DARE WE DREAM? Given how good the R5 is, what's left for the R1 to do?

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
637
758
Sorry not happening. Why would Canon do that just to appease a segment (IMHO a small segment) of the customer base? Better to charge as much as possible (without putting off the majority of customers) from the widest slice of the customer base. It's all about the $$.
not sure I would refer to stills shooters as 'a small segment of the market'. But as much as I and MANY others never use the video on their cameras at all there is no way Canon will make a killer stills camera with little or no video performance. Not nowadays.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
451
528
What I hope to see from the R1, aside from expected things (great autofocus, rugged build, built-in grip), is:

1) 30 MP sensor. I know many sports photographers will say they don't need that many, but I want this body to capable of larger prints. The R5's specs already demonstrate that new Canon bodies can handle way more data than old ones, so why not?
2) great dynamic range (12-13 stops, as measured by a 3rd party like photonstophotos.net?)
3) 20 FPS shooting speed with either a) global shutter, or b) very fast sensor readout

That's a camera I could use for 5 or even 10 years, easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

canonnews

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 27, 2017
595
891
Canada
www.canonnews.com
Will it be??
It's only a major step in video features. So we come back to that age old question - does video specs cause the price to increase?
Because if it does, can I have one without the video please?
(Assuming the usual $1 = £1) If the R5 is priced at £4k, I can see that being a very tough sell to stills shooters.
What other cameras can do 12 fps @ 45mp (20fps @ 45mp with electronic shutter) with human,animal and bird AF?
I must have missed all those press releases.
I could be wrong, but Sony only has one camera that can shoot over 10 fps, and it's not in the A7 class.
Canon even has small and medium raw. Sony has yet to figure out compressed lossless RAW. when Canon has had that since I don't know? 2005?
Anything over 30mp and no lossless compression on RAW files is stupid A.F.
A7R IV is still having star eater problems. something no Canon camera has ever had.
Even though they create smartphones, they still have a half-baked touchscreen experience.
We won't even get into their ergonomics even though the IV's are certainly a step in the right direction.

I'm sorry but if you're talking Sony versus Canon on this one for stills, I'm not sure how you can think that the Sony offers a better stills experience.

Better battery? maybe?

and we won't even talk about it's h.265 100mp/s bitrate video either.

Not to mention that the R5 just literally smokes every Sony camera available in terms of video. In other words, we have in the R5 the camera that Sony has wanted to create over the past 8 years.

If you are looking at pure specifications,etc - I think Panasonic is a better choice for a competitor.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Canon even has small and medium raw. Sony has yet to figure out compressed lossless RAW. when Canon has had that since I don't know? 2005?
Since the rollout of .cr3 and the new C-RAW option (minimally lossy raw files at full resolution with significant file size reduction), Canon has dropped M-RAW and S-RAW from the choices in those cameras. The only two choices for raw are non-lossy compressed RAW or minimally lossy highly compressed C-RAW, both at full sensor resolution.
 
Apr 28, 2020
1
1
First time post, so hello one and all!

I think some stills photographers look at things wrong. When I got the 5D MkII I thought the video addition was a complete waste of time. A few weeks after I purchased it I took some photos of a friend and his new baby. I took about 30 pictures of the couple and their newborn. While we were having a cuppa afterwards, his wife said that she wished she had a video too. I didn't take much notice of this comment, only being a stills photographer. It was literally as I was walking out the door to go home I remembered my stills camera had video bolted on. We managed to get a reasonable 20 minutes video done after that.

Yes, I agree that many stills photographers do not need the video addition. But do not dismiss it being there. I have only used it a few times - an airshow, trip on a steam train, and some deer fighting in Richmond Park since that time. But if camera makers insist on putting it there, think of it as an additional tool if needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

tpatana

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 1, 2012
1,324
106
Since the rollout of .cr3 and the new C-RAW option (minimally lossy raw files at full resolution with significant file size reduction), Canon has dropped M-RAW and S-RAW from the choices in those cameras. The only two choices for raw are non-lossy compressed RAW or minimally lossy highly compressed C-RAW, both at full sensor resolution.
How's the editing speed c-raw compared to normal raw? Any noticeable difference either way?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
How's the editing speed c-raw compared to normal raw? Any noticeable difference either way?
Don't know. I do not have any of the newer .cr3 cameras. But I would imagine it might vary from one raw convertor to the next (not to mention from one machine to the next), just as it does with .cr2 raw files.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,309
502
First time post, so hello one and all!

I think some stills photographers look at things wrong. When I got the 5D MkII I thought the video addition was a complete waste of time. A few weeks after I purchased it I took some photos of a friend and his new baby. I took about 30 pictures of the couple and their newborn. While we were having a cuppa afterwards, his wife said that she wished she had a video too. I didn't take much notice of this comment, only being a stills photographer. It was literally as I was walking out the door to go home I remembered my stills camera had video bolted on. We managed to get a reasonable 20 minutes video done after that.

