What will Canon bring to the table with the EOS R1?

[usern4cr]

I have no desire to deal with HEIF files until their natively supported in file explorers and don't need to be tossed into Adobe Bridge/Photoshop/Lightroom just to look at them...at that point, I just shoot RAW.

I also just shoot raw or cRaw(for smaller storage size) photos and process them in DXO PL4.
So I will never have a need to shoot heif photos in-camera.
The times I wish I could use heif for photos is for anytime I would have PL4 output jpgs for email, printing, or to AffinityPhoto or other secondary post software (and all that happens all the time!).

 

[terrellcwoods]

I've had all the D1 bodies (bought used/demo) I really like my R6 & will probably get an R5 used at a later date. If that R1 comes in at 9k+ I will never own one. But what if Canon goes the road of not matching the new Sony A1. Remember Canon never had a camera in their DSLR lineup to directly compete with the Nikon D850. Does Canon have to have a high MP flagship? Or will it be in the 24 -32mp range? With new AF, new sensor, beefy processor, and all the connection access we expect and with the Canon $$$. I may be wrong but I still don't believe editors want to see a 50MP file being pushed to the desk. I think that A1 will be a great wildlife kit for people who sell prints but if I'm a Sony user that A92 or is 3is perfect. What do y'all think

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

It's has nothing to do with storage and space and everything to do with processing power. I have modern i7s in my laptops and a Ryzen 7 in my desktop - unpacking 2,000-4,000 cRAW or RAW files from the R5 is cumbersome still...and in Lightroom, they can take hours to create previews for - so I often don't. This isn't enjoyable, especially when I only have 10-15 minutes where I can come into a media tower and offload my cards and start quick processing for whoever I'm working for. With the 1DX, this was never a problem at all because of the 20mp resolution where I shot RAW exclusively at all my races. I could offload the card, import to Lightroom, filter by rating, throw a quick edit on all of them, and start the export and deliver quickly. This process - an incredibly large use case for professionals - is dramatically slowed down. So this is why I would love to have the option to say "I don't need 45mp right now" and be able to shoot 20-24mp when I wanted. Ask any wedding photographer if they prefer a D750 or a D850....or a A7III or an A7RIV....or an R6 or an R5. I think an overwhelming majority will take the D750, A7III, and R6.

Interesting. I wonder if Lightroom is more sluggish than using Bridge to sort through files. My computer is 7 years old and I often have 2000 + images in a single folder in Bridge and don’t really have any issues with speed. And this is with the 45mp R5 files in full RAW

 

[Antono Refa]

A square sensor would be vastly more expensive to produce. Not only does it need more wafers to make the same number of sensors, but it would require a bigger IBIS, faster processor, re-engineered mechanical shutter, bigger square view finder....

You create all kinds of engineering problems and increase the price of the camera by many times to create something that produces a undesirable image ratio that has to be cropped in post. A flick switch on the side that just tells the IBIS system to rotate the sensor would be cheaper and faster, but even then, just go with the gripped body so you can get those lovely huge batteries in the bloody thing.

I agree, and think its more than that, e.g.

1. The EF 24-105mm f/4L mkI has a baffle, which would make it incompatible with square sensor. Same for lenses with gel filter - the holder is rectangular.

2. With 24x36 sensor, the shutter curtain would have to travel 36mm, which would affect flash sync time.

3. Canon could crop the image in camera to either horizontal or vertical, but using the vertical would require either vertical display (= larger EVF, read lower yields & higher prices) or rotating the image 90 degrees, which would be confusing.

 

[kaihp]

2. With 24x36 sensor, the shutter curtain would have to travel 36mm, which would affect flash sync time.

With a square sensor, the image circle would limit the side length to 30.6mm, not 36mm, but your point about increased flash sync time stands.

 

[Antono Refa]

With a square sensor, the image circle would limit the side length to 30.6mm, not 36mm, but your point about increased flash sync time stands.

