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

[john1970]

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.

I agree with your findings on the 800 mm f11. For sunlight conditions it was great, but for anything with motion and overcast conditions it was useless for me as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Then Canon would like you to buy the RF 100-500L and the RF 2x TC. And if that’s not bright enough, they’ll happily sell you an RF 600/4L to use with your 2x TC.

Incidentally, I had the 7D and 100-400L, and the 1D X and 600/4L, and the latter combination delivered far better results.

 

[entoman]

Then Canon would like you to buy the RF 100-500L and the RF 2x TC. And if that’s not bright enough, they’ll happily sell you an RF 600/4L to use with your 2x TC.

Yes, I’m aware of those options, but both, especially the 600mm F4 cost far more money than I’m willing to spend. Very few people are willing or able to run to a 600mm F4, or even a 100-500mm and 2x extender.

Canon have succeeded in producing a nice selection of “budget” RF lenses including the 600mm F11, but it’s literally going from one extreme to the other, price-wise.

I think a fixed-aperture “telescopic” RF 800mm F8 would have been a much better choice - still easy to handhold and transport, much more usable, and well under $2000 would I think be perfectly achievable.

I’ll be taking my 800mm F11 to Kenya for a birding trip later this week. In bright sub-tropical sunlight it will be fine, but here in the UK it’s virtually unusable in anything but the brightest weather.

You seem over-keen to defend Canon at all costs, rather than looking realistically at what alternative or additional choices they could make, for the benefit of those who buy their products.

 

[AlanF]

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.

Try some decent noise reduction software. iso2000 is nothing for the R5: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/

And here are a couple of shots I took in very shady areas last month with the R5. The Nuthatch is at iso 2500 and exposure increased by 2.5ev in RAW, so equivalent to greater than iso 10,000, and the bank vole also at iso 2500 and by 2 ev so equivalent to iso 10,000. The Nuthatch is a crop, not reduced in size. The Vole is reduced by ~20% for uploading.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You seem over-keen to defend Canon at all costs, rather than looking realistically at what alternative or additional choices they could make, for the benefit of those who buy their products.

Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.

I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.

 

[unfocused]

...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.

Reminds me of Pierre Bourdieu's renowned 1965 sociological study of photographers. The professionals' complaint at the time was that technology was ruining their profession and making it too easy for amateurs to compete. Nearly 60 years later and the same arguments are repeated.

 

[unfocused]

...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...

Try some decent noise reduction software. iso2000 is nothing for the R5: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/

Especially if the complaint is noise in "defocused backgrounds." That's an easy fix in either Camera Raw or Lightroom, especially with the latest version and its masking tools.

 

[entoman]

Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.

I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.

You’ve misquoted me. What I said was that they *could* make alternative or different choices, for the benefit of their customers.

Canon actually *wants* feedback, including negative feedback, and I’m happy to continue providing my own perspective via their questionnaires, direct correspondence, and comments on relevant websites. I would encourage others to do the same, so Canon have a representative view.

They make excellent products, but that doesn’t mean that we all have to accept what’s thrown at us, and it doesn’t mean that we can’t offer suggestions for alternatives or improvements.

 

[entoman]

Especially if the complaint is noise in "defocused backgrounds." That's an easy fix in either Camera Raw or Lightroom, especially with the latest version and its masking tools.

I use the latest LR Classic version and take full advantage of AI subject selection to mask defocused backgrounds and apply noise reduction locally. I still find ISO2000 to be my limit of acceptability for images that are moderately cropped. I freely admit that I’m a pixel-peeper!

 

[AlanF]

I’ll be taking my 800mm F11 to Kenya for a birding trip later this week. In bright sub-tropical sunlight it will be fine, but here in the UK it’s virtually unusable in anything but the brightest weather.

You seem over-keen to defend Canon at all costs, rather than looking realistically at what alternative or additional choices they could make, for the benefit of those who buy their products.

Have a great trip, and I hope you have had at least 2 jabs! I'm too cautious about travelling but Kenya does have a very low infection rate.

ps, your signature has become excessively long and is taking up a lot of space.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You’ve misquoted me. What I said was that they *could* make alternative or different choices, for the benefit of their customers.

