Canon officially announces the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II

[Canon Rumors]

So much for CR having inside sources to get specs when they were not even close. And no, guessing it have 24mp doesn't count. That was super obvious to anyone in the photo industry.

Yeah, that's why we got crapped on and told we were wrong all over youtube and other places idiots hang out.

I would say there isn't a compelling reason to buy the R1 if you have an R3. Just incremental improvements. It really should have been the R3 II.

Dam thing even looks the same! Most of the features is a copy and paste from the R3.

Only reason to buy the R3 II, ahem, R1. Is if you don't have the R3 and that kind of body appeals to you. But it's far from being a real R1 and not worth the upgrade from the R3 unless you are rolling in cash and don't care about money.

You're crazy.

1. The people tracking AF is going to be game changer for sports like basketball.
2. Ball tracking for certain sports is going to be amazing and improve anticipation success.
3. Pre capture is a no-brainer upgrade.
4. The tracking of the R1 is far superior to the R3
5. Eye AF sounds like actually works and is a valuable addition.
6. Double the buffer size
7. No limits on record times
8. Double the resolution EVF
9. Dual CFe cards
10. From what I have seen from the output at high ISO, there seems to be an improvement there.

This is only the beginning for the R1, it will get plenty of new tricks with firmware updates.

I have an R3 and it's a no-brainer upgrade for shooting basketball.

Lay off the YouTube, it's painfully obvious that you don't shoot.

 

[Sleepy Joe]

Fair enough, but a 100 MP full frame sensor is going to have a very small pixel pitch and even more high ISO noise (per a pixel). Just my opinion, but I don't really see a need in a FF sensor to go up to 100 MP. For printing purposes, I can always upscale the image using Topaz Gigapixel AI.

Upscalling is not a replacement for actual resolution.

Larger sensors gather more light, not pixels. How many times you divide the sensor area doesn't increase noise (In any practical sense). The sensor tech is what defines that.

Downrez an R5 to R6 dimensions. The noise is virtually identical. But software can actually do a better job with the noise reduction with higher resolution. So in practice the higher resolution has a and edge in noise performance.

With a larger sensor, plenty of resolution tremendous color depth, pulling detail out of the shadows and highlights and so much more. It is an IQ monster for it's intended application and a decided winner in overall IQ compared to 35mm.

If you need it in the first place.

Yeah, that's why we got crapped on and told we were wrong all over youtube and other places idiots hang out.



You're crazy.

1. The people tracking AF is going to be game changer for sports like basketball.
2. Ball tracking for certain sports is going to be amazing and improve anticipation success.
3. Pre capture is a no-brainer upgrade.
4. The tracking of the R1 is far superior to the R3
5. Eye AF sounds like actually works and is a valuable addition.
6. Double the buffer size
7. No limits on record times
8. Double the resolution EVF
9. Dual CFe cards
10. From what I have seen from the output at high ISO, there seems to be an improvement there.

This is only the beginning for the R1, it will get plenty of new tricks with firmware updates.

I have an R3 and it's a no-brainer upgrade for shooting basketball.

Lay off the YouTube, it's painfully obvious that you don't shoot.

None of that stuff is gaming changing and just firmware stuff they will trickle down to lesser bodies soon. Actual pro's do no depend on that fluff.

Pro's like me care about actual AF improvements, we care about substantial noise improvements, we care about how well can we recover shadows and highlights, we care about speed, we care about actual functionality.

Everything you said is so far away far away from making it worthy of the R1 name. It barely qualifies as a R3 II.

To be frank, the R5 II is a better camera in the ways that matter to most people over most styles of photography. R1 and R3 is a niche camera that wants speed above all else.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Upscalling is not a replacement for actual resolution.

Larger sensors gather more light, not pixels. How many times you divide the sensor area doesn't increase noise (In any practical sense). The sensor tech is what defines that.

Downrez an R5 to R6 dimensions. The noise is virtually identical. But software can actually do a better job with the noise reduction with higher resolution. So in practice the higher resolution has a and edge in noise performance.

