Canon EOS R1 – 8 Months in the Wild: A Field Photographer’s Perspective

[Canon Rumors]

Clickbait?
My use case underwater is different to the birding/wildlife being discussed here but my R5 gives me much more flexibility when cropping as you never know what type of size critter you will meet underwater.
I generally shoot 100mm macro around Sydney but sharks, turtles and seals can be there. I can still use my 100mm from a distance for part of the critter but generally switch to video with my mounted GoPro to the housing.
Hard cropping when shooting wide angle (14-35/4) but come across smaller critters.
Can't change lenses (or bodies) underwater.
Both you and the subjects are moving.
Lighting and particulate challenges beside buoyancy, current/surge, buddy checks and staying alive.
The housing already protects the body/lens so no need for the ruggedness of the R1.

Calling the ability to crop "lazy" as you didn't get close enough is just a lazy comment.

Snorkeling with humpbacks/calves at the end of the month in Aitutaki.
The big question is whether to shoot fisheye or 14-35/4 as they are very large and can get too close for cropping!

I do fine with 20mp underwater. Two of the best out there still shoot with low MP DSLRs.

Underwater is hard, probably the hardest of the wildlife photography world. I suck at it, but it's more about me than the resolution of the image sensor. Lights lose effectiveness pretty quickly when it comes to distance from a subject.

People are free to think the way you do, but I will always consider it lazy. My goal is to make something worthwhile enough to put on paper, and that's a rare occurence. The discipline is what drives me, not posting some cropped nonsense on Instagram with excuses as to why I couldn't get the shot.

I want the memory of getting it right at the lens, not in Lightroom. It's one of the reasons I shoot film a lot, it forces focus on what you're doing and you can't cheat a negative anywhere near the same way you can a digital file.

 

[David - Sydney]

I do fine with 20mp underwater. Two of the best out there still shoot with low MP DSLRs.

Underwater is hard, probably the hardest of the wildlife photography world. I suck at it, but it's more about me than the resolution of the image sensor. Lights lose effectiveness pretty quickly when it comes to distance from a subject.

People are free to think the way you do, but I will always consider it lazy. My goal is to make something worthwhile enough to put on paper, and that's a rare occurence. The discipline is what drives me, not posting some cropped nonsense on Instagram with excuses as to why I couldn't get the shot.

I want the memory of getting it right at the lens, not in Lightroom. It's one of the reasons I shoot film a lot, it forces focus on what you're doing and you can't cheat a negative anywhere near the same way you can a digital file.

Sigh, missing Neuro already.
Thank you for expanding on your opinion. You call yourself lazy if you don't meet your own cropping standards.
Don't project your idea of 'laziness' on others who either don't care about cropping or cannot move to get the shot without cropping.

The shooting process is important but post-processing has to be combined make the final product worthwhile or not IMHO. YMMV

PS: some underwater competitions don't accept significantly cropped images so some shooters have wet lenses and use the APS-C mode to "crop" the raw image.
I don't care for competitions so those restrictions aren't important to me.
Getting the shot irrespective of cropping is more important hence I use a R5.
Missing shots of critters because I have the wrong lens on is annoying.

 

[koenkooi]

Sigh, missing Neuro already.
Thank you for expanding on your opinion. You call yourself lazy if you don't meet your own cropping standards.
Don't project your idea of 'laziness' on others who either don't care about cropping or cannot move to get the shot without cropping.

[…]

I am prepared to accept ‘lazy’ for the “won’t go closer” category, but not for the “can’t go closer”.

In theory I can get closer than 30m to seals on a sandbar, but then I’ll get fined and kicked out of the national park (ignoring personal ethics here). So I don’t consider cropping in that case lazy and put it in the “can’t” bucket.

Now, bringing just the 14-30 to said sandbar and leaving the 100-500 at the apartment, that is lazy

 

[jd7]

Cropping for composition is one thing. Thinking cropping is a feature because you didn't get close enough to your subject is lazy.

I really think you should re-think that one.

For example, if I said:

thinking AF is a feature because you didn't have time to manually focus your subject is lazy, or

thinking high ISO is a feature because you didn't have lights/flash to light your subject is lazy,

would you agree? (OK, in some situations not having lights/flash available would be lazy! In some situations though, artificial lighting is impossible or at least impractial.)

