The Canon EOS R1 is coming, here are a few things to expect

[neuroanatomist]

The starting point for such an estimate would be the number of 7D and 7DMkii units sold. Both were very popular cameras.

Can you share the unit sales numbers for those models? ‘Very popular’ is a meaningless term. Which was ‘more popular’, the 7-series or the 5-series?

Then they’d factor in that there is a great deal of demand for a modernised i.e. high-performance RF mount version, and that would give them an indication of how high the demand actually is.

How do you know there is, “…is a great deal of demand,” for such a camera. Read a few posts on the internet? Talked to a few people?

Canon knows best. And I think that Canon knows that a high performance APS pro-grade body will be a very profitable addition to their range. Time will tell.

Indeed. An APS-C RF camera has been rumored since the R came out, and we haven’t seen one yet. Which brings us back to, If the segment was ‘very profitable’ why was there ‘the loss of the 7DII’ in the first place?

 

[jam05]

Nikons price to performance is going to be tough to come close to. They also don’t have a cinema line to hold features for. If it’s $7000+, I just don’t know what more the R1 can be that’s $1500 better and also not “crippled” on the video side.

Nikon has a chance to make a splash if they can get the camera shipped. They also need a third dial, that would drive me crazy.

They need a lot of cinsumers willing to start all over with different lense. By the time the Z9 ships in any quantity it will be a bit obsolete technology wise.

 

[jam05]

A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?

Photography is an element of the arts. No different than a painter. What personally motivates others is none of our business. Same as any other art form.

 

[jam05]

Canon wanting to reassure everyone that the R1 is coming sooner rather than later?

The description makes me think 60 MP, 20 FPS, 8 GB buffer, and quad-pixel AF. Incremental advances to the different eye AFs, eye-control AF, etc.

That would be a killer camera. Personally, I'd prefer 30-36 MPs. But I'd absolutely consider an R1 with those specs.

Because translated and posted on a rumor site make it an official Canon statement?

 

[dilbert]

The position today is very different. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have exceedingly good cameras, with little to differentiate them in terms of image quality or performance. The differences between them are largely ergonomic.

Price seems to be an interesting point of difference.

Consequently, the number of people who feel any need or desire to “defect” is very small, particularly as the overwhelming majority of people who are in the market for any high-end camera, will already have substantial investment in lenses, extenders, flashguns etc.

This story didn't launch before the Z9, only after. Not at all a coincidence in that, is there? I mean this story is content free in terms of what was new but its presentation is 0% rumor, 100% marketing. Look, you're probably right about defections but why else do we get marketing-rumor stories like this? Just to drive ad-click revenue?

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is why the Z9 is receiving such accolades.

Accolades ≠ sales.

They release the 1DXMKIII, then R5 with no incremental increase in resolution from the 1DXMKII to the 1DXMKIII..... Then a 20 something MP R3???

Indeed. So it seems either you don’t understand the ILC market, or the multibillion-dollar global company that dominates the ILC market doesn’t understand that market. Hmmmm, that’s a tough call.

Canon deserves to have some of their market share lost to Nikon for what they did!

But will they? Nikon must make substantial gains just to make up what they’ve lost to Sony and Canon in just the last year. A $5,500 camera isn’t going to sell enough units to even make a tiny dent in that growing gap.

I think your vitriolic internet posts will have to serve as punishment enough. LOL.

 

[jayphotoworks]

A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?

That is a single type of photography in a single type of setting. Even if the novice's shots are chosen because of the R5's burst and keeper rate, what about the artist at home doing still art photography? Will the novice even know where to start with lighting and composition regardless of the equipment used? What if I told both the pro and novice at the NFL game they only had 25 shots to get what they needed to submit. Would you feel the same or differently about your proposed blind test?

In addition, being a pro is a business and a mindset. You work for your client and consider things they don't know they need ahead of time. A pro shooting live events probably has a good backup methodology and equipment redundancy plans. They probably have the requisite memberships to access the pro tent at the said NFL game and have other credentials for shooting on elevated platforms, etc. Even if the photographer shoots stills at home, they probably have experience on the types of canvas and media need to be showcase the photos the customer wants or needs among other things.

