Canon EOS R1 – 8 Months in the Wild: A Field Photographer’s Perspective
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
While markedly better than the R3 and R5MII, the R1 does not solve every focusing problem. The striking photos above all depict animals that either fill a substantial part of the image or stand out against a mostly uniform, indistinct background. When I photograph a hummingbird with a 600 mm lens, the tiny bird occupies a much smaller part of the frame and only 30% of images achieve sharp focus at the eye. Most of the rejects have some part of the bird in focus, but fully 15% are a total blur. Having lost the bird entirely, the R1 autofocus spools in and out in a futile search. This can occur even if the background foliage is far behind the shallow initial zone of focus. The birds are speedy and dart around; using manual focus to get back in range is usually too little too late.
The combination of small size and busy background defeats the focus algorithm. The R1 will lock on to a distant bird in flight that occupies a similarly small portion of the frame if the background is a blank sky. Not much of a photo at that point, but the camera does allow you to track the bird accurately until it gets closer and subtends a bigger angle.
The combination of small size and busy background defeats the focus algorithm. The R1 will lock on to a distant bird in flight that occupies a similarly small portion of the frame if the background is a blank sky. Not much of a photo at that point, but the camera does allow you to track the bird accurately until it gets closer and subtends a bigger angle.
Upvote
0
Alan didn't made the conclusions about who wrote the article. These are conclusions coming from ChatGPT by itself and in generally it says "Not me".
Feel free to call ChatGPT delusional but don't blame the people on this forum.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I personally enjoyed the article. There was way too much personal experience and expert knowledge for this to be chatGTP. I appreciate content like this and hope to see more of it. I personally do extensive technical writing for work and sometimes use copilot to help with awkward or complex phrasing, but I keep my own style and wouldn’t fault anyone for using AI as a polishing tool. I hope the haters keep their promises to leave.
Upvote
0
I would agree with him on the snow flakes. Trying to photograph my black husky in heavy snowfall this past winter with the R3 was like trying to extract teeth to grab focus. My father in laws husky being white was near impossible. The same problem arises if you try to shoot something in heavy rainfall. I have had multiple occasions where I was shooting a horse show in pouring rain, and shooting medium speed ended up with half the pictures focused on rain drops in front of the camera. While in practice, that’s wild that the camera can grab that focus so quickly… like 1/10th of a second being in frame and nails it… but I also have completely missed the subject and the objective….. so there’s that.
High aperture is the only combative I’ve found. F8 or bust
High aperture is the only combative I’ve found. F8 or bust
Upvote
0
Tom Helmut Rathke
R5 Mark II, R8, Q3 (and lenses galore)
The snowflake issue, while valid, reminds me of a print ad ages ago for an Audi, or a Volvo, or a Saab (doesn't matter really). The ad was just white and the caption said something like, "Here is a white Audi (whatever) in a blizzard. Please notice it's not stuck." The snowflake issue also reminds me that there will probably never be a camera that will be able to focus on every subject in every condition. That's what MF is for... that increasingly rarer chance it can't find focus.
Upvote
0
I also took my R1 to Antarctica earlier this year, so I wanted to share my experience with it. In general, I think it is a terrific camera, and the autofocus capabilities are massively better than the DSLRs that I shot with before, like the 1dx series. In particular, the camera excelled at acquiring focus incredibly quickly on a variety of subjects, allowing me to get shots that I never would have gotten with my older cameras. For example, I was able to get numerous shots of penguins porpoising out of the water, which only lasts a fraction of a second. I also had a breaching humpback whale one day, and the camera got on focus by the time its front flippers were breaking the water surface every time.
There were, however, a couple of scenarios where it really struggled in a frustrating way. The first one is when a group of animals was standing together, like penguins like to do in their rookies. In those instances, the camera would focus on one of the birds and would not allow me to switch between them, because it didn't recognize the different birds as being different subjects. In those instances, I had to switch back to using the old focus points and putting one on the bird that I wanted , rather than letting the camera select the subject. The other place where it had a difficult time was where birds were flying beneath me from the railing of the ship against a background of the ocean surface with some pieces of ice on it. It had a very difficult time figuring out what the subject was in situations like that, and again I had to use a different focus technique under those circumstances.
