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

[Cyborx]

This rumor has been put online only to keep the attention away from the Nikon Z9.

 

[koenkooi]

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.

I went from a 7D+M to an RP+M6II and now R5+M6II, my big wish is smaller bodies for both the RF and M mount, e.g. an M200 sized body, but with eye-AF in servo mode and an RP sized body, but with a usable electronic shutter and full-width 4k.

The R5 covers everything I did with the 7D and @AlanF has shown that if I want more reach on my 100-500 I should get the RF 2x extender. And that extender, while expensive, will be a lot cheaper than an APS-C RF camera aimed at the 7D folk. I don't expect an R6-with-M6II-sensor to be cheaper than the regular R6.

 

[vangelismm]

One week APS-C rumor, the other week R1.
Repet, profit.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

That is a point I kept making in Neuro's absence, its was a lonely call but still spot on. A very good case can be made for the R6 and 800 f11 too.

 

[entoman]

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.

The demand that I sense for an APS-C camera in RF mount doesn’t stem primarily from a desire for a cheap body, as that is already catered for by the R6 and lower FF models. Rather it stems from a desire for extra reach and the subsequent ability to shoot with shorter, lighter and far less expensive *lenses* to get the same angle of view.

Canon already have a 33MP APS-C sensor. Compare that to the rather measly 17MP that results from cropping a 45MP image down to APS-C size.

I’m an ex-7DMkii owner, who like yourself now has the R5. My view is that an “R7” with a 28MP or higher sensor would be the ideal second body to my R5, and a better fit for my requirements than an R3, R1 or high-res “R5s”. Obviously I can’t quantify how many others feel likewise.

Nikon, Panasonic, Sony and Fujifilm all have what I’d classify as “prosumer” APS MILCs. Canon only have the oddball M series, with its incomplete set of lenses. To compete better in the APS market, they really need something with unique qualities - that to me suggests a high performance, high-res, pro-grade RF model.

As for the timing of a possible R7, I’m a glass half-full guy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The demand that I sense for an APS-C camera in RF mount doesn’t stem primarily from a desire for a cheap body, as that is already catered for by the R6 and lower FF models. Rather it stems from a desire for extra reach and the subsequent ability to shoot with shorter, lighter and far less expensive *lenses* to get the same angle of view.

Canon already have a 33MP APS-C sensor. Compare that to the rather measly 17MP that results from cropping a 45MP image down to APS-C size.

The demand that you personally feel, fine. But if your feelings represent a small minority of buyers, they are irrelevant to Canon. The fate of the 7-series is good evidence that your desires are not representative of a large market segment.

On the subject of less expensive lenses, what APS-C lens would give you 800mm for $900, or 1600mm for $1400?

 

[entoman]

The demand that you personally feel, fine. But if your feelings represent a small minority of buyers, they are irrelevant to Canon. The fate of the 7-series is good evidence that your desires are not representative of a large market segment.

How exactly do you know that my feelings represent "a small minority of buyers"?

Please cite your data...

The “fate of the 7D series” does not provide good evidence - it merely demonstrates that Canon, at the time, saw *more* profitability in alternative lines, and believed that a fundamental change (i.e. RF MILCs) was needed, rather than an incremental upgrade.

And part of that fundamental change to RF MILCs will, sooner or later, result in an APS-C body. It’s just a question of when.

 

[Ozarker]

The R1 will not differ from any other camera when a professional makes a business decision.

Nor will an Enthusiast differ in what changes their motivations.

The difference with a camera like the R1 is the potential for a greater number of photographers across multiple genres to see it as an optimal tool.

This is why the Z9 is receiving such accolades.

"If" the R1 does indeed double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII it could become one of the best selling cameras in history.

What will be required is what Canon has proven they can do already.

We are getting into blurred lines as photographers have typecast and pigieon

If Canon waits until 2024.... Nikon will take away a sizable chunk of business. The Z9 was just the first shot across Canon's bow. Nikon will have even higher resolution camera than the Z9 by then to beat Canon's R1 to the market. Canon played "hold back" and it has caught up with them. They release the 1DXMKIII, then R5 with no incremental increase in resolution from the 1DXMKII to the 1DXMKIII..... Then a 20 something MP R3??? Canon deserves to have some of their market share lost to Nikon for what they did!