Yes, I agree that many stills photographers do not need the video addition. But do not dismiss it being there. I have only used it a few times - an airshow, trip on a steam train, and some deer fighting in Richmond Park since that time. But if camera makers insist on putting it there, think of it as an additional tool if needed.

yup.
When Canon released the 5DIV and it got panned for its video specs, Canon explained that in their research the vast majority of people who used DSLR for video used it in the way you described - to supplement stills, not primarily as a video camera. And in that respect they believed the video of the 5DIV was perfectly adequate.
From other articles, I understand that Canon had a shedload of video components that they decided to use up and this minimised their options for video on the 5DIV (as well as licenses for the video codec/software) and this probably constrained their video choices. So although the video was what could be looked on as suboptimal for the time, they did not see it as a significant issue commercially.

I don't think a lot has changed in how people use video but hat has changed significantly is the 'trial by social media' where what matters more and more is what the chatter says about a product rather than what people actually need/want. So although video is still a casual use, its important has been blown up out of all proportion by the wannabes on youtube.
 

tpatana

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 1, 2012
1,324
106
Don't know. I do not have any of the newer .cr3 cameras. But I would imagine it might vary from one raw convertor to the next (not to mention from one machine to the next), just as it does with .cr2 raw files.
Naturally, but using same raw convertor and same machine, is there difference between raw and c-raw? Can someone confirm who's using .cr3 camera?
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
380
163
It's only a major step in video features.
We don't have good specs for comparing AF performance, unlike say, frames per second, aperture, focal length. We know it has eye/head tracking but it remains to be seen how much AF in general is improved.

Also we know it has dual memory slots, which apparently is worth so much to so many that they haven't gotten the R due to this feature alone, despite its various improvements over the SLRs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
380
163
> > or Canon will need a camera aimed at stills shooters.
Sorry not happening. Why would Canon do that just to appease a segment (IMHO a small segment) of the customer base? Better to charge as much as possible (without putting off the majority of customers) from the widest slice of the customer base. It's all about the $$.
Obvioiusly Canon has the ability to produce multiple cameras to go after multiple segments. For instance the R5 has a huge expense in having the wide busses to move 120x4k images/sec internally. I calculate that as 5GB/sec if RGB are 10 bits each. Canon could clearly offer a 70MP camera that can only take say 9 frames/sec that only has half the internal bus. and thus could only do 60x4k and no 8k. I'd take such a camera in a heartbeat and so would many, I believe. The savings in scaling down the internal busses may well pay for the doubled resolution.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Obvioiusly Canon has the ability to produce multiple cameras to go after multiple segments. For instance the R5 has a huge expense in having the wide busses to move 120x4k images/sec internally. I calculate that as 5MB/sec if RGB are 10 bits each. Canon could clearly offer a 70MP camera that can only take say 4 frames/sec that only has half the internal bus. and thus could only do 60x4k and no 8k. I'd take such a camera in a heartbeat and so would many, I believe. The savings in scaling down the internal busses may well pay for the doubled resolution.
But very likely many more potential buyers would be interested in a still camera that uses all of that speed required by 4K 120 to give an even faster 12 fps (mechanical shutter)/20 fps (electronic shutter) still frame rate at 45 MP than your 4 fps 70 MP camera.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
380
163
But very likely many more potential buyers would be interested in a still camera that uses all of that speed required by 4K 120 to give an even faster 12 fps (mechanical shutter)/20 fps (electronic shutter) still frame rate at 45 MP than your 4 fps 70 MP camera.
Sorry Michael, you quoted me just as I was correcting my math: half the 5GB/s bus rate would support 9 fps at 70MP, not 4.

That said, again, it's not an either/or choice for Canon. They've been making multiple digital models with varying resolution since 2000. In fact even of the EOS-1 digital line, they had two different sub-models for quite a while with different resolutions (and even sensor sizes!). So, it's just silly to say that because "more" people would prefer a 45MB, higher-frame-rate sensor (which you might be right about--or wrong), that therefore Canon wouldn't possibly make a model with higher resolution for the people who wanted it (e.g., landscape, art, or even merely people who favored resolution over shutter speed)? I mean, did you spend the 00's arguing that the EOS-1Ds lineup didn't even actually exist? Do you contend that the EOS-5Ds doesn't exist because "many more" buyers would prefer something with less resolution?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Sorry Michael, you quoted me just as I was correcting my math: half the 5GB/s bus rate would support 9 fps at 70MP, not 4.

That said, again, it's not an either/or choice for Canon. They've been making multiple digital models with varying resolution since 2000. In fact even of the EOS-1 digital line, they had two different sub-models for quite a while with different resolutions (and even sensor sizes!). So, it's just silly to say that because "more" people would prefer a 45MB, higher-frame-rate sensor (which you might be right about--or wrong), that therefore Canon wouldn't possibly make a model with higher resolution for the people who wanted it (e.g., landscape, art, or even merely people who favored resolution over shutter speed)? I mean, did you spend the 00's arguing that the EOS-1Ds lineup didn't even actually exist? Do you contend that the EOS-5Ds doesn't exist because "many more" buyers would prefer something with less resolution?
The 2000s were a totally different time than 2020 in terms of the rate of camera technological development and in terms of the state of the market for ILCs.