If someone's motivation is to simply to acquire cameras as a collector or to even enjoy the feeling of operating a shutter regardless of what they capture, all the more power to them. On the other hand, if that person spends a lot of money and feels they are a pro tomorrow, two things will happen. They will first have a rather rude awakening and probably make a bunch of mistakes, BUT those mistakes will become experience and they WILL learn how to be a pro and basically fulfill their own aspirations. We all started somewhere..

 

[adrian_bacon]

I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.

It'd be nice if they put the pixel density of the 90D/M6II into a full frame sensor and made that the R1. Just imagine the bump in sensor performance over the 90D if it was also a stacked BS Illuminated sensor. ~83MP... Huzzah.

 

[Chig]

R5 in an R3 body. That is what we want. Name it R2, name it spaceship VULVA69X mark1000, BUT MAKE THE DAMN CAMERA!

If they call it Vulva69X it would be even harder to convince my wife to let me order one

 

[unfocused]

Just to state the obvious, but it may help channel speculation into one of several streams:

The R1 will either be:

1) merely QUANTITATIVELY superior to the R3 and competition...

2) a GAME-CHANGER in one or more ways...

3) it will be a SAD TROMBONE, not even as good as the competition.

Since 1987, Canon has always tried to out-spec the competition. Nikon gives you a 180/2? Canon will give a 200/1.8. Nikon has a 55/1.2? Canon gives you 50/1.0, and so on. I'm not following the market that closely so what would the ante be in order to at least meet Sony and Nikon?

-- pixel-shifting: now that we have IBIS, we have a camera that can literally move its sensor. So what say we move it 1/3 of a pixel at a time and take a second exposure... again and take a third... then down a 1/3 a pixel and take a fourth... Several exposures can thus be combined to produce a higher-resolution image.

-- 102MP is available from the Fujifilm GFX 100 for $9999. The R1 may be pretty close to that price. In fact if you count the likely sales volume, $7999 would basically be that price. And 100MP has a nice "quantity has a quality all it's own" feeling to it.

-- Sony A7R4 and the Sigma fp L have 61MP so this is the minimum we could possibly have and still be in category 1.

-- 5.76MP viewfinders are used by the A7R4 and Fujifilm GFX 100. The R1 has to match that, or beat it somehow such as update rate. The A1 has 9.44M and 240Hz, however. If Canon's going to exceed ALL of the competition, that is the target.



But Canon's also tried to change the game a couple times. The change to EF mount cost sales in the short term but took Canon from 25% to 90% of the pro market. USM motors came from nowhere to make that autofocus strong, high-torque, self-locking, and silent. You can add pellicle cameras and tilt-shift lenses as well.

One idea for a game-changer mentioned above is global shutter. My expectation is that we may see the sensor Canon patented a couple years ago that has two charge accumulators per pixel and that can switch between them. The patent outlined how this can be used for global shutter (switching to charge bucket B momentarily while taking your time to read out all the buckets As), to double dynamic range (let B pick up photos every 1us out of a ms, taking in 1/1000 the light but also having smooth motion trails in most cases), and a couple other tricks. If it has this shutter, then even 50MP or less would still be a game-changer.

WHY ARE YOU YELLING?

 

[unfocused]

A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?

I suppose you think you are making a point, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is supposed to be.

Does your "novice" have any photographic experience? Have they been given a chance to use and learn the functions of the R5? Does your professional have a motor drive and bulk film? Does the film camera have autofocus? Is the professional photographer a sports photographer or a portrait photographer? What's the criteria for the photographs (Is it to take the best action photographs or the most interesting photographs)? What lens selection do they each have access to? Who is judging these photos, a sports editor or an art critic?

If you think you have a point here, just say what it is, instead of creating a silly hypothetical.

 

[unfocused]

I believe there is a lot of truth in those rumours. Most likely, Canon have had an APS-C RF camera in development for some time, but have been waiting to see how viable the market is, before committing to finalising design. Now that Nikon, Sony and Panasonic all have APS-C models on the market, I think Canon will join them and release such a model within the next few months. Demand is highest for FF, but there are a hell of a lot of sports and wildlife photographers who would absolutely leap at the chance of acquiring a pro-grade Canon sports/action APS-C body.