I also agree with the author's comments about the feel and operations of the camera, which were flawless at all times. I also experienced similar battery life to what he reported. I will add that the eye control worked very well most of the time, and was really helpful in certain situations.
Overall, I'm very happy with the camera, but I do agree there is some room for improvement in the way that the autofocus works for wildlife situations.
There were, however, a couple of scenarios where it really struggled in a frustrating way. The first one is when a group of animals was standing together, like penguins like to do in their rookies. In those instances, the camera would focus on one of the birds and would not allow me to switch between them, because it didn't recognize the different birds as being different subjects. In those instances, I had to switch back to using the old focus points and putting one on the bird that I wanted , rather than letting the camera select the subject. The other place where it had a difficult time was where birds were flying beneath me from the railing of the ship against a background of the ocean surface with some pieces of ice on it. It had a very difficult time figuring out what the subject was in situations like that, and again I had to use a different focus technique under those circumstances.
I also agree with the author's comments about the feel and operations of the camera, which were flawless at all times. I also experienced similar battery life to what he reported. I will add that the eye control worked very well most of the time, and was really helpful in certain situations.
Overall, I'm very happy with the camera, but I do agree there is some room for improvement in the way that the autofocus works for wildlife situations.
Upvote
0
With sufficient lighting, noise is not a problem. And the ability to crop in wildlife photography should not be underestimated.
PS I think that the lack of a camera in the R3/R1 body with a 45MP sensor is bad. I have an R1 and R5m2, and the second camera is much worse (AF speed, work with 600/4, etc.) and cannot replace the R1.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My experience with the Canon R1 was deeply disappointing. I was expecting a real step forward at launch, but the software feels identical to the R5 II and other Canon bodies. In the field, subject detection (for wildlife) is noticeably weaker compared to Sony. Yes, it detects animals, but from Canon’s flagship camera you expect much more.
The author of the original post mentions tracking a fox in the snow—well, I’d hope it can do that—or a puffin flying straight at you, which should be a given, right? Personally, I hesitated a lot before switching to Sony because I owned the RF 400mm f/2.8, the RF 600mm f/4, the R3 and the R1. But after moving to the Sony A1 II, I have zero regrets.
Canon insists that 24MP are enough, but I strongly disagree for wildlife. Having 50MP gives you more detail and the freedom to crop. The A1 II feels like shooting with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter without losing a stop of light compared to the R1.
As for AF in challenging conditions: when photographing musk ox in a snowstorm, the R1 completely failed. It wasn’t just missing the eye—it often couldn’t even recognize the animal at all, with AF jumping back and forth in a surreal way. Everyone shooting Canon struggled, while those with Sony just framed and composed.
Birds were the same story. With cranes, the R1 sometimes found the eye, but the moment they bent down to feed, subject detection often lost them. Right next to me, a friend with the A1 II never lost eye-AF, no matter the angle. For wildlife, Sony’s subject tracking is simply on another level.
In Kenya, testing lions and leopards side by side with Canon R1 and Sony A1 (not even the Mark II), the difference became clear. That’s when I started doubting Canon—and eventually made the switch.
This is just my honest opinion, as someone who has owned the very best Canon gear and switched on my own, with no sponsorships. I consider myself an advanced amateur, not a pro—but after years with Canon, I have to admit: Sony is lightyears ahead in animal subject detection.
The author of the original post mentions tracking a fox in the snow—well, I’d hope it can do that—or a puffin flying straight at you, which should be a given, right? Personally, I hesitated a lot before switching to Sony because I owned the RF 400mm f/2.8, the RF 600mm f/4, the R3 and the R1. But after moving to the Sony A1 II, I have zero regrets.