Many of the features on modern cameras simply let us achieve results more easily, efficiently and consisitently than older cameras. The ability to crop to produce a result which previously would have required a longer focal length lens and/or getting closer to the subject seems to me to be just one more example of that.

And also, it is not hard to imagine situations in which it is simply not possible to get closer, ie laziness is not the reason for not getting closer.

A camera like the Sony A1 II lets you output raw files at different resolutions, so you can output relatively small files when speed is paramount and switch to larger files when you see a benefit in that (because you anticipate cropping or you just want more detail or whatever). I am not saying the A1 II is better in every way over an R1 - and for example, the R1 can do 40 FPS versus 30 FPS for the A1 II (and I think the R1 might keep a higher bit depth as well?), and for anyone who likes the size/grip of the R1, the R1 is going to feel nicer to use for that reason regardless of anything else. However, dismissing the A1 II's 50 MP as providing no advantage at all over the R1's 24 MP seems wrong, and strange, to me, even if you ultimately prefer the R1 for your use.

 

[AlanF]

I am prepared to accept ‘lazy’ for the “won’t go closer” category, but not for the “can’t go closer”.

In theory I can get closer than 30m to seals on a sandbar, but then I’ll get fined and kicked out of the national park (ignoring personal ethics here). So I don’t consider cropping in that case lazy and put it in the “can’t” bucket.

Now, bringing just the 14-30 to said sandbar and leaving the 100-500 at the apartment, that is lazy

Not lazy, stupid.

 

[SvO2]

I do fine with 20mp underwater. Two of the best out there still shoot with low MP DSLRs.

Underwater is hard, probably the hardest of the wildlife photography world. I suck at it, but it's more about me than the resolution of the image sensor. Lights lose effectiveness pretty quickly when it comes to distance from a subject.

People are free to think the way you do, but I will always consider it lazy. My goal is to make something worthwhile enough to put on paper, and that's a rare occurence. The discipline is what drives me, not posting some cropped nonsense on Instagram with excuses as to why I couldn't get the shot.

I want the memory of getting it right at the lens, not in Lightroom. It's one of the reasons I shoot film a lot, it forces focus on what you're doing and you can't cheat a negative anywhere near the same way you can a digital file.

Is it lazy or just adapting to the technology available? Is using precapture lazy? Instead of nailing the timing, you can just capture several frames and pick the one that captures the moment you were going for. How about using the camera's built in crop mode? You're still framing that with your eye and lens. Is that really any lazier than using a teleconverter or a longer focal length lens?

And is something being put on paper what makes for a worthy photograph? You can display things on a digital display that will never come through on a print. Is that just cropped nonsense? Or a different way of appreciating art?

It's no wonder photography clubs are all on life support.

 

[David - Sydney]

I am prepared to accept ‘lazy’ for the “won’t go closer” category, but not for the “can’t go closer”.

In theory I can get closer than 30m to seals on a sandbar, but then I’ll get fined and kicked out of the national park (ignoring personal ethics here). So I don’t consider cropping in that case lazy and put it in the “can’t” bucket.

Now, bringing just the 14-30 to said sandbar and leaving the 100-500 at the apartment, that is lazy

That said, taking both is my 2 lens travel lens kit solution when traveling. Adding a 24-105/4 if I have space/weight for 3 lens or only the 24-105 for 1 lens (and crop for distance if needed or stitch for landscape).
I get the perspective difference between 35mm and 100mm but the best camera/lens is the one you have on you at the time for serendipitous opportunities.
For humpbacks, I'll take my EF8-15/4 and RF14-35/4 and switch depending on the day on the water at Aitutaki. No strobes
Back diving on Rarotonga, it will need to be RF14-35/4.

 

[David - Sydney]

thinking high ISO is a feature because you didn't have lights/flash to light your subject is lazy,
would you agree? (OK, in some situations not having lights/flash available would be lazy! In some situations though, artificial lighting is impossible or at least impractial.)

