We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

[SwissFrank]

The R3 is more than sufficient to fulfil the needs of most professionals. But manufacturers are always striving to provide more. So what are the few remaining areas where improvements would be beneficial, and where does that leave the R1?

Global shutter? - possibly, but ultra fast readouts would reduce rolling shutter to the level where it became virtually undetectable, so global shutter may not be necessary.

Canon patented, 2-3 years ago now, a sensor design that has global shutter, built-in ND, and can almost double dynamic range. It's a compelling package that would get my interest even though R5 build quality and MP is enough for me.

 

[David - Sydney]

One will debate what is the "best" sensor size, on one hand, most people post things on the internet, or their computer screen which is in best 8K (2400*3600 pixels)? Thus asking why need for 50-60mpx while they can only see a fraction of it. Then you will say "crop", but again does one need to crop or just get closet to the object and fill the frame with the object, not copping it?

There are many examples where you are not able to zoom with your feet and need to crop to the composition/framing you prefer. I have cropped significantly many times and appreciate the R5's pixel density to still have a reasonable resolution for viewing on screen or printing. The obvious reason is not having the ideal focal length ie my RF100-500mm wasn't sufficient and I couldn't get closer.. Similar with macro when I am shooting underwater. Working distance is important not to disturb wildlife.

Higher mpx means lower dynamic range,

Please provide evidence of this and whether it is significant when downsampling between different sensor sizes.

much more sensitivity to movements etc. I have a friend with the R6, I have the R5, and to be honest, for most pictures, there is no real difference between our pictures when we post them online. For sports and action photographers, speed of "action" is more important then higher mpx. the R1 is made for those people, not those taking higher mpx shots that needs lesser speed.

I am not the target audience for a R1 but I regularly use 14fps with my R5. It makes so much of a difference compared to my previous 5Div. 14fps was the top speed for the 1DX and 16fps on the 1DXii (with mirror up). I don't tend to use 20fps eshutter as I get banding with indoor lighting.

I am not saying that I need every pixel for my content but if it is available then I will use it.
If you don't need the R5's pixel density then the R6 is much cheaper.

 

[masterpix]

There are many examples where you are not able to zoom with your feet and need to crop to the composition/framing you prefer. I have cropped significantly many times and appreciate the R5's pixel density to still have a reasonable resolution for viewing on screen or printing. The obvious reason is not having the ideal focal length ie my RF100-500mm wasn't sufficient and I couldn't get closer.. Similar with macro when I am shooting underwater. Working distance is important not to disturb wildlife.


Please provide evidence of this and whether it is significant when downsampling between different sensor sizes.

I am not the target audience for a R1 but I regularly use 14fps with my R5. It makes so much of a difference compared to my previous 5Div. 14fps was the top speed for the 1DX and 16fps on the 1DXii (with mirror up). I don't tend to use 20fps eshutter as I get banding with indoor lighting.

I am not saying that I need every pixel for my content but if it is available then I will use it.
If you don't need the R5's pixel density then the R6 is much cheaper.

While it is dificult to compare sensors from different generations, there is one comparison that cross my mind, two cameras that came at about the same time, have similar processor and similar software: the R6 has a larger dymanic range in compare to the R5. It is simply cause the sensor pixels are a bit larger than therefore can collect little bit more light.

 

[scyrene]

You could argue that an oversampled raw image eg 4:1 would be lossless. It wouldn't be raw in the normal definition though.

You have lost resolution, though you may gain in other areas (DR?). I suppose it depends if you apply "lossless" to every aspect of the image.

 

[cayenne]

For the car analogy, Tesla charges a monthly subscription for autonomous driving. They have also limited their free standard connectivity access to 8 years (in the US) for maps etc as they don't accept carplayAndroid Auto. They will probably force older owners to subscribe to their premium connectivity package after that. I can see where their ongoing costs are and it isn't like heated seats where the hardware is already installed.

I also wish that other cars had cooling seats like Lexus does for warmer countries. That said, Lexus charges AUD300 for one-time updated navigation maps which is absurd!

I'm not going to rent features in a car that "I" purchased either.

If it comes to that and the feature hardware is already IN the car, well, I'll be soon hacking it to manual control and use whatever I want in my car.

For software, hey I understand it, some places like the rental model. I noticed software I like (Capture One and On1 Raw) offer a choice of license purchase or rental.

If Adobe offered the choice, they might woo me and a lot of others back...but they don't so....

PS is fun, but I find that Affinity Photo does the same job, often faster since it has an engine that was built new from scratch and doesn't have the tons of legacy code holding it back....and that one purchase 5-6 years ago now I think....gets regular updates still.