When Canon offered both the APS-H 1D series and the FF 1Ds series there were serious technical limitations to making a relatively high resolution camera (such as the 1Ds series) that could shoot at frame rates offered by the relatively lower resolution 1D series. When those technical limits were reduced to irrelevance, they merged the two lines into one with the 1D X in 2012.

The other HUGE difference between the time period covering 2004-2012 and today is that for most of the 2000s digital ILC sales were exploding far beyond what film SLRs had ever achieved. Camera sales went up every year-on-year for a decade! (without even counting the cameras in devices such as smartphones and tablets!)

This was being driven by rapid technological developments that made upgrading bodies every couple of years a perceived need for professionals who wanted to stay competitive in a market for their services that was contracting at the same time camera sales were exploding. High quality digital cameras were becoming more accessible to non-professionals at the same time the rapidly increasing data carrying capacity of the internet made free distribution of images shot by those amateurs not only possible but easy and cheap. Those GAS infected amateurs would upgrade every time a new mode was introduced, even if the only difference was the type of rubber used in the grip (T3i → T4i).

This caused the market value of many kinds of professionally produced images to plummet. Compared to 2000, by 2010 stock images were paying pennies on the dollar. Ditto for sports photos. Too many well-heeled enthusiasts were willing to shoot for practically nothing in exchange for sideline access at major sports venues. The cost of top end gear was still less that the rapidly rising cost of seat licenses and season tickets!

Now, in 2020, the market for ILCs has been seriously contracting even before the SARS-CoV-2 virus appeared in the horizon. ILCs have been replaced by smart phones with revolutionary computational photography technology for almost all but hard core enthusiasts and an ever dwindling number of full time photographers. Sales units have been sluggish for almost a decade and began an ever accelerating nosedive about five years ago.

It's a totally different market outlook in 2020 than it was in the mid-2000s.
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
380
163
The 2000s were a totally different time than 2020 in terms of the rate of camera technological development and in terms of the state of the market for ILCs.
Everything you say here Michael I totally agree with.

And if Canon said they were making one pro model, and treating the R and RP as the mid-line and bargain models, I'd agree that the pro model wouldn't necessarily have to be a high-pixel-count model.

But we have two models now, the R and RP. We have two models (R5 and R6) about to be announced. And we have rumors of two more models for 2021. So it seems like Canon sees room for 6 different bodies (or 5, if they're already replacing the R, which as you say made sense in the 00s but doesn't make sense now). So thats: a mid-market R, an economy RP, a mid-market-plus R6, a high-speed pro R5... then what gaps are left for the 2021 cameras? If they are continuing the M/EF-M line, then they can't both be yet more economy cameras, and they have two mid-markets already. So my guess is at least one pro body and if they have a high-speed pro body in the R5, with 45MP already, that additionally is setting the curve for video, what is the other pro body going to be? I just can't see it being yet faster-shutter, better-video. I think it will be slower shutter, worse-video, but far higher MP. As you say, it's not the camera most buyers want, but it doesn't need to be. Out of six cameras, even being the camera 16% of the market wants would be good enough, even if you don't grant it any "halo" value.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Everything you say here Michael I totally agree with.

And if Canon said they were making one pro model, and treating the R and RP as the mid-line and bargain models, I'd agree that the pro model wouldn't necessarily have to be a high-pixel-count model.

But we have two models now, the R and RP. We have two models (R5 and R6) about to be announced. And we have rumors of two more models for 2021. So it seems like Canon sees room for 6 different bodies (or 5, if they're already replacing the R, which as you say made sense in the 00s but doesn't make sense now). So thats: a mid-market R, an economy RP, a mid-market-plus R6, a high-speed pro R5... then what gaps are left for the 2021 cameras? If they are continuing the M/EF-M line, then they can't both be yet more economy cameras, and they have two mid-markets already. So my guess is at least one pro body and if they have a high-speed pro body in the R5, with 45MP already, that additionally is setting the curve for video, what is the other pro body going to be? I just can't see it being yet faster-shutter, better-video. I think it will be slower shutter, worse-video, but far higher MP. As you say, it's not the camera most buyers want, but it doesn't need to be. Out of six cameras, even being the camera 16% of the market wants would be good enough, even if you don't grant it any "halo" value.
There will definitely be an R5s or whatever Canon chooses to call it. But it will not sell in near the number of units as the R5 will, just as the 5Ds and 5Ds R did not begin to approach 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV numbers. It will be far more successful at 7-10 fps than at 4 fps (giving the birders a bit of what some want: high pixel density and frame rate). And it will have video.

The point is at this point in time considering the condition of the overall market Canon has GOT to get it right for the highest number of potential buyers. That camera appears to be the R5.