So whats a 1DR going to be like

[Hector1970]

So we now have the 5DR.
It seems a capable camera but its Canon's first real attempt at Full Frame Mirrorless.
Within the next few years it has to produce a 1DR top of the range professional mirrorless.
Besides being built like a brick its got to be top of its class as it will reign for a number of years.
Its got to appeal to Sports photography agencies.
What will the 1DR bring.
Will it reach 20FPS AI Servo
How many MP's to allow 20FPS or beyond to occur.
Could it dissipate the heat for uncropped 4K
Would it have IBIS.
I assume dual cards and silent shutter (usuable for fast moving objects)
Eye focus or some sort of advanced tracking of things like birds.
What would wow you to make it the ultimate mirrorless camera by the time it comes out.

 

[Kit.]

So we now have the 5DR.

Now we have 6D[3]R.

The next two will probably be 5DSRR and 80DR.

 

[fullstop]

we dont have a mirrorfree 5D. we got a mirrorfree 6 D III.

next up will be a mirrorfree 5D V / A7R3 / Z7 competitor in 2019.

and only in 2020 tokyo olympics a mirrorfree 1D. it will be big, fat, hellishly expensive, have dual-CFExpress slots and be "more or less competitive" with today's (!) Sony A9, but of course without IBIS.

and in 2021 i may finally get a smaller body with today's EOS R performance.

;-)

 

[scipion]

first an ultimate optical viewfinder

second if ML would become the new standard for Canon, well the ultimate mirrorless is already existing, and his brand is Sony.
Canon would not be able to do less, so the list is done

 

[[email protected]]

Current Canon mirrored cameras break out in an odd way in that the flagship 1 series is really more for action than anything else. So, somewhat oddly, you have a marriage between the highest level and that very particular, sports-oriented use case.

I am a wildlife photographer and love me some FPS, but I don't find the megapixel compromise that the 1 series makes a net benefit to me. I shoot 5d4s for this reason, having owned a bunch of 1dx's over the years. Yes, the nerfing of the FPS on the 5D4 makes me have fits, but my images look better because I'm more often than not reach-limited in my photography, and I'm cropping the bejeazus out of pictures.

All of this is to say that the mirrorless cameras Canon will release won't necessarily follow this pattern. In recent years it has divvied things up by use, with the 5ds/r for max resolution, the 1dx for max fps and the 5d4 for the compromise. People talk about the 1dx2 as being the highest rung on the ladder (and it certainly is priced so), but there are plenty of people who wouldn't want one given their different needs.

Were I to guess how it'll divvy things up going forward it would be with the...
- R as entry level
- Rs as a resolution monster (I think they will come out with this next because they haven't solved the processor-for-AF-speed-issue and throughput issues they need for the next ones.)
- R5 for all-rounder and R1 for low-mp/high-FPS

Interestingly, the R1 may very well not be considered the flagship model.

 

[3kramd5]

1DR = 1ev DR, and no mirror.

 

[[email protected]]

So, to answer the OP's question: what will the highest R camera have? Well, I think there will be 2 "highest" R cameras. A high resolution version and a high FPS version.

- Both will have a significant sensor improvement. They added on-chip ADC last time, and it gave everyone a stop. The obvious one left is BSI. Could be something else. I expect 15 stops of DR at base ISO.
- High FPS version will go to about 15 FPS in full frame mode and have a roughly 26mp sensor
- They will have a silent mode in servo, not just in one-shot
- The high FPS version will have a deep buffer of >50 shots, the high res one will have a buffer of about 18 (and we'll complain)
- High res version will have 60mp and shoot 6 fps
- They'll have dual card slots of some type
- IBIS won't be on them, as Canon is very enamored of its lens-to-camera-and-back-again IS aiding tech with the R mount. I think they think they'll have the highest IS effective stops number using this method. It's not a can't-do thing, but a won't-do.
- Both cameras will have at least two primary processors, as their most severe limitation at this point is the processing required to use all of the rich data their getting from dual pixel sensor stuff and lens data coming back, etc. They're introducing new tech to exploit all this, such as DLO, body-assisted IS, a number of dual pixel things, etc. Meanwhile, the average FPS in canon cameras has fallen behind significantly when luxuries such as focus-priority AF is set (3fps in the new R model).
- The addition of at least one more processor is going to really suck juice and give off heat. You might find that both of these cameras are gripped, with heat dissipation being part of the design in addition to fitting more battery. This will also contribute to the sense that there are more than one "top" camera.

