt that will happen).

The 1D X launched at $6800, and that’s $9250 in today’s dollars. Shhhh…don’t tell Canon.

 

[john1970]

I can see $7K or a bit higher, Canon being Canon. But $6500 also makes sense and I hope that’s where it lands (or lower, but I doubt that will happen).

The 1D X launched at $6800, and that’s $9250 in today’s dollars. Shhhh…don’t tell Canon.

That scenario could happen as well. The release MSRP of the R5 Mk2 might provide some insights into the pricing of the R1. If the R5 Mk2 MSRP is 10% greater than the original R5 than maybe we should anticipate the R1 costing 10% more than the 1Dx Mk3?