If Affinity can do this and put out a competitive product....why can't Adobe?

Oh well...too early to rant...

Ctabasco9

That's a bit harsh. I loathe twitter, facebook, instagram etc, but I know plenty of people who most definitely lead very fulfilling lives in the "real world", and still find enjoyment posting images on Flickr.

Also, I have to ask - if you are only interested in the "real world", why are you spending time posting on social media yourself? (CR is social media, in case you hadn't noticed).

LOL...

I dunno about CR being "social media"....you HAVE read some of the posts here, eh?


(including some of my old rants...not always that sociable)

 

[entoman]

I dunno about CR being "social media"....you HAVE read some of the posts here, eh?


(including some of my old rants...not always that sociable)

One of the reasons I spend quite a lot of time here on CR is because, most of the time, the debates and exchanges are sociable and amicable in nature .

It's also the reason why I spend far *less* time on dpr, where the opposite is often the case.

 

[David - Sydney]

One of the reasons I spend quite a lot of time here on CR is because, most of the time, the debates and exchanges are sociable and amicable in nature .

It's also the reason why I spend far *less* time on dpr, where the opposite is often the case.

DPR is people just shouting at each from their respective camps. Not a lot of learning to be had there or at least hard to sift the wheat from the significant chaff. Given the volume of the posts from some, it would seem to be their full time job.

 

[David - Sydney]

You have lost resolution, though you may gain in other areas (DR?). I suppose it depends if you apply "lossless" to every aspect of the image.

Of course resolution is lower... that is the entire point! If the R1 has a 80mp sensor then recording raw would be 80mp. Oversampling down to 20mp using 4:1 of the fly means that the shots are reasonably sized for their usage for sports etc (unless HEIF/jpg is preferred). Oversampling is still "lossless" in that perspective.
For video, oversampling gives you better image quality for that resolution. Oversampling 4kHQ mode on the R5 is better than their standard 4K line skipped mode... the latter could be considered closer to raw as you are using alternative rows of the full sensor.

 

[David - Sydney]

While it is dificult to compare sensors from different generations, there is one comparison that cross my mind, two cameras that came at about the same time, have similar processor and similar software: the R6 has a larger dymanic range in compare to the R5. It is simply cause the sensor pixels are a bit larger than therefore can collect little bit more light.

I agree that in theory that the R6 should have better dynamic range as the pixel size is bigger but that logic doesn't seem to be obvious any more.
There seems to be subjectively a difference at >ISO6400 with the R6 being better
https://petapixel.com/2020/09/11/canon-eos-r5-vs-r6-astrophotography-and-high-iso-comparison/

For dynamic range, DXOmark (love or loathe it) shows that the R5 has better DR than the R6
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-R6-versus-Canon-EOS-R5___1354_1355

From Photons to Photos, the R5 is slightly better at higher ISO and half a stop better at low ISO


DPR's studio shot comparison tool shows that the R5 has greater noise subjectively at ISO6400 but those comparisons are at 1:1 and not downsampled to the same resolution.

 

[GoldWing]

Canon is way late to the party. Agencies are loading up on Nikon glass.

What was Canon thinking. If the R1 is not 85MB or better Nikon is ready with a 105 Monster.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon is way late to the party.

Yeah, people have been saying that for a decade. Somehow, Canon continues to dominate the market.

But hey, a stopped analog clock is right 0.139% of the time. So keep going, you’ve probably got a similar chance.

 

[scyrene]

Of course resolution is lower... that is the entire point! If the R1 has a 80mp sensor then recording raw would be 80mp. Oversampling down to 20mp using 4:1 of the fly means that the shots are reasonably sized for their usage for sports etc (unless HEIF/jpg is preferred). Oversampling is still "lossless" in that perspective.
For video, oversampling gives you better image quality for that resolution. Oversampling 4kHQ mode on the R5 is better than their standard 4K line skipped mode... the latter could be considered closer to raw as you are using alternative rows of the full sensor.

I don't feel strongly either way, but to be pernickety, if something has been lost, it surely can't really be lossless, that's all I'm saying I'm a big fan of downsampling fwiw.

 

[sanj]

I don't feel strongly either way, but to be pernickety, if something has been lost, it surely can't really be lossless, that's all I'm saying I'm a big fan of downsampling fwiw.

I googled and learnt the word 'pernickety'. Nice. Will use it often in future. Thanks. I will have a British friend pronounce it for me. What fun!

 

[Curahee]

That's a bit harsh. I loathe twitter, facebook, instagram etc, but I know plenty of people who most definitely lead very fulfilling lives in the "real world", and still find enjoyment posting images on Flickr.