One other deduction:
- They will release a new version of DPP. Remember that they released the Dual Pixel stuff with the 70D and never really exploited beyond AF. The 5D4 did a bit more, but the software was/is terrible. I'd easily give away a stop of light if I was promised I didn't have to use that interface. If Canon had started an effort to re-write DPP, it would easily take them this long to do so. I'd be expecting it about now, allowing them to do things like add a stop of DR from the data. It will suck, but differently.

 

[fullstop]

i am hoping for a division along the most fundamental use case difference:
* hybrid stills & video capture needed
* stills only, video recording not needed

the biggest (for big heat sinks) and most expensive model should be hybrid for excellent video and stills. for the small minority of customers who really need it and are willing to pay handsomely for it.

less expensive models should all be "pure stills".

the hybrid model shall come with the very best video specs technically possible in that body size (no marketing nerfing whatsoever) and stills specs as good as possible, but taking second seat after video.

"pure stills" versions should be absolute photography beasts, unfettered by any compromises needed for video capture. no compromised sensor designs able to withstand extended duration running at full-bore video capture, no unnecessary heat sinks, clean user interface without pesty "marked in red video recording" buttons, no mics, no headphone jacks, no HDMI or XLR connectors, no menus system cluttered with video settings. no video codecs diverting CPU cycles/processing power away from AF system and clean image pipeline. no audio amps suckling on battery charge. everything straightforwardly devoted to and geared for 100% optimal stills capturing capability, af functionality and stills shooting experience. for the overwhelming majority of buyers who are not trying to capture unplanned, wobbly, un-edited home videos ... in 4k/60 or 1080/120.

here is hoping for future EOS RV models (hybrid with video capture) and R models for maximum stills shooting functionality. R models can then be further differentiated more along the "resolution vs. fps" line.

that's how i would set things really right at mirrorfree imaging gear makers.

 

[Donkey_Kong]

Love the idea of a pure stills camera! None of my 5DIV s have ever been put into video mode. God knows how much extra I paid for stupid features I don't want or need.

Can someone tell me why people who want to shoot video don't buy video cameras? We don't try to shoot stills with high end video equipment?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Love the idea of a pure stills camera! None of my 5DIV s have ever been put into video mode. God knows how much extra I paid for stupid features I don't want or need.

Can someone tell me why people who want to shoot video don't buy video cameras? We don't try to shoot stills with high end video equipment?

I've put my 5D4 into video mode for a few seconds, but I did not pay more for the video capability, I paid a lot less, because the higher volume of cameras sold drops the price. If the camera had no video, 2/3 of the buyers would buy something else, and the price would double.

 

[Donkey_Kong]

I've put my 5D4 into video mode for a few seconds, but I did not pay more for the video capability, I paid a lot less, because the higher volume of cameras sold drops the price. If the camera had no video, 2/3 of the buyers would buy something else, and the price would double.

I hadn't thought of it like that. Is that actually how it works? I'm not going to pretend I know how their marketing team operate, but by that logic, shouldn't all canon cameras have a lot more features that they do?

 

[fullstop]

I've put my 5D4 into video mode for a few seconds, but I did not pay more for the video capability, I paid a lot less, because the higher volume of cameras sold drops the price. If the camera had no video, 2/3 of the buyers would buy something else, and the price would double.

urban legend. extra/dual functionality always costs more. its the video crowd getting things for free thanks to majority of stills shooters paying for unneeded video stuff.

 

[fullstop]

maybe 10% of 5D4 buyers would not buy it without video recording. 5% would buy it if they had to pay extra for the 4k/60 and 1080/120 cr*p they are constantly clamoring for. hybrid shooters are a not 2/3 of stills camera customers, but in reality only a tiny, noise-making minority of cheapskate free-riders who want "4k in everything" and "free of course".

it would be really revealing to see split of Sony units sold for A7/R/S units. i bet, not even 10% are video-centric S models.

and furthermore: no, stills cameras are not profiting in any way from video stuff in them. it hampers their stills shooting IQ, functionality snd user interface,

 

[canonmike]

I've put my 5D4 into video mode for a few seconds, but I did not pay more for the video capability, I paid a lot less, because the higher volume of cameras sold drops the price. If the camera had no video, 2/3 of the buyers would buy something else, and the price would double.

I have to concur. Personally, very seldom do I use video mode. I would have no problem buying a stills only cam, especially if photo quality could be improved because of it and perhaps, an accompanying lower price point. However, I agree with another poster that stated there prob would be very small demand and lots of resistance for same in the real marketplace.