With a larger sensor, plenty of resolution tremendous color depth, pulling detail out of the shadows and highlights and so much more. It is an IQ monster for it's intended application and a decided winner in overall IQ compared to 35mm.

If you need it in the first place.

None of that stuff is gaming changing and just firmware stuff they will trickle down to lesser bodies soon. Actual pro's do no depend on that fluff.

Pro's like me care about actual AF improvements, we care about substantial noise improvements, we care about how well can we recover shadows and highlights, we care about speed, we care about actual functionality.

Everything you said is so far away far away from making it worthy of the R1 name. It barely qualifies as a R3 II.

To be frank, the R5 II is a better camera in the ways that matter to most people over most styles of photography. R1 and R3 is a niche camera that wants speed above all else.

Again, you don't shoot.

 

[john1970]

. R1 and R3 is a niche camera that wants speed above all else.

Going back to the 1Dx of 2012, the 1-series has always been about speed.

 

[Sleepy Joe]

Tell me you read nothing I said without telling me....

I'm a profesional photographer with work in magazines and even the news (Yes it was a minor appearanc, but I'll take it). Been doing this for 15+ years.

But even then, my experience doesn't make me right or wrong. Being objectively right does. Trying to insult me by saying I don't know how to shoot is just a troll maneuver because you have no arguement, nor can you even present one.

Because you already know I'm right.

 

[Sleepy Joe]

Going back to the 1Dx of 2012, the 1-series has always been about speed.

No, I would have never known having owned everyone thing from the 1D onward.....

This is utterly irrelevant and just a weak attempt an an arguement.

Do better.

 

[JonasGillmann]

Again, you don't shoot.

Upscaling is something entirely different and therefore not a substitution or an alternative to pixel shift though.

Physically shifting pixels and capturing more information in the process can ONLY be done in-camera. Upscaling a picture does NOT have to happen in-camera. And upscaling will work even better in 5 or 10 years even with old photos. But capturing more information by physically shifting the pixels using the IBIS motors can ONLY happen in-camera and there is no equivalent replacement for pixel shift. ONLY pixel shift actually captures more information.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Tell me you read nothing I said without telling me....

I'm a profesional photographer with work in magazines and even the news (Yes it was a minor appearanc, but I'll take it). Been doing this for 15+ years.

But even then, my experience doesn't make me right or wrong. Being objectively right does. Trying to insult me by saying I don't know how to shoot is just a troll maneuver because you have no arguement, nor can you even present one.

Because you already know I'm right.

Sure ya do .. no pro would be on an internet forum saying stupid stuff. Nor would they give their resume without putting up.

 

[john1970]

@Canon Rumors Guy

I will try to take this post in a more useful and constructive direction.

Now that Canon has announced the R1 and R5 Mk2 do we have any idea on the timeframe for upcoming lenses? I am personally most interested in the 70-200 mm f2.8 Z lens with the internal zoom and the 200-500 mm f4 zoom. Just curious...

 

[Canon Rumors]

@Canon Rumors Guy

I will try to take this post in a more useful and constructive direction.

Now that Canon has announced the R1 and R5 Mk2 do we have any idea on the timeframe for upcoming lenses? I am personally most interested in the 70-200 mm f2.8 Z lens with the internal zoom and the 200-500 mm f4 zoom. Just curious...

Both have been delayed, the 70-200 Z will come first, it was supposed to come in June. They still can't meet demand for the 100-300, so I don't expect a 200-500 until that is sorted.

There will be lens announcements soon after the R52 ships.

 

[john1970]

Both have been delayed, the 70-200 Z will come first, it was supposed to come in June. They still can't meet demand for the 100-300, so I don't expect a 200-500 until that is sorted.

There will be lens announcements soon after the R52 ships.

Thank you for the information. I would like to have the 200-500 mm f4 when I go to Alaska in August 2025. Might even consider it for Africa as well although it might be too large given the weight and size dimensions on the luggage.

 

[JonasGillmann]

Both have been delayed, the 70-200 Z will come first, it was supposed to come in June. They still can't meet demand for the 100-300, so I don't expect a 200-500 until that is sorted.

