Let’s talk Canon EOS R1, the flagship of flagships?

[Michael Clark]

I like the 50 mpx idea. With a 50% crop I will still get 25mpx image. We must realize that lots of factors come into play at 50% crop: Lens sharpness, atmospheric haze, critical focus etc.

If you're talking 50% crop in linear dimensions (half the frame width and half the frame height), then you're only getting 12.5MP out of a 50MP sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

Way out of my range and specs for what I do, but if I was a professional shooting once in a lifetime events I would stick to the DSLR like the 1D X III which doesn't appear to have freezing issues requiring battery pulls like some RF bodies I hear about from people on here. If I were to use the R3 or R1 I would be testing it a lot before the event. Just my opinion though.

IMHO, the reason the R3 was named R3 instead of R1 is specifically due to the failure of Canon to solve the freezing issues before they released it.

 

[Loswr]

IMHO, the reason the R3 was named R3 instead of R1 is specifically due to the failure of Canon to solve the freezing issues before they released it.

I highly doubt that. These reported freezes do not seem to be reproducible. It's unlikely Canon was even aware of the problem before release of wither the R5 or the R3. My R3 has not had any issues of that sort, so it's clearly not am endemic issue. Rather, it likely derives from some specific combination of settings. Canon offers many settings options, but they do not test them all. Troubleshooting involves resetting to defaults, and that solves the problem. This isn't a new problem, over a decade ago, activation of the orientation-linked AF point setting on the 1D X resulted in AFMA values by lens not being stored. Resetting to factory defaults 'fixed' the problem.

Edit: The recent R5C firmware bug, with C# modes shooting in 400 MP pixel-shift mode, is another example of the ‘unpredictability’ (or impossibility of exhaustive testing) of the myriad of available settings combinations.

 

[Michael Clark]

Reminds me, one of the features that I still think was a good idea was the 7DII Auto Focus Area Selection Lever which allowed for quick changes in the autofocus selection area. Never understood why that was not incorporated into other bodies.

They just moved it to slightly below the 8-way, which I like better, with the 5D Mark IV. That's the way it was on the 7D Mark II's battery grip, too.

 

[Michael Clark]

Sure I can. I've owned numerous crop cameras and, at its price point, it is arguably the best APS-C camera ever made with an AF system well above its price point. What exactly do you think is a let down for a $1499 camera?

For me it's lack of vertical controls due to no connections for even a third party battery grip. My right shoulder doesn't allow me to shoot in portrait orientation without vertical controls and hold the camera steady. There's something about the intense pain when my shoulder is in that position that leads to camera movement.

I've tried to learn to shoot portrait with the shutter in the "under" instead of "over" position, but when using the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II with my left hand supporting the weight of the camera/lens and in position to control the zoom ring, the heel of my left hand and the fingers of my right hand need to occupy the same space.

 

[Michael Clark]

When it comes to the 5 series whether D or R series emphasis was on high the megapixels were. 1D series cameras don't have a lot of emphasis on megapixels. It never did its Canon's powerhouse camera the "jack of all" trades camera. It was always about speed of the camera not the megapixels.

When the FF 1Ds bodies were still around, the 5D and 5D Mark II did not have higher resolution than the concurrent FF 1Ds models. The 2004 1Ds Mark II was 16.7 MP, compared to the 2005 12.7 MP 5D. The 2007 1Ds Mark III was 21.1 MP, compared to the 2008 21.0 MP 5D Mark II. And don't even begin to compare the AF systems between the two. The 5D and 5D Mark II had x0D level AF systems, not 1D level AF systems.

Only in 2012 when Canon introduced the 18 MP FF 1D X to replace the 2009 16 MP APS-H 1D Mark IV did the 2012 22MP 5D Mark III exceed the FF 1-Series bodies in terms of megapixels. The 5D Mark III also got a 1-Series level AF system. For all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III was a non-integrated grip 1Ds Mark IV, with only a modest resolution improvement from 21.1 MP to 22.1 MP.

 

[Michael Clark]

The wild card is the affluent amateur segment that’s becoming increasingly important. I suspect those folks are more likely to switch (no need for a business justification), are more likely to want to ‘keep up with the Joneses’, and I know some of them fall into the ‘having more dollars than sense’ category. If Canon gives that segment precedence, we may see a ‘high res’ R1 (45-60 MP). Not too high, though, because I also believe they’ll be an R5s at some point.

Canon's public statements back in 2018-2020 certainly seemed to indicate they viewed the affluent non-professional as the future of the extreme high end market. Perhaps that's been somewhat tempered a bit by post-COVID supply chain and inflationary issues? Perhaps not?

