Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Quack]

Stop being a brand apologist and face reality. There are plenty of photographers who are underwhelmed by the specs of this camera. Why get so mad? "Buy an R1 or leave". That's more of an idiot cliche than anyone who dares question the specs here...

Not a brand apologist. Here are your wonderfully inaccurate cliches, in case you forgot them.

"Canon cripple hammer strikes again!"

"Yet still behind the competition who put out better offerings over two years ago..."

Maybe you have trouble understanding that "better" does not mean "what I wanted."

 

[robval]

do you know something about eye control ?

 

[bbasiaga]

I wonder...will the rumored R3II then become the 1Ds line successor? Not really much room for an R3II with an R1 at these specs. But if they went up to a higher MP camera in that form factor, that was perhaps a bit slower but with 8k video....

Brian

 

[frankchn]

I wonder...will the rumored R3II then become the 1Ds line successor? Not really much room for an R3II with an R1 at these specs. But if they went up to a higher MP camera in that form factor, that was perhaps a bit slower but with 8k video....

Brian

I am not sure there will be one. The EOS 3 was a one and done camera, and I think the R3 will be one too, since (as others have mentioned), that this spec list reads like an R3 successor.

Maybe an R1S at some point if Canon decides that splitting the 1 series back into two (like the old 1D / 1DS split) is a good idea.

 

[john1970]

This sounds so conspiratorial, but also seems like such a reasonable interepretation. I was reading the specs for the R1 and my thought was “ok, so the R3 really was just a stopgap.” There just isn’t enough differentiation between these two models given the very low volume of “flagship” cameras.

The R3 very well may have been a stop gate similar to the EOS-3 from years ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This sounds so conspiratorial, but also seems like such a reasonable interepretation. I was reading the specs for the R1 and my thought was “ok, so the R3 really was just a stopgap.” There just isn’t enough differentiation between these two models given the very low volume of “flagship” cameras.

They’re separate points.

The idea that Canon developed the R1 but then panicked over Sony’s awesomeness and rebadged it as the R3 is Internet stupidity.

But the idea that the R3 was a stopgap is perfectly reasonable. When Canon launched it, they said they were working on the R1 flagship, but that certain aspects of the technology were not sufficiently mature, so voilà…here is the R3. I read that as the R3 is a stopgap by design, and it’s likely there will not be a MkII version of it (but there might be, if only to test something like a global shutter).

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

Not a brand apologist. Here are your wonderfully inaccurate cliches, in case you forgot them.

"Canon cripple hammer strikes again!"

"Yet still behind the competition who put out better offerings over two years ago..."

Maybe you have trouble understanding that "better" does not mean "what I wanted."

You can call them inaccurate but you offer no evidence of anything. Just your opinions like everyone else here.....

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

Explaining ≠ apologizing. You can expect anything you want, realistic or unrealistic. I agree that a high(ish) MP 1-series camera is a reasonable expectation. But you seem to think Canon must meet your expectations...that is what's not realistic

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe I’m misreading you, neuro, but if canon requires their software to take advantage of a feature on a $5K+ camera, I don’t think its unreasonable for users to expect that software to exceed expectations. It’s not “free” software any more than macOS is “Free” software that comes with a Mac. If it’s required to use the product you’re shipping, it’s very reasonable for it to be better than what canon pushes for DPP.

If they don’t want to invest, then publish the file format so that third parties can provide the same functionality.

Not disagreeing, but whose expectations should be exceeded? My point was that I have no doubt Canon believes that their software is great. It’s probably an area where they are flying somewhat blind. With hardware, they give it to NDA testers, but as I understand it those cameras output only JPGs. I suspect relatively few high-end photographers actually use DPP for anything.

Canon seems to have designed DPP with a workflow that doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m sure it makes sense to the designers. The logic seems to center around performing each sequential step on multiple images at the same time, rather than taking one image at a time from start to finish. It’s logic, just not my logic. Possibly the designers aren’t even photographers, when I talk to computer science folks, they always start numbering things with zero, whereas most of the rest of us start counting from one (Mayans not withstanding).

They make the .CR3 format available. I suspect it would be pretty easy for a third-party software maker to unpack a stack of images from a pre-shot burst, if there’s demand from their own customers to do so..

 

[neuroanatomist]

Glad to see the idiot cliches haven't changed.

idiots and their clichés will be with us in perpetuity.

 

[Del Paso]

They’re separate points.

The idea that Canon developed the R1 but then panicked over Sony’s awesomeness and rebadged it as the R3 is Internet stupidity.

But the idea that the R3 was a stopgap is perfectly reasonable. When Canon launched it, they said they were working on the R1 flagship, but that certain aspects of the technology were not sufficiently mature, so voilà…here is the R3. I read that as the R3 is a stopgap by design, and it’s likely there will not be a MkII version of it (but there might be, if only to test something like a global shutter).