If the image circle was smaller than 36mm, it wouldn't cover the edges of a 24x36 sensor. The image circle has a diameter of 43.266mm, so it would reach all sides of a 36x36 sensor. Its the corners it wouldn't cover- that would require an image circle with a diameter of 50.9mm.

 

[Joules]

If the image circle was smaller than 36mm, it wouldn't cover the edges of a 24x36 sensor. The image circle has a diameter of 43.266mm, so it would reach all sides of a 36x36 sensor. Its the corners it wouldn't cover- that would require an image circle with a diameter of 50.9mm.

Your square sensor has a diagonal of sqrt(36^2 + 36^2) = sqrt(2)*36 = 50.9 > 43.3

So the edges remain dark for some lenses. Obviously many RF lenses have a much bigger image circle to allow the sensor to move without leaving it. But there's also a lot of people that already find the vignetting too strong in these lenses.

I would think simply allowing the sensor to be rotated by a custom angle would be the more economical way to achieve the convenience. Or instead of having the image circle move though shifting the lens elements, move the sensor so it samples the entire image sensor.

 

[Antono Refa]

Your square sensor has a diagonal of sqrt(36^2 + 36^2) = sqrt(2)*36 = 50.9 > 43.3

So the edges remain dark for some lenses.

I speak English as a second language, but I would say the corners would remain dark.

Obviously many RF lenses have a much bigger image circle to allow the sensor to move without leaving it. But there's also a lot of people that already find the vignetting too strong in these lenses.

My bet is for combination of long focal length and wide aperture, such a 36x36 sensor would be covered. Otherwise, who knows? The RF 15-35mm f/2.8L has 4 stops of vignetting @15mm f/2.8, which IMHO means it doesn't cover the full 24x36 sensor at those settings.

I would think simply allowing the sensor to be rotated by a custom angle would be the more economical way to achieve the convenience. Or instead of having the image circle move though shifting the lens elements, move the sensor so it samples the entire image sensor.

My understanding is the image circle should remain where it is. I doubt the sensor could be rotated, but it would still suffer from a problem I've mentioned - it wouldn't play well with lenses that have a baffle or gel filter.

 

[Chig]

I speak English as a second language, but I would say the corners would remain dark.



My bet is for combination of long focal length and wide aperture, such a 36x36 sensor would be covered. Otherwise, who knows? The RF 15-35mm f/2.8L has 4 stops of vignetting @15mm f/2.8, which IMHO means it doesn't cover the full 24x36 sensor at those settings.



My understanding is the image circle should remain where it is. I doubt the sensor could be rotated, but it would still suffer from a problem I've mentioned - it wouldn't play well with lenses that have a baffle or gel filter.

I would suggest a round sensor of say 43mm diameter to match the image sensor of most lenses which allow you to crop portrait or landscape or square crop at any angle or even keep the full round image if you prefer.
The camera could have a button or dial to switch between different crops allowing you to see how it looks in the EVF and no need for vertical grips and duplicated controls , also if you've chosen say landscape crop the camera could automatically adjust to compensate it you aren't holding the camera level keeping the chosen crop horizontal in the viewfinder.
If you get some vignetting on certain lenses then the camera could just make the crops smaller to compensate automatically.

 

[usern4cr]

I would suggest a round sensor of say 43mm diameter to match the image sensor of most lenses which allow you to crop portrait or landscape or square crop at any angle or even keep the full round image if you prefer.
The camera could have a button or dial to switch between different crops allowing you to see how it looks in the EVF and no need for vertical grips and duplicated controls , also if you've chosen say landscape crop the camera could automatically adjust to compensate it you aren't holding the camera level keeping the chosen crop horizontal in the viewfinder.
If you get some vignetting on certain lenses then the camera could just make the crops smaller to compensate automatically.
View attachment 195726

Wow - this topic still goes on (I'm surprised).