Maybe. But I think you might be overly optimistic about your timing.

And, as has been debated to death on this forum, the likelihood of a successful APS-C body hinges on whether or not it would be significantly less expensive than a comparable full frame camera that can be cropped to approximately the same resolution. I was once a target buyer for a 7DIII, but since buying an R5 and using it in crop mode, I've found my interest in buying an APS-C-only body has shrunk significantly. Not zero, but not particularly high either. I wonder how many potential 7DIII buyers are now in my shoes.

 

[unfocused]

They need a lot of consumers willing to start all over with different lenses. By the time the Z9 ships in any quantity it will be a bit obsolete technology wise.

I think you should have stopped with the first sentence.

 

[Otara]

Can you share the unit sales numbers for those models? ‘Very popular’ is a meaningless term. Which was ‘more popular’, the 7-series or the 5-series?


How do you know there is, “…is a great deal of demand,” for such a camera. Read a few posts on the internet? Talked to a few people?


Indeed. An APS-C RF camera has been rumored since the R came out, and we haven’t seen one yet. Which brings us back to, If the segment was ‘very profitable’ why was there ‘the loss of the 7DII’ in the first place?

My suspicion is its problem was being a pocket rocket, ie it didnt lead on to all that many lens sales and it wasnt that profitable overall, even if it sold a lot.

The only lens thats being sold that matches well under a big white would be the 100-500mm and I suspect they arent having trouble selling that. The general solution they seem to be offering is higher apertures and longer reach rather than going crop ie 800mm and TC's - and weight reduction.

 

[Otara]

Maybe. But I think you might be overly optimistic about your timing.

And, as has been debated to death on this forum, the likelihood of a successful APS-C body hinges on whether or not it would be significantly less expensive than a comparable full frame camera that can be cropped to approximately the same resolution. I was once a target buyer for a 7DIII, but since buying an R5 and using it in crop mode, I've found my interest in buying an APS-C-only body has shrunk significantly. Not zero, but not particularly high either. I wonder how many potential 7DIII buyers are now in my shoes.

Very different price points but yes, same. Im sure a remaining group people would love to be able to buy an APS-C to replace a 7D II, but it may not be that large once you remove the people who went for R5/R6 or got a 90D instead, changed brands etc, and they probably arent expected to buy the highend RF glass to go with it to make it worthwhile for Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only lens thats being sold that matches well under a big white would be the 100-500mm and I suspect they arent having trouble selling that. The general solution they seem to be offering is higher apertures and longer reach rather than going crop ie 800mm and TC's - and weight reduction.

For those who want the ‘affordable reach’ that is a selling point of APS-C, an RP and the 800/11 provides it.

 

[bbasiaga]

For those who want the ‘affordable reach’ that is a selling point of APS-C, an RP and the 800/11 provides it.

It seems like for the pro-sumer/dedicated hobbyist they are pushing for extra reach on lenses (which are slower at the long end) and better high ISO performance to get the 'reach'. Getting folks off APSc this way could be looked at like a gateway to higher end lenses and bodies, since there is no "RF-s" lenses to be left behind. So maybe that is their strategy? I'm just thinking out loud.

I do think well see APSc in a lower end body though. These will be for people who won't know or care about the difference in crop factor, etc. They just want entry level pricing.

Brian

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do think well see APSc in a lower end body though. These will be for people who won't know or care about the difference in crop factor, etc. They just want entry level pricing.

That’s the EOS M line.

 

[sanj]

A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?

But. The professional will have a much easier time with the R5 and will miss fewer shots. And the novice will find that the camera helps him a lot to compensate for him being a novice.

 

[Otara]

But. The professional will have a much easier time with the R5 and will miss fewer shots. And the novice will find that the camera helps him a lot to compensate for him being a novice.

There was a video where they did this with an amateur and a professional for portraits with different cameras etc, and the amateur did rather better than expected. The disparity in experience shows in different ways than it might have in the past.