There will be lens announcements soon after the R52 ships.

Is there any indication as to when the RF15-35L (from 2019) successor will be released? I think it’s supposed to be called RF15-35 Z

Oh and the whole „8K oversampled 4K60p“ saga is super confusing. The image processor can handle it as the R5C has proven and we have an active cooling grip.
Does Canon wanna leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for the R5C II? OR will Canon bring 8K oversampled 4K60p to the R5 II via a firmware update? Is there anything else you heard about this? The official Canon Europe website still promotes 8K oversampled 4K60p as a feature for the R5 II so it must’ve been planned at some point. Hopefully it’ll be brought to the R5 II with an update soon! It just feels like canon simply doesn’t want to and instead artificially limits the R5 II to leave it as an exclusive feature for another camera…

 

[koenkooi]

Is there any indication as to when the RF15-35L (from 2019) successor will be released? I think it’s supposed to be called RF15-35 Z

Oh and the whole „8K oversampled 4K60p“ saga is super confusing. The image processor can handle it as the R5C has proven and we have an active cooling grip.
Does Canon wanna leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for the R5C II? OR will Canon bring 8K oversampled 4K60p to the R5 II via a firmware update? Is there anything else you heard about this? The official Canon Europe website still promotes 8K oversampled 4K60p as a feature for the R5 II so it must’ve been planned at some point. Hopefully it’ll be brought to the R5 II with an update soon! It just feels like canon simply doesn’t want to and instead artificially limits the R5 II to leave it as an exclusive feature for another camera…

In the run up to the announcement I repeatedly and confidently said that oversampled 4k60 would be a given…

 

[Canon Rumors]

Is there any indication as to when the RF15-35L (from 2019) successor will be released? I think it’s supposed to be called RF15-35 Z

Oh and the whole „8K oversampled 4K60p“ saga is super confusing. The image processor can handle it as the R5C has proven and we have an active cooling grip.
Does Canon wanna leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for the R5C II? OR will Canon bring 8K oversampled 4K60p to the R5 II via a firmware update? Is there anything else you heard about this? The official Canon Europe website still promotes 8K oversampled 4K60p as a feature for the R5 II so it must’ve been planned at some point. Hopefully it’ll be brought to the R5 II with an update soon! It just feels like canon simply doesn’t want to and instead artificially limits the R5 II to leave it as an exclusive feature for another camera…

It'll be a different focal length than the current 15-35, but I don't know what. That has only been mentioned by a retailer, but no dates or any more information than that. It'll be an addition, not a replacement.

It'd be cool if it somehow makes its way to f/2. I don't think weight is a big concern with these Z lenses after seeing the brick that is the 24-105.

 

[JonasGillmann]

It'll be a different focal length than the current 15-35, but I don't know what. That has only been mentioned by a retailer, but no dates or any more information than that. It'll be an addition, not a replacement.

It'd be cool if it somehow makes its way to f/2. I don't think weight is a big concern with these Z lenses after seeing the brick that is the 24-105.

Interesting. Thanks for the update! Is there anything you can add to the second part of #153 regarding 8K oversampled 4K60p and whether or not we can expect a firmware update?

The official Canon Europe website still promotes 8K oversampled 4K60p as a feature for the R5 II. THIS PROVES that the R5 Mark II is capable of it if the R5 C being capable of it wasn't already proof enough. So why would Canon artificially limit the R5 Mark II? To leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for another camera even though the R5 Mark II would technically be capable of it. It's really frustrating how Canon unnecessarily cripples the R5 Mark II....

 

[koenkooi]

Interesting. Thanks for the update! Is there anything you can add to the second part of #153 regarding 8K oversampled 4K60p and whether or not we can expect a firmware update?

The official Canon Europe website still promotes 8K oversampled 4K60p as a feature for the R5 II. THIS PROVES that the R5 Mark II is capable of it if the R5 C being capable of it wasn't already proof enough. So why would Canon artificially limit the R5 Mark II? To leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for another camera even though the R5 Mark II would technically be capable of it. It's really frustrating how Canon unnecessarily cripples the R5 Mark II....