Sure, and they *could* sell the R3 for $100, too. That would definitely benefit their customers. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Canon actually *wants* feedback, including negative feedback, and I’m happy to continue providing my own perspective via their questionnaires, direct correspondence, and comments on relevant websites.

I’m sure they heard plenty of feedback requesting a 7DIII and criticizing the ‘loss of the 7DII’. But…they chose not to make a 7DIII.

 

[Finn]

Global shutter would have been a big differentiator.

Global shutters suffer from decreased dynamic range. It makes much more sense to use a stacked sensor with very fast readout to achieve stats like the Nikon Z9. I think the sweet spot is 45MP for a fast sports camera like this. Gives plenty of room to crop to clean up edges and still have 20MP+ for the final output. More than enough for editorials and more.

Most likely to happen:

• 45MP-ish stacked, BSI FF sensor
• R3 style body
• Great buffer w/ dual CFX-B cards
• Ballpark of 30FPS RAW with eShutter (12-bit or 14-bit?)
• Very expensive

Less likely but still possible:

• No mechanical shutter (clear benefits for durability & repairability & lifetime runtime cost)
• Quad-pixel technology.
• super-high megapixel sensor (higher MP makes more sense for a R5S body)
• Any kind of advanced video beyond what R5 provides (Protect Canon 'C' line)

Nikon did a very good job with the Z9. It is a true hybrid mirrorless camera. The only faults are perhaps with the EVF, but it has very attractive pro level features in both video and photo modes including internal ProRes/RAW.

I would love to see future R5 or R1 camera with quad-pixel and DGO in video modes with a FF sensor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Global shutters suffer from decreased dynamic range.

Yes, the Red Komodo has a global shutter and suffers from a horribly decreased 16+ stops of dynamic range.

 

[Finn]

Yes, the Red Komodo has a global shutter and suffers from a horribly decreased 16+ stops of dynamic range.

View attachment 201040

Not at certain SNRs. Canon says C70 gets 16 stops. It doesn’t in the real world.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not at certain SNRs. Canon says C70 gets 16 stops. It doesn’t in the real world.

Sure, and Sony Exmor didn’t deliver 15-stops in the real world, either. But thanks for the irrelevant tangential deflection of the point.

 

[bbasiaga]

That’s the EOS M line.

I love my EOS M. But I don't think that line will be around much longer. We'll be consolidated to the RF mount, and lenses like the rumored 18-XX mm, 16mm prime, and even 24-240 that are good on FF with heavy correction, but would be great on APSc will be the cheap, lightweight offerings to go with the APSc bodies.

BTW...i don't gamble because I'm always wrong. So don't run off to Vegas and bet the farm on this one...

 

[StevenA]

Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.

I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.

I know I'm coming into the middle of this so I could be taking this out of context. But I'm curious about your statement that one must be naive to believe Canon does things for the benefit of their customers. Since, if asked, I'm convinced canon would have no choice but to say 'yes' to that question, and when pressed they would refer to their wide ranging product lines and sales success to validate it. What proof are you relying on to make such a statement?

 

[stevelee]

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.

If a 7D or 7D II was the right tool for the job given a person’s budget, why not just keep using it? It’s not like it suddenly quit doing what you wanted it to. I can appreciate GAS as much as the next guy, and the idea will sound weird to folks on a board dedicated to rumors about the coming latest and greatest, I realize.

My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football. Unless sales of pictures to other parents is too lucrative to give up, many of those owners suddenly have no long term special need for it once the son graduates.

 

[Bob Howland]

If a 7D or 7D II was the right tool for the job given a person’s budget, why not just keep using it? It’s not like it suddenly quit doing what you wanted it to. I can appreciate GAS as much as the next guy, and the idea will sound weird to folks on a board dedicated to rumors about the coming latest and greatest, I realize.

My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football. Unless sales of pictures to other parents is too lucrative to give up, many of those owners suddenly have no long term special need for it once the son graduates.

It isn't just football or just sons. I've seen it with hockey, go-karts, volleyball, soccer, track, rugby and whitewater kayaking.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football.

I recently sold my EF 70-300L to just such a person, to mount on the used 7DII he bought from someone else.