I'd still like to (genuinely) mention how it'd be great if Canon ever did this. If I had the expendable money to pay for the much higher price of that big round (or 30 to 36mm square) sensor & EVF & back LCD then I would definitely get it. And "when" that day does happen (I repeat) I'd make sure to watch out for those "flying pigs"!

 

[Joules]

I would suggest a round sensor of say 43mm diameter to match the image sensor of most lenses which allow you to crop portrait or landscape or square crop at any angle or even keep the full round image if you prefer.

I've not read every post here so sorry for potential duplicates. But a few more downsides to consider:

The larger sensor requires a wider shutter that has to travel further, adding even more cost and compromising FPS and flash sync time.

It also makes the electronic shutter distortion even worse as different rows of pixels would require different read times, introducing a variable curvature to the resulting distortion, instead of just the slanting we have now.

A global shutter would of course address both points.

Maybe not a big deal but it might also require replacing existing flower petal lens hoods with circular, shorter ones. Depending on how much the petal shape is tailored to the sensor format.

Increased file size isn't really a factor in my eyes, but some people even use that to argue against larger resolutions.

 

[kaihp]

I would suggest a round sensor of say 43mm diameter to match the image sensor of most lenses which allow you to crop portrait or landscape or square crop at any angle or even keep the full round image if you prefer.

I'd still like to (genuinely) mention how it'd be great if Canon ever did this.

Non-rectangular sensors are never gonna happen, with current manufacturing technology: they cut the (round) wafer into discrete sensor chips using a saw that goes from side to side, so stopping in the middle to go in a different direction (or making a round sensor) is not possible.

If you wanted to do something remotely circular, hexagonal chips would be interesting as they'd fill out the wafer well. Now we 'just' need to sort out how to dice the wafer in honeycomb pattern.

 

[JohnC]

I lot of wasted material cutting circles out of a sheet...not likely

 

[unfocused]

I lot of wasted material cutting circles out of a sheet...not likely

I lot of wasted internet space discussing a topic that has been around on this forum for probably 10 years or more, is ridiculously impractical and is never going to happen.

 

[Michael Clark]

R1 will exceed the tech specs of A1 and be in stock at BH within 12 months.

Canon will offer a (free?) program to modify Series III EF 400mm and 600mm lens to RF mount.

When did you change your mind that there's no way Canon would undercut their investment in the 1D X Mark III by introducing the R1 anytime before 2024?

 

[Michael Clark]

Nonetheless, we can also express our opinions about a situation.

One can do anything they wish, as long as they recognize they will have to live with the consequences.

 

[Chig]

Non-rectangular sensors are never gonna happen, with current manufacturing technology: they cut the (round) wafer into discrete sensor chips using a saw that goes from side to side, so stopping in the middle to go in a different direction (or making a round sensor) is not possible.

If you wanted to do something remotely circular, hexagonal chips would be interesting as they'd fill out the wafer well. Now we 'just' need to sort out how to dice the wafer in honeycomb pattern.

Well the wafers are also often cut by laser cutting so can't see that's a deal breaker

 

[dolina]

When did you change your mind that there's no way Canon would undercut their investment in the 1D X Mark III by introducing the R1 anytime before 2024?

I change my position when presented with compelling evidence. I do not dig in out of pride.

Something to consider when talking about things more substantial than camera releases.

I expect this year's rescheduled 2020 and 2022 Olympics events to be rescheduled or outright cancelled due to COVID-19

 

[Hector1970]

I change my position when presented with compelling evidence. I do not dig in out of pride.

It's the way we should all be. People seem to hold opinions to the death even when evidence shows otherwise

 

[SteveC]

It's the way we should all be. People seem to hold opinions to the death even when evidence shows otherwise

They regard admitting they were wrong as a sign of weakness.

It is, in fact, a sign of strength, in my book, that their ego can withstand acknowledging they're not perfect.