I don't think it's intentional crippling, more a matter of it not working as expected and removed because of that.

 

[JonasGillmann]

I don't think it's intentional crippling, more a matter of it not working as expected and removed because of that.

It's a PROVEN FACT that the R5 Mark II would be capable of "8K oversampled 4K60p" (the R5C without the coprocessor can handle it and we also have active cooling with the grip)

Canons own website still says that the R5 Mark II has "8K oversampled 4K60p" proving that the R5 Mark II is capable of it (if the R5 C being capable of it wasn't already proof enough..) Just take a look at this screenshot. It's still up on this website ( https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/news/meet-eos-r1-and-eos-r5-mark-ii/ )

So why would Canon artificially limit the R5 Mark II? To leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for another camera even though there is no technical limitation explaining why the R5 Mark II wouldn't be capable of it.

It's really frustrating how Canon unnecessarily cripples the R5 Mark II.... The R5 Mark II should be superior to the R5 C in EVERY way NOT just in most ways and the R5 C had 8K oversampled 4K60p years ago!

 

[Canon Rumors]

It's a PROVEN FACT that the R5 Mark II would be capable of "8K oversampled 4K60p" (the R5C without the coprocessor can handle it and we also have active cooling with the grip)

Canons own website still says that the R5 Mark II has "8K oversampled 4K60p" proving that the R5 Mark II is capable of it (if the R5 C being capable of it wasn't already proof enough..) Just take a look at this screenshot. It's still up on this website ( https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/news/meet-eos-r1-and-eos-r5-mark-ii/ )

So why would Canon artificially limit the R5 Mark II? To leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for another camera even though there is no technical limitation explaining why the R5 Mark II wouldn't be capable of it.

It's really frustrating how Canon unnecessarily cripples the R5 Mark II.... The R5 Mark II should be superior to the R5 C in EVERY way NOT just in most ways and the R5 C had 8K oversampled 4K60p years ago!View attachment 218344

I have heard it was there, and then it wasn't. Maybe something wasn't right or it was buggy, who knows? I'm guessing.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a firmware update relatively soon after the R52 starts shipping. One has to remember that these aren't complete cameras. I could see some marketing influence there. Really making a big deal about feature updates has helped in the past, and I think they should do it more, and be way more transparent about it.

 

[koenkooi]

It's a PROVEN FACT that the R5 Mark II would be capable of "8K oversampled 4K60p" (the R5C without the coprocessor can handle it and we also have active cooling with the grip)

Canons own website still says that the R5 Mark II has "8K oversampled 4K60p" proving that the R5 Mark II is capable of it (if the R5 C being capable of it wasn't already proof enough..) Just take a look at this screenshot. It's still up on this website ( https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/news/meet-eos-r1-and-eos-r5-mark-ii/ )

So why would Canon artificially limit the R5 Mark II? To leave 8K oversampled 4K60p as an exclusive feature for another camera even though there is no technical limitation explaining why the R5 Mark II wouldn't be capable of it.

It's really frustrating how Canon unnecessarily cripples the R5 Mark II.... The R5 Mark II should be superior to the R5 C in EVERY way NOT just in most ways and the R5 C had 8K oversampled 4K60p years ago!View attachment 218344

I strongly object to the use of 'crippling', if only for being a decent human being to our non-ambulatory fellow humans. Furthermore, your use of the word implies spite, e.g. Canon said "Hey, we don't like that Jonas fellow, let's remove something he wants, just to mess with him."

I have worked in the tech space long enough to know how true don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence is.

 

[JonasGillmann]

I strongly object to the use of 'crippling', if only for being a decent human being to our non-ambulatory fellow humans. Furthermore, your use of the word implies spite, e.g. Canon said "Hey, we don't like that Jonas fellow, let's remove something he wants, just to mess with him."

I have worked in the tech space long enough to know how true don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence is.

Limiting one product to leave room for another product you're planning to release is a real thing. They might simply want to leave it as an exclusive feature for another camera!

Market segmentation makes sense from an economic POV but it's frustrating for customers nevertheless.