Yeah, well... no 1 series body is ever going to be the best selling camera in history. Ever. The Kodak Instamatic will always beat a 1 series. Come on, man.

 

[Ozarker]

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?

Well, the guy who took the photos standing on his head gets my vote. What kind of nutty, fantasy, silly "what if ism" is this? This imaginary fantasy is supposed to prove a point? Know what? I'd imagine the number of professionals who know how to dial in a film camera, and then actually develop and print, has dwindled to an extremely small number of individuals in the last few years.

 

[neuroanatomist]

How exactly do you know that my feelings represent "a small minority of buyers"?

Please cite your data...

The “fate of the 7D series” does not provide good evidence - it merely demonstrates that Canon, at the time, saw *more* profitability in alternative lines, and believed that a fundamental change (i.e. RF MILCs) was needed, rather than an incremental upgrade.

And part of that fundamental change to RF MILCs will, sooner or later, result in an APS-C body. It’s just a question of when.

After the 7DII, Canon came out with the 80D then the 90D (and many other APS-C and FF DSLRs). If there was no technical reason to not develop a 7DIII, there must have been a strategic reason. Either too small a market segment, or Canon wanting those buyers to go FF.

You could be right about the broad desire for a high-end APS-C MILC from Canon. But the strategic decision on the 7DIII remains. I’d suggest the very existence of the 600/11 and 800/11 indicates Canon wants reach-seeking buyers to get a FF camera.

 

[entoman]

You can technically claim anything you want until the client asks for a demo reel or a sample of your work. That will quickly humble most people regardless of how many tens of thousands of gear they have. But some people do buy camera gear as a form of conspicuous consumption among their fellow peers, and obviously it isn't a direct reflection of their skill levels either. Even then, I think everyone has their own valid reasons. Some people like to collect cameras and never planned to pursue a trade in this field and simply like having the "best" for bragging rights, etc.

I think a better statement would be that "camera advances haven't removed the requirement for talent, but has given more headroom for those with talent to do more or better than what they were using previously."

In most cases it’s not about “bragging rights”, but a belief that a better camera will enable the owner to take better photographs. Of course, that is nonsense, but there’s no harm in a mediocre photographer owning a piece of expensive high end equipment. There is a joy to be had from owning high quality equipment, and if you can afford it, why not?

The truth is that *most* of us are mediocre photographers. Better equipment is a pleasure to own and operate, but those of us who have aspirations to achieve a higher standard of photography, will gain far more by studying the work of others, and learning from the plethora of excellent YouTube tutorials available on all aspects and genres of photography.

 

[GoldWing]

Yeah, well... no 1 series body is ever going to be the best selling camera in history. Ever. The Kodak Instamatic will always beat a 1 series. Come on, man.

If that instamatic is the best professional camera you've ever owned.... You've done a great job with it... Hang in there for another 50 years!!! Best to you!!!

 

[entoman]

After the 7DII, Canon came out with the 80D then the 90D (and many other APS-C and FF DSLRs). If there was no technical reason to not develop a 7DIII, there must have been a strategic reason. Either too small a market segment, or Canon wanting those buyers to go FF.

You could be right about the broad desire for a high-end APS-C MILC from Canon. But the strategic decision on the 7DIII remains. I’d suggest the very existence of the 600/11 and 800/11 indicates Canon wants reach-seeking buyers to get a FF camera.

The strategic decision to end the 7D series was of course a wise one, even though it was very frustrating to many wildlife and sports DSLR users.

Canon exists to make money, and having seen how Sony was progressing with FF MILCs, they began to phase out DSLRs while developing RF MILCs.

Likewise I feel they are watching the sales figures of APS MILCs from Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and Fujifilm, and gauging when and whether to launch their own RF body. My guess is that they have a design and a few prototypes in existence, and that if they decide to go ahead with an RF MILC, it would only take a short time to get it into production.

At least that is my fervent hope.

 

[Fischer]

Painful if there's no high-megapixel "R" in the works. Canon has said it was coming previously. Was looking at 2022 as 99% likely.