 

[Michael Clark]

It took Nikon years to recover after AF SLRs were released. I think it may take years for them to recover after the release of the Z Mount system. There were all sorts of problems when they released there first cameras. AWB, Auto Exposure and other stuff that we've had for years suddenly didn't work anymore. Nikon's live view AF in their DSLRs were quite slow and nowhere near Canon's level. Since Canon had great live view AF system they just transferred it to the EOS R series. Since it was great and working well. Canon didn't have any sort of problems that Nikon faced in the early days or mirrorless.

Nikon has never recovered from Canon's introduction of USM lenses.

Prior to the AF revolution Nikon had about 85% of the professional 135 format market locked up. The rest was shared by Leica, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, and others. Within five years after the introduction of the EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM Canon had over half the professional (135 format, or later with digital APS-H/FF/APS-C) market and has never looked back. By the time Nikon introduced their first SWM lens in 1996 it was all over but the crying. Then Canon introduced the first FF digital ILC in 2002. Nikon didn't have anything that wasn't APS-C until 2007. By then the gap was even bigger. What few pros (in the 135 format or smaller space) still shooting Nikon by the late 2010s were in staff jobs at companies that had been Nikon shops since prior to the 1990s.

 

[Michael Clark]

Up until about 2012, Canon and Nikon both had over 40% of the ILC market. Since then, Nikon lost while Sony gained, and Canon either gained slightly or stayed stable YoY. In 2017, Nikon’s losses and Sony’s gains accelerated (Canon remained stable at a bit under 50% market share).

Given that Sony only took the #2 spot from Nikon a few years ago, Nikon’s installed base is likely higher than Sony’s but both are much smaller that Canon installed base, which is likely in the 70-80% range. That means Canon’s major target market across the board comprises current Canon shooters.

Perhaps. As I say repeatedly, Canon understands the market better than anyone here.

In terms of the high end/professional market, though, Canon has been way ahead of Nikon since the mid 1990s. This became more apparent as the entire market has moved upstream while also shrinking over the past decade. Nikon lost a greater percentage of their total business when compact digital cameras and entry level DSLR sales dried up than Canon or Sony did.

As the lower end of the market has hemorrhaged with the rise of smart phones and their built-in cameras, Nikon's lack of strong user bases in the higher ends of the market really hurt them at the exact same time that Sony decided the way for them to compete was to go FF mirrorless, even though FF MILC technology wasn't quite ready for prime-time yet in 2013 (from a media/publishing organization's perspective). It took until about generation three of the α7 series before there weren't what seemed like weekly firmware updates to resolve bugs with the α7 cameras.

The earliest professional adopters of Sony FF MILCs were independent freelancers at the same time when staff photographers were disappearing along with the newspapers and other print publications who hired them and major media conglomerates were eliminating staff photographers in favor of spending, per image, pennies on the dollar to freelancers compared to what they had paid a decade earlier. Price suddenly became a much larger part of the purchasing decision than it had been a few years earlier. Nikon has responded in the past half-decade by lowering prices to try and compete with Sony while also introducing cameras that are more competitive with their rivals than since the 1980s.

 

[Michael Clark]

Why not go back to the way it was before the 1DX came: have two versions of the Series 1 camera; one for high speed and one for higher resolution? (or possibly pixel shift?)
Perhaps also having an R1C that has internal IDs (then again, the purists. and Cinema division might have fits).

If there's room, why not a third card slot, which could be an SD -- for the purposes of proxies, etc. (there may be instances where a CFX reader is not available, or when you want to give a pics/vids to someone who's providing 'rushes')... But if it HAS to be only two slots, then yes double CFX.

For all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III and following were the continuation of the 1Ds series. They just didn't have the integrated grip or tank-like construction. But they did have high resolution sensors (comparatively for their time) and pro-grade AF systems. It's no coincidence that the 5D Mark III was introduced the same year as the 1D X and also when the 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark III were discontinued.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sounds suspiciously like flickering lights to me, which wasn't synchronized to the shutter. Was your shutter faster than the mains line frequency?

My understanding of the indoor lighting flicker issue was different exposure between shots - some brighter and some darker (with associated white balance issues) rather than banding within one shot. I was shooting at 1/200s or faster for freezing action. 50hz local power cycle. Seems to be an issue particularly with LED lighting that simulate a constant light by rapidly pulsing the LED.