I always have weight issues when flying with underwater gear.
My twin strobes are 2.5kg + arms + TTL converter and dual sync cord. >4kgs is a big choice to make.
Night dive = essential. Macro = almost always essential. Reefs with subject <2m away = important. Fill flash when shooting into the sun = important but pulling shadows can be ok in post.
Besides night diving, they could be optional but not lazy if you want the best shot. Of course they are cumbersome and much heavier out of the water as well.
So Maldives next year is tricky. Night fluorescence dives = strobes/arms/etc + macro + excitation filters. Whale sharks and manta rays will be RF14-35/4. House reef snorkeling will vary.
Internal Maldives flight is 20kg+5kg carry on with USD10 per extra kg each way!
Will I take an astro lens and tripod??

A camera like the Sony A1 II lets you output raw files at different resolutions, so you can output relatively small files when speed is paramount and switch to larger files when you see a benefit in that (because you anticipate cropping or you just want more detail or whatever).

The 5DS/R was the last body to have different size raw files I think. cRaw has the same res but potentially losing shadow detail but half the size files.
The R1/R3/R5ii don't reduce bit depth with eshutter but the R5 does go to 12bit vs 13 with EFCS and 14 with mechanical shutter.

 

[czesiek]

Canon users defending the R1/R3 being stuck at 24mp as a "plus" reminds me of Nikon users defending Nikon's top bodies being stuck with APS-C sensors in the early DSLR days. When Canon finally gets their image processing engine to able to do R1-levels of performance at 45 or 50mp, no one will want any less. (Just like Nikon users stopped thinking APS-C sensors were great when the D3 and D700 came out.)

Exactly my thoughts. I remember times where Nikon were stuck in 12mp "era" and all of the fanboys said more resolution is a gimmick, until D800 came out. Canon was always a resolution king with cameras like 1Ds, 1DsII, 1DsIII, 5DII and then they've fallen behind quite quickly. As a long time 5Ds shooter, and now R5 user all i can say is that they've been blown by Sony and Fuji quite harsh. I've bought two GFX100 and they are so much better for slow work than R5 it's not even funny. Dynamic range, noise levels, color fidelity and resolution are just on another level. 1.5y ago i'd say if they came with 80mp R3 styled body i'd grab it without a bigger thought, but now...

 

[czesiek]

Carig sent this to me so thought I would respond directly: I am not sure wether to be flattered or insulted that someone would think this was written with A.I. I guess I should be flattered. But anyway, I have been writing professionally for more than fifteen years on my own blog at http:blog.jholko.com, so my style is quite established. I guess I will take it as flattery....Oh.. I do use grammerly as I have a habit of leaving out commas.

To the question of Canon users defending 24MPX as a plus. I am not sure if brand matters here in this question, and the individual's mileage may vary based on what they shoot. But I have to shoot a lot at high ISO with wildlife, and the difference between an R1 file at ISO25600 and ANY 45 MPX file at the same ISO is night and day. If you side by side an R1 ISO 25,600 with a Canon R5MKII at the same ISO then you would have to quite litterally be blind not to see the marked difference. You don't even have to worry about brand - the same applies wether its Sony, Nikon or whatever. Physics is awesome like that. High pixel density = higher noise.

For whatever reason my R5 is more noisy than GFX100, so not always that's the case.

 

[roby17269]

For whatever reason my R5 is more noisy than GFX100, so not always that's the case.

It's because what Josh-H wrote is correct at pixel level but not at image level, where sensor size dominates (all else being equal).
Your GFX100 has a bigger sensor than the R5's, so at image level it will show less perceptible noise. At pixel level the R5 will win since the Fuji has slightly smaller pixels... but if you were to resize (not crop) the GFX image down to 45mp, then the R5 pixel level advantage will disappear

 

[Nelu]

With sufficient lighting, noise is not a problem. And the ability to crop in wildlife photography should not be underestimated.

PS I think that the lack of a camera in the R3/R1 body with a 45MP sensor is bad. I have an R1 and R5m2, and the second camera is much worse (AF speed, work with 600/4, etc.) and cannot replace the R1.