 

[entoman]

Painful if there's no high-megapixel "R" in the works. Canon has said it was coming previously. Was looking at 2022 as 99% likely.

45MP is already “too much” for most purposes,

...but if the R1 has quad-pixels, you might have the option of combining the sub-pixels to produce images of either 90MP, 45MP or 22MP.
You could choose the hi-res 90MP option for detail at the expense of increased image noise, or the 22MP option for low light/high ISO work.

How many pixels do you think you need, and how much are you willing to pay for them?
With the R5 currently at just over $3000, and the R3 at $6000, the R1 could easily cost £7500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The strategic decision to end the 7D series was of course a wise one, even though it was very frustrating to many wildlife and sports DSLR users.

Canon exists to make money, and having seen how Sony was progressing with FF MILCs, they began to phase out DSLRs while developing RF MILCs.

Likewise I feel they are watching the sales figures of APS MILCs from Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and Fujifilm, and gauging when and whether to launch their own RF body. My guess is that they have a design and a few prototypes in existence, and that if they decide to go ahead with an RF MILC, it would only take a short time to get it into production.

At least that is my fervent hope.

As you say, time will tell. Canon’s profits substantially from lens sales, it seems in their best interest to sell FF cameras to those who want more reach, requiring them to buy longer lenses and/or TCs. That’s why I don’t think we’ll see any more ‘high-end’ APS-C bodies.

 

[john1970]

45MP is already “too much” for most purposes,

...but if the R1 has quad-pixels, you might have the option of combining the sub-pixels to produce images of either 90MP, 45MP or 22MP.
You could choose the hi-res 90MP option for detail at the expense of increased image noise, or the 22MP option for low light/high ISO work.

How many pixels do you think you need, and how much are you willing to pay for them?
With the R5 currently at just over $3000, and the R3 at $6000, the R1 could easily cost £75

Personally, if the R1 has selectable resolutions via pixel binning of 90/45/22 MP I would be thrilled. You would basically have multiple cameras in a single body. Of course, I would expect other features as well such as state-of-the-art AF (quad-pixel?), class-leading buffer and fps, utmost durability. I appreciate the R5 for the resolution and the R3 for the speed and integrated grip; would be ideal to have a single body that combined them and I suspect the R1 is going to deliver that promise. With that said, if I had to choose between the R5 and R3 I would go with a R3 because for 90+% of my photography 24 MP is more than enough.

 

[StevenA]

Well, the guy who took the photos standing on his head gets my vote. What kind of nutty, fantasy, silly "what if ism" is this? This imaginary fantasy is supposed to prove a point? Know what? I'd imagine the number of professionals who know how to dial in a film camera, and then actually develop and print, has dwindled to an extremely small number of individuals in the last few years.

If you had gone back to my original post on the subject it probably makes more sense. But I'm not going to start from the beginning just to bring you up to speed. Especially when I was responding to someone else.

 

[StevenA]

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.

That was pretty much my original point. Cameras have come so far that the lines between a novice and professional are being blurred and the skill factor is being negated.

Professionals back in the days of film were a special breed. Today, not so much, and the 'magic' is being lost. Just my 2 cents.

 

[entoman]

On the subject of less expensive lenses, what APS-C lens would give you 800mm for $900, or 1600mm for $1400?

Haha!, I own the 800mm F11, and while it’s usable enough in bright sunlight, it’s next to useless for moving subjects in overcast conditions. The high ISO performance of the R5 is substantially better than the 5DS, but the degree of noise obvious in defocused backgrounds is unacceptable to me over ISO 2000.

I can only assume that your suggestion of using it with a 2x extender to reach 1600mm was a joke - you do realise that it then becomes an F22 lens?

Restricting the 800mm to F11 was a marketing decision designed to keep the size/weight low and the price below the $1000 threshold, but IMO it was a poor choice for *users*. If it had been 800mm F8 it probably would still have been light enough to hand hold and still easily transportable due to the telescoping design, but it would be a great deal more usable under a wider range of lighting conditions.

Canon, as I’ve stated before, exist to make money, and they’re better at it than any other brand, but what is best for Canon isn’t always what is best for Canon customers.