Canon insists that 24MP are enough, but I strongly disagree for wildlife. Having 50MP gives you more detail and the freedom to crop. The A1 II feels like shooting with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter without losing a stop of light compared to the R1.
As for AF in challenging conditions: when photographing musk ox in a snowstorm, the R1 completely failed. It wasn’t just missing the eye—it often couldn’t even recognize the animal at all, with AF jumping back and forth in a surreal way. Everyone shooting Canon struggled, while those with Sony just framed and composed.
Birds were the same story. With cranes, the R1 sometimes found the eye, but the moment they bent down to feed, subject detection often lost them. Right next to me, a friend with the A1 II never lost eye-AF, no matter the angle. For wildlife, Sony’s subject tracking is simply on another level.
In Kenya, testing lions and leopards side by side with Canon R1 and Sony A1 (not even the Mark II), the difference became clear. That’s when I started doubting Canon—and eventually made the switch.
This is just my honest opinion, as someone who has owned the very best Canon gear and switched on my own, with no sponsorships. I consider myself an advanced amateur, not a pro—but after years with Canon, I have to admit: Sony is lightyears ahead in animal subject detection.
Upvote
0
While my previous post sounded like heavy criticism, there are actually things I prefer about the Canon R1 compared to Sony.
The menus are far more intuitive and user-friendly, and the build quality of the R1 is outstanding. The feeling of holding a 1-series body is simply unmatched. I also noticed that the R1 seemed to focus better in very low light—like at dawn with almost no light—sometimes locking focus earlier than the A1 II. This is just my personal impression, as I haven’t tested the A1 II as extensively in those exact conditions, but it genuinely felt that way. Perhaps the cross-type AF points play a role, even if on paper the A1 II should focus in lower light.
It’s also true that with its lower resolution, the R1 produces images that look cleaner, with less noise. But I think that can be misleading—higher resolution images with more noise can still equal or even surpass lower-resolution ones, because the extra detail allows for cropping and still maintaining quality.
At the end of the day, I wish the R1 had the wildlife AF performance of the A1 II. For years now, it feels like Canon has ignored nature photographers who want a true pro body with both speed and high resolution for cropping flexibility.
The menus are far more intuitive and user-friendly, and the build quality of the R1 is outstanding. The feeling of holding a 1-series body is simply unmatched. I also noticed that the R1 seemed to focus better in very low light—like at dawn with almost no light—sometimes locking focus earlier than the A1 II. This is just my personal impression, as I haven’t tested the A1 II as extensively in those exact conditions, but it genuinely felt that way. Perhaps the cross-type AF points play a role, even if on paper the A1 II should focus in lower light.
It’s also true that with its lower resolution, the R1 produces images that look cleaner, with less noise. But I think that can be misleading—higher resolution images with more noise can still equal or even surpass lower-resolution ones, because the extra detail allows for cropping and still maintaining quality.
At the end of the day, I wish the R1 had the wildlife AF performance of the A1 II. For years now, it feels like Canon has ignored nature photographers who want a true pro body with both speed and high resolution for cropping flexibility.
Upvote
0
Really enjoyed reading this!
I do intensly disagree about 24mpix being good. It just doesn't make sense in todays market to keep resolution that low.
Balooning filesizes excuse is moot. Filesize to storage cost ratio has been consistently steadily decreasing and it's cheaper to store your data today than ever before.
If R1 was 45 mpix, it would've been king of the hill. Now it's barely a prince.
I do intensly disagree about 24mpix being good. It just doesn't make sense in todays market to keep resolution that low.
Balooning filesizes excuse is moot. Filesize to storage cost ratio has been consistently steadily decreasing and it's cheaper to store your data today than ever before.
If R1 was 45 mpix, it would've been king of the hill. Now it's barely a prince.
Upvote
0
The point being made by Josh, and I agree, there is no reason either of us need more that 24mp. It doesnt help in printing, cropping isn't a "feature" that is needed. Why do I want bigger files? Why do I want Lightroom to be even more inefficient? (Adobe Sucks)
File size does matter in some cases. My NAS is SSDs (8 * 4TB RAID5), I will never have a spinning HDD again.