"With sufficient lighting, noise is not a problem." Hallelujah!
Exactly!
Expose properly for the subject and ISO won't mean much.
About the AF speed, especially with long lenses...
How could it be even close if you consider the batteries?
R1: 2700 mAh @ 10.8V (29W)
R5 or R5 Mark II: 2130 mAh @ 7.4V (15.8W)

 

[AlanF]

"With sufficient lighting, noise is not a problem." Hallelujah!
Exactly!
Expose properly for the subject and ISO won't mean much.
About the AF speed, especially with long lenses...
How could it be even close if you consider the batteries?
R1: 2700 mAh @ 10.8V (29W)
R5 or R5 Mark II: 2130 mAh @ 7.4V (15.8W)

R1: 2700 mAh @ 10.8V = 29 Watt hours (Wh)
R5 or R5 Mark II: 2130 mAh @ 7.4V Watt hours (Wh)
which is quite different from Watts. Watts measure power whereas Wh measures the total amount of energy stored and not the power produced per unit of time.

 

[Nelu]

R1: 2700 mAh @ 10.8V = 29 Watt hours (Wh)
R5 or R5 Mark II: 2130 mAh @ 7.4V Watt hours (Wh)
which is quite different from Watts. Watts measure power whereas Wh measures the total amount of energy stored and not the power produced per unit of time.

Sure, OK, but the big brick in the 1 series will always drive a big lens faster than the tiny battery in the 5 series. I witness that all the time when I compare the R5 to the 1 DX III or now, to the R1.
Even if you attach the grip to a 5 series camera it won't help because the two batteries are not used in parallel.

 

[AlanF]

Sure, OK, but the big brick in the 1 series will always drive a big lens faster than the tiny battery in the 5 series. I witness that all the time when I compare the R5 to the 1 DX III or now, to the R1.
Even if you attach the grip to a 5 series camera it won't help because the two batteries are not used in parallel.

If they are used in parallel it would not increase the power because their voltage is unchanged in parallel. In parallel, they produce the same voltage for twice as long. The power is proportional to V^2/resistance.

 

[SvO2]

Sure, OK, but the big brick in the 1 series will always drive a big lens faster than the tiny battery in the 5 series. I witness that all the time when I compare the R5 to the 1 DX III or now, to the R1.
Even if you attach the grip to a 5 series camera it won't help because the two batteries are not used in parallel.

Not necessarily. The R5II (and presumably all the cameras that use that form factor thereafter) can draw twice as much current as the older small battery cameras, which makes the total power draw comparable to the big bodies. This is evident when looking at the voltage/current capacities for the respective dummy batteries. The DR-E6P outputs a max of 10V at 6A for a total of 60W (source) and DR-E19 12.6v at 5A (source) for a total of 63W. Even if we go with 8.4v (voltage of 2 lithium cells) * 6A, that's still 50W instantenous draw which is a considerable power budget.

Now whether the R5II actually uses that extra power to drive a lens faster or if the extra capacity is just for all the other high power bits (e.g precapture), I can't say.

 

[antonn]

"With sufficient lighting, noise is not a problem." Hallelujah!
Exactly!
Expose properly for the subject and ISO won't mean much.

You misunderstood what I was talking about. "Low light" refers to a slowdown in focusing speed and color loss at high ISOs (you can't lower the shutter speed, the limit has been reached). The R1 focuses much faster in low light and more accurately. This can't be "corrected" by adjusting the exposure.

 

[antonn]

Now whether the R5II actually uses that extra power to drive a lens faster or if the extra capacity is just for all the other high power bits (e.g precapture), I can't say.

As I already wrote: R5m2 works slower with RF600/4 than R3/R1, including with the BG-R20 battery pack and new battery models.

ADD: The funniest thing about this situation is that both batteries in the battery grip are discharged at the same time

 

[Nelu]

You misunderstood what I was talking about. "Low light" refers to a slowdown in focusing speed and color loss at high ISOs (you can't lower the shutter speed, the limit has been reached). The R1 focuses much faster in low light and more accurately. This can't be "corrected" by adjusting the exposure.

I'm sure it was a misunderstanding because I also believe that the R1 is focusing faster and more accurately in those conditions than the 5 series.

 

[SvO2]

As I already wrote: R5m2 works slower with RF600/4 than R3/R1, including with the BG-R20 battery pack and new battery models.

I've yet to see that actually demonstrated though which is why I'm skeptical. People have been claiming the big bodies drive AF motors faster for decades, but I don't think that was ever really true until dual power AF became a thing. And Canon themselves don't really delve much into what cameras have dual power AF -- all we know is the R3 is the first.