Also, I have to ask - if you are only interested in the "real world", why are you spending time posting on social media yourself? (CR is social media, in case you hadn't noticed).

I was bored between a couple of meetings.
LOL

 

[entoman]

I don't feel strongly either way, but to be pernickety, if something has been lost, it surely can't really be lossless, that's all I'm saying I'm a big fan of downsampling fwiw.

The way I look at it is that if the file contains all the data that the sensor is capable of recording, then it's lossless, and anything else is by definition lossy.

What matters however is whether the lossy image is *visibly* inferior.

By inferior I mean has it lost sharpness or detail, have the tones and colours become compressed to the detriment of the photo, and are there any artefacts.

The most practical way to analyse this is to take simultaneous stills images in RAW, C-RAW, JPEG and HEIF, and compare them side by side on a high quality monitor at 100%.

Personally, I can't tell the difference comparing RAW and C-RAW, but there may be circumstances (e.g. astrophotography or black cat in a coal cellar) where uncompressed RAW has an edge. I can *usually* tell the difference between simultaneously shot C-RAW and JPEG, as the latter always has less fine detail, and under certain circumstances the colour compression can lead to a contouring effect separating areas of slightly different tone. Sharpening (especially with Topaz DeNoise AI) can do a fair job of restoring detail and edge sharpness, but if colour information has been lost, there's no way to regain it.

I always prefer to err on the side of caution, so until recently I shot almost everything on RAW. Since I got my R5 a year ago, I've mostly shot C-RAW and only shot RAW in particularly difficult lighting conditions. I only shoot JPEG in situations when shooting RAW might fill the buffer, e.g. BIF bursts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I always prefer to err on the side of caution, so until recently I shot almost everything on RAW. Since I got my R5 a year ago, I've mostly shot C-RAW and only shot RAW in particularly difficult lighting conditions. I only shoot JPEG in situations when shooting RAW might fill the buffer, e.g. BIF bursts.

My plan was RAW to CFe and SD, switch to just CFe if I had buffer issues, then switch to C-RAW if still having buffer issues. So far I haven’t had any buffer issues shooting RAW to both cards on my R3.

 

[entoman]

My plan was RAW to CFe and SD, switch to just CFe if I had buffer issues, then switch to C-RAW if still having buffer issues. So far I haven’t had any buffer issues shooting RAW to both cards on my R3.

Hey neuro, I'm glad to hear that you're not having problems. I usually shoot C-RAW to both cards, except when shooting BIF, and then I shoot JPEG to both cards. So far, I haven't had any lockups when shooting JPEG bursts, but that will be fully tested on a major shoot in December. I can pretty much guarantee that I get lockups when shooting bursts on C-RAW (or RAW), it happens almost every time when shooting BIF bursts (regardless of shutter mode), and it happens with both SanDisk and Delkin CFE cards. I've even tried removing the SD card and having only a CFE card in the camera, but the lockups still occur (roughly one lockup per 2 hour BIF shooting session).

I'm looking forward to when the next iteration of R5 is announced, but wary of these issues occurring with that camera. I've heard reports of lockups with R3 although they don't seem to be as common as with R5. I honestly can't see Canon solving this problem with the R5. Fortunately most of my photography doesn't involve burst shooting - if it did, I'd be pretty frustrated. It would be interesting to know if anyone has had lockup issues with the R7 (I haven't checked forums, but have heard no mention on comments pages).

 

[Mmm Toast]

Will the IBIS still wobble like jello? The firmware update did not help -_-

 

[HMC11]

Sorry to put this comment here. Does anyone else who is a CR Pro subscriber see advertisements on the CR site over the last week or so? I am wondering what is happening as one of the reasons for signing up as CR Pro, apart from supporting the site, is to have an advertisment-free experience. Now I am getting unwanted videos, big banners on the bottom etc. Also, when I tried to go to an article, clicking on the link resulted in an ad poping up. It is getting unpleasant. Could CR explain what is happening?

 

[Mod_1]

Sorry to put this comment here. Does anyone else who is a CR Pro subscriber see advertisements on the CR site over the last week or so? I am wondering what is happening as one of the reasons for signing up as CR Pro, apart from supporting the site, is to have an advertisment-free experience. Now I am getting unwanted videos, big banners on the bottom etc. Also, when I tried to go to an article, clicking on the link resulted in an ad poping up. It is getting unpleasant. Could CR explain what is happening?

Craig is himself annoyed with what is going on and working hard with the site developers to sort out the problems. This is very much a state-of-the art site and is continually being developed. I too have to bear with problems.