I shot the Leica Q3 at 18mp. I don't miss the other 42mp at all.
In a pro sports setting where files are being moved in realtime, it speeds the whole process up, and again. More than 24mp isn't needed. It isn't needed in warzones, which again is about transfering data as fast as possible.
It's not a camera even with 45mp that would be used on a Louis Vuitton shoot. Landscape photographers wouldn't buy it any meaningful numbers. We saw that with the 1DS series. Once the 5D series came out, that's what 95% of people bought over the 1-series. Hence why the "1DS" series died. The sports world was using 1D series cameras, even with APS-H.
If you want more resolution, have at it. Having owned 45-60mp cameras in the past, I didn't find any benefit to them. If I was going to go crazy MP? It'd be a medium format camera.
The speed of the R1 sensor also aids in the autofocus performance, which is the best in the business.
Different use cases, and that's why there are so many different cameras for you to choose from. The R1 is already the "king of the hill" as far as the flagships go. A camera is the sum of its parts, and Canon is well ahead of Sony and Nikon.
Nobody that I know who owns the R1 cares that it's 24mp. It's not a camera that sells in volume, so making a business case for more resolution wouldn't move the needle at all, and it would bring about compromises for its target market and performance demands.
Upvote
0
What firmware version did you use to shoot with the R1? I confirm the situations you described with firmware version 1.0.2 - terrible quality of bird and animal detection, the camera did not even detect hawks in close-up. I returned the firmware to 1.0.1 and the quality of detection and focusing returned. I still continue to shoot only with this firmware.
Upvote
0
This thread discusses the use of the R1 in wildlife photography. For this, 45MP is much better than 24MP.For sports photography, 24MP is enough for me, but not for wildlife.When we are told that 24MP is enough, in 99.99% of cases it means that they are trying to convince us of this because they could not make a fast 45MP sensor.
Upvote
0
Why is 45mp better than 24mp for wildlife? You going to use the "c" word like some lazy self-proclamed wildlife shooters do?
The last 3 wildlife excursions that I have been on have been 70% R1/R3, a few R5s/Nikon DSLRs and Sony's. These aren't Canon sponsored trips.
Next week I have another wildlife shoot (with Josh) and again, it'll mostly be 24mp Canon bodies and the correct lenses, environment and skillset for the job.
Upvote
0
Because the frame is 30% larger, you can use cropping for composition. This is especially important when shooting small animals and birds close-up (with 600/4 lenses you can't get closer than 4 meters, and the DOF is very small and will force you to close the aperture; but you can shoot from 8 meters with an open aperture with the desired DOF, crop the photo and get the same detail with good ISO and a blurred background), shooting fast and chaotic movement (in this case, to fill the frame as desired, it is much more difficult to keep the object within the composition than to crop the desired frame later). Wildlife photography involves a large number of situations when it is impossible to be in the right place in advance, or to take staged photos of feeding places. In this case, cropping the frame is very helpful. Of course, 24 MP can be enough if you are shooting in a prepared place (in a zoo, in a safari park where you are taken to timid animals, in an ambush), but even in this case, 30% more information for the resulting photo 4k/8k can be useful.I take R1 only when aggressive shooting is expected (movement, weather, lighting), in other cases with R5M2 photos are of better quality.
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini 4 Pro & Mavic 4 Pro
Can you do wildlife photography with 24 mp? Of course you can.
Are there no advantages of doing wildlife photography with more than 24mp? Of course there are some. Whether they matter to you or not it depends on your preference, style and circumstances. Noise is not a >24mp disadvantage anymore.
Cropping is a well-established photographic tool. Calling people that crop "lazy" is hardly fair and certainly not constructive.
Upvote
0
I think i will sell my R6m2 low-light camera and buy Fuji or Hasselblad 100-megapixels camera.