 

[koenkooi]

My understanding of the indoor lighting flicker issue was different exposure between shots - some brighter and some darker (with associated white balance issues)

Only if that's using lighting that varies exactly with the mains frequency, like incandescent bulbs. This is what Canon wants to solve with 'Anti Flicker'. Fluorescent lights tend to flicker at double the mains frequency.

rather than banding within one shot. I was shooting at 1/200s or faster for freezing action. 50hz local power cycle. Seems to be an issue particularly with LED lighting that simulate a constant light by rapidly pulsing the LED.

Yes, LED lighting and LED video walls flicker at a much higher rate, which leads to banding within a single shot. This is what what the 'HF Anti Flicker' feature of my R8 has to say about the light above the dining table:



I get the impression that non-PWM dimmers are getting cheaper, I'm seeing that more and more in those affordable super bright flashlights. When I was at TI (a decade ago now), the PWM based devices were starting to offer 1200Hz and faster to get a more even brightness.

Next innovation: no more coil whine on the integrated LED dimmers

 

[GoldWing]

I really think Canon is late to the party. A 45mp R1. Will it have a strap to use it as a door stop? It's hard to carry 3 Z9's and a bunch of glass witout the door open.

 

[Loswr]

I really think Canon is late to the party. A 45mp R1. Will it have a strap to use it as a door stop? It's hard to carry 3 Z9's and a bunch of glass witout the door open.

You could use it as a paperweight. It’s not good to have papers blowing around, even if you lack the wit to comprehend the writing.

 

[birdman916]

When I don't know something, I Google it. So, I did it for you. Here's the explanation of the first: https://www.e-consystems.com/blog/c...-to-choose-the-one-that-fits-the-application/
And this for the second: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4...at-they-are-how-they-work-and-how-they-differ You should get from the first why they could be useful.

Sorry for the delay. Didn’t know what google was until you told me so I’ve spent the last 6 weeks interneting

 

[David - Sydney]

Only if that's using lighting that varies exactly with the mains frequency, like incandescent bulbs. This is what Canon wants to solve with 'Anti Flicker'. Fluorescent lights tend to flicker at double the mains frequency.

Yes, LED lighting and LED video walls flicker at a much higher rate, which leads to banding within a single shot. This is what what the 'HF Anti Flicker' feature of my R8 has to say about the light above the dining table:

View attachment 209903

I get the impression that non-PWM dimmers are getting cheaper, I'm seeing that more and more in those affordable super bright flashlights. When I was at TI (a decade ago now), the PWM based devices were starting to offer 1200Hz and faster to get a more even brightness.

Next innovation: no more coil whine on the integrated LED dimmers

Darnnit! I checked the advanced user guide for the R5 and HF anti flicker isn't an option :-(
"Flicker at a frequency other than 100Hz or 120Hz cannot be detected"

 

[koenkooi]

Darnnit! I checked the advanced user guide for the R5 and HF anti flicker isn't an option :-(
"Flicker at a frequency other than 100Hz or 120Hz cannot be detected"

I think the R6II was the first body to get that feature, so older bodies are out of luck

 

[Loswr]

I think the R6II was the first body to get that feature, so older bodies are out of luck

The R3 has HF anti-flicker.

 

[The Professor]

$7k is too close to the R3 an almost no rise compared to the MRSP of the 1D bodies.

Maybe not 10k but surely above 8k, maybe $8,999 it‘ll become, IMO.

the way they have priced the new big whites ..well... they are not uneasy about charging absurd prices for the class of photographer just below full professional .. wish it was not that way but the R1 will be higher than some have speculated . also what is it that will make this camera a "Flagship ' ..I guess the whole discussion is some answers to that question ... and there is a vast diversity of opinions on what a Super Flagship is . One last thing .. its really been a very long time coming and I'm suspicious that they have been changing their direction a lot ... what are they waiting for ..?? have they missed the boat on the advances of other companies improvements and need to think it through so as to find some really new (advanced) and desired tech thing ? why is it not out yet ? if all you guys(and Gals) know what kinds of things are possible then why don't they .. well... thats why I;m suspicious .. somethings up.... maybe just production issues .. chips. materials etc... or are they are stuck on what new mind blowing thing to create. for all this waiting and speculating for oh..oh so many years ... it better be super great whatever that means ....regardless I can't afford $9999... unless 100 mp ,50 fps, magic auto focus. unbelievable Image quality from out of this world etc....... LOL. thanks for listening.

 

[Nature Calls]

I shoot the R3 in 1.6 crop mode 95% of the time which produces 9.3 megapixel images. If the R1 has the same size sensor as the R5 then 1.6 crop images will be 17.3 megapixel images which would help with the small subjects I often shoot.

Add consistent wake-up time and improved focus acquisition of bird in flight then the R1 would be perfect for my photography.