Do not even try to convince the Internet "experts" that the R3 wasn't a panickly rebadged R1, many have simply switched their mononeural brains off.
Just a waste of time and energy!

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can call them inaccurate but you offer no evidence of anything. Just your opinions like everyone else here.....

The evidence is that somehow all these cameras you label as crippled seem to outsell the competition’s offerings by leaps and bounds, which is why Canon dominates the market. Evidently the majority of people buying cameras seem to think Canon’s offerings better meet their needs. That says something about the relevance of your opinions, but I suspect you’ll remain willfully ignorant on that point.

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

Bite the bullet and switch to the Nikon Z9. Maybe it will be an expense at first, but you will certainly know how to use all the advantages you see in the Z9 and you will be a much happier person, I'm sure. You just seem bitter like this.

It's being bitter because I'm underwhelmed by the Canon flagship? The bitter ones are the ones who tell people that they should be satisfied with whatever Canon throws at them and if they don't like it, they should "leave". I guess the forum would be everyone's happy place if we all just say kumbaya and sing the praises of Canon just because. Better yet: "Wow, that Canon R1 is amazing. I couldn't possibly want anything else. It's perfect."

 

[neuroanatomist]

Their best sensor score on DXO Mark is the 24 mpx R3 sensor, and it's not even in the top five in its format. That's why they probably can't release a fast 45 mpx camera body...

By all means come back to discuss the DxOMark score of the technologically advanced a9III when that is revealed. Do keep in mind you’re talking about a scoring system that strongly factors dynamic range into lens scores.

 

[Bob Howland]

Not disagreeing, but whose expectations should be exceeded? My point was that I have no doubt Canon believes that their software is great. It’s probably an area where they are flying somewhat blind. With hardware, they give it to NDA testers, but as I understand it those cameras output only JPGs. I suspect relatively few high-end photographers actually use DPP for anything.

Canon seems to have designed DPP with a workflow that doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m sure it makes sense to the designers. The logic seems to center around performing each sequential step on multiple images at the same time, rather than taking one image at a time from start to finish. It’s logic, just not my logic. Possibly the designers aren’t even photographers, when I talk to computer science folks, they always start numbering things with zero, whereas most of the rest of us start counting from one (Mayans not withstanding).

They make the .CR3 format available. I suspect it would be pretty easy for a third-party software maker to unpack a stack of images from a pre-shot burst, if there’s demand from their own customers to do so..

Go to Wikipedia and look up "SIMD" or "Single Instruction Multiple Data". Note its applicability to graphics processing.

 

[marathonman]

The evidence is that somehow all these cameras you label as crippled seem to outsell the competition’s offerings by leaps and bounds, which is why Canon dominates the market. Evidently the majority of people buying cameras seem to think Canon’s offerings better meet their needs. That says something about the relevance of your opinions, but I suspect you’ll remain willfully ignorant on that point.

That might be so, however none of the people that are buying Canon's cameras are able to produce an acceptable image because the sensor score on DXO Mark is too low.

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

The evidence is that somehow all these cameras you label as crippled seem to outsell the competition’s offerings by leaps and bounds, which is why Canon dominates the market. Evidently the majority of people buying cameras seem to think Canon’s offerings better meet their needs. That says something about the relevance of your opinions, but I suspect you’ll remain willfully ignorant on that point.

I guess you don't realize that market share doesn't just include high end models. They have market share because they sell a good amount of all types of cameras, the vast majority of them to complete amateur hobbyists!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Go to Wikipedia and look up "SIMD" or "Single Instruction Multiple Data". Note its applicability to graphics processing.

As I said, the DPP workflow is logical. It just doesn’t work for me. Notably, the workflow is different from that of the major/popular RAW converters. There’s a reason LR, DxO, C1, etc., do it the way they do.

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

That might be so, however none of the people that are buying Canon's cameras are able to produce an acceptable image because the sensor score on DXO Mark is too low.

According to that response, there should be no need to strive for anything better because anyone can make an acceptable image with a lesser performing sensor. Gotcha! So this whole thread is meaningless. Everything is subjective now and no one needs more than Canon determines they need...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess you don't realize that market share doesn't just include high end models. They have market share because they sell a good amount of all types of cameras, the vast majority of them to complete amateur hobbyists!

I fully realize that. I guess you don’t realize that what’s important to you isn’t important to everyone. Who is more likely to know what a majority of photographers at any given price point want…the market leader, or some rando on the internet?

Why then, you ask, do Sony and Nikon offer higher MP flagships when Canon does not? If you want a hint, ask why Fuji focuses on high-end APS-C and MF, or why Sony focused first on mirrorless then on FF mirrorless. The answer to all of those is the same. Because Canon wasn’t/doesn’t. If you can’t compete in the leader’s market, do something they aren’t.