Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I'd say you are overthinking it here. It's more likely its to do with technical limitations of processing images at that FPS speed or the Pre-shooting mode. Some of the Pro's they deal with are maybe not bothered by whether the MP is 30/40 or 50 MP but I'd say they'd take all they'd get and decide later what settings they want to use.
I personally just find that when you get more MP it's hard to go back to less MP. I have the R5, 5DV, 5DSR and 1DXIII.
The R5 images are way better than the rest and typically at least for me more MP is good - far more cropping options. Sport too, cropping is very handy. With the 1DXIII I don't like cropping to much. I was hoping for 45MP. I'm interested in the R1 but won't be rushing in. The R3II will likely have a higher MP count than it (if only because Canon doesn't have many improvement options, more FPS is a diminishing return, ISO performance is hard to improve now, subject tracking is probably heading to a limit to. I've an R5 for a few years now and I'd have to say its fantastic. I do everything with it. It's my best bird, sport, landscape, portrait camera. As its old people probably less likely to buy one as there are more modern options but really I'm never dissatisfied with what it produces.
Upvote
0
Your points on technique and getting up earlier is critical to successful wildlife photography. Congratulations for making the effort!!
I really wished that Canon would make spot metering linked to the AF point for 5 series cameras, but to my knowledge (and I may be incorrect) Canon has typically reserved this feature for a 1-series cameras. I find this odd because both Sony and Nikon offer this across more than their flagship cameras.
Upvote
0
I believe it is 30mp because that is the best they could do to make the camera have the current fps, buffer and responsiveness. Canon is increasing the mpx as technology is improving and enabling them to do so. Or else they would have stayed with the earlier mpx.
Upvote
0
Canon has explained what they mean with that with the introduction of the digic X cameras.
What the rumour is talking about, you’d have to ask the source directly.
Upvote
0
Nice spec to be practical without major drawback, but still, pricing won't be anywhere near affordable.. I would prefer they got a more budget friendly R5II, or more likely go for R6 II or if they will realease a R6 iii by the end of the year before my travel
Upvote
0
I’m not sure that is correct. From my point of view, as a user of 50mp cameras it demonstrates to me the rather huge void between those of us here on the likes of CR that enjoy making images and viewing them at 200% on a 5K monitor, and those who are needing to just make a high quality, sharp, high resolution picture, where the requirement is to just view the whole image, not start picking it apart at 200%. I guess the vast amount of people in the latter group are those that buy 1 series.
If you’re in the latter group 30mp is high resolution.
Upvote
0
As a professional nature and adventure photographer, the prospect of having just 30mp is a big drawback for me and would make me consider not getting this camera. I’ve used the R5 for a few years now and it’s been amazing, and when I get back to some of old photos taken in the 1Dx Mk 2 and 3, I find the resolution extremely limiting. I find the image files captured with the 5D Mk IV much more useful for working with than 1Dx.
I’ve also played around with the R3 and I find the Raw files a lot better on the R5. Even found that noise performance is better with a higher resolution - not because the R5 has less noise or grain, but because the files have so much more information that it becomes much easier to remove any noise in post. Combined with the need to print for magazines and large fine art prints.
I don’t think I’d settle for less resolution than the R5 after having used it for years, so no matter all the other specs which potentially are great, that’s a possible dealbreaker for me.
As an extreme nature photographer, I’m taking very dynamic photos in challenging conditions, and not able to have the perfect lens for every job because the moment would be gone - and having the versatility that comes with added resolution is a total game changer.
So honestly I think they dropped the ball on this one (if res specs are true) and I might just get the R5 Cine instead on a good price for second body or wait for the R5 Mk II.
I think the real user group who cares more about speed (that is already amazing) over resolution is a very small group of people. Probably they spend more time reviewing specs than using the camera itself. Building an extremely rugged all round camera that has the best possible image quality is however a much more appealing proposition if you ask me.
I’ve also played around with the R3 and I find the Raw files a lot better on the R5. Even found that noise performance is better with a higher resolution - not because the R5 has less noise or grain, but because the files have so much more information that it becomes much easier to remove any noise in post. Combined with the need to print for magazines and large fine art prints.
I don’t think I’d settle for less resolution than the R5 after having used it for years, so no matter all the other specs which potentially are great, that’s a possible dealbreaker for me.
As an extreme nature photographer, I’m taking very dynamic photos in challenging conditions, and not able to have the perfect lens for every job because the moment would be gone - and having the versatility that comes with added resolution is a total game changer.
So honestly I think they dropped the ball on this one (if res specs are true) and I might just get the R5 Cine instead on a good price for second body or wait for the R5 Mk II.
I think the real user group who cares more about speed (that is already amazing) over resolution is a very small group of people. Probably they spend more time reviewing specs than using the camera itself. Building an extremely rugged all round camera that has the best possible image quality is however a much more appealing proposition if you ask me.
Upvote
0
Can’t argue with what you want, but when I look at current Wildlife photography awards, like the National Geographic for instance, I see many of the photographers choose cameras that are relatively ‘low’ mp. Clearly those people they have put other features above higher mp.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
