Canon EOS R1 Field Report from Antarctica: A Wildlife Photographer’s Perspective

[neuroanatomist]

All my photos and a subset of videos are on an external 4TB SSD as well, it's great to be able to move them between systems.
I'm happy that I don't need to spend on internal SSD…

I’m fine using external SSDs for backups and archiving, but for me having to connect an external drive to my MBP to work on files defeats the purpose of a laptop. I want to take it to my family room or a Starbucks and not have to connect an external device.

But you’re right that Apple charges a lot for memory and storage. I went with 48 GB memory and a 2 TB SSD, I wasn’t willing to go to 4 TB. I only keep the most recent 5 years of RAW images and 1080p videos. Older RAWs and 4K original videos are archived (home NAS in RAID 1 and Samsung T7 SSDs offsite).

 

[vikingar]

I’ll stick with high-spec MBPs, thanks. Since I prefer the larger display, I actually can’t get a low-spec one.

Agreed, laptops are a lot more convenient. I've noticed so myself. I was just saying that R5 raw processing is totally doable at < 1000$ even on Macs.

Next upgrade cycle I'm going back to a MBP too, and yes a high-spec one due to the display limitations and 4TB internal storage, as you said external storage defeats the point of a laptop.

 

[koenkooi]

Agreed, laptops are a lot more convenient. I've noticed so myself. I was just saying that R5 raw processing is totally doable at < 1000$ even on Macs.

Next upgrade cycle I'm going back to a MBP too, and yes a high-spec one due to the display limitations and 4TB internal storage, as you said external storage defeats the point of a laptop.

Give the matte screen option some consideration, it has exceeded my expectations. I can edit photos on the couch again without getting annoyed by the glare from the lights!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Give the matte screen option some consideration, it has exceeded my expectations. I can edit photos on the couch again without getting annoyed by the glare from the lights!

Agreed. I actually ordered the CTO 16” with the standard screen but reconsidered. I took the unopened Mac into my local Apple Store where I compared the standard and nano-texture displays side-by-side, and returned that Mac then ordered the same one with the nano-texture display.

 

[docsmith]

Canon does seems to flit between alternate (very slight) magenta and green tint. IIRC the 5D had a slight green bias, then the II was more magenta, the III green again, the S magenta, the IV green !

I have been wondering a bit about "Canon Colors" so I took a moment and looked at a few bodies, mostly the 5 and 1 series over time. Using the data from DXO Mark and "Color Response" for each camera.

All of about 30 minutes of work here, but here is a summary chart of the "Relative Sensitivities" of each color channel:

		Daylight				Tungsten
Camera	Year	Red	Green	Blue		Red	Green	Blue
5D	2005​	0.42​	1​	0.77​		0.79​	1​	0.39​
5DII	2008​	0.39​	1​	0.69​		0.70​	1​	0.34​
7D	2009​	0.41​	1​	0.70​		0.75​	1​	0.38​
1Dx	2012​	0.51​	1​	0.66​		0.78​	1​	0.42​
5DIII	2012​	0.50​	1​	0.58​		0.75​	1​	0.38​
6D	2012​	0.51​	1​	0.56​		0.77​	1​	0.35​
1Dx II	2016​	0.56​	1​	0.61​		0.84​	1​	0.39​
5DIV	2016​	0.51​	1​	0.69​		0.77​	1​	0.45​
1Dx III	2020​	0.55​	1​	0.63​		0.83​	1​	0.41​
R5	2020​	0.54​	1​	0.52​		0.83​	1​	0.33​
R6	2020​	0.54​	1​	0.61​		0.84​	1​	0.40​
R3	2021​	0.51​	1​	0.54​		0.80​	1​	0.33​

For Daylight, it is pretty obvious, Canon used to favor the blue channel at the cost of red but those have been converging over time to being pretty much equal. As Green is "1" and Red/Blue are ~50%, I assume this is reflective of the RGBG Bayer pattern. If so, current cameras are pretty true to natural daylight.

Under Tungsten light, overall, not much of a pattern, but there is variation camera to camera. I also played with what the ratio should be to actual tungsten light and I do not see the relative change I would expect based on what is going on in Daylight. Which is interesting that Canon seems to be going more natural in recent cameras under Daylight but maintaining the same general profile/ratios under Tungsten.

Looking around for RGB from different light sources, I found this, which is pretty interesting. As the colors in natural light do change, I went looking for a summary of it, but the best I found was this post on Reddit.

Of course, more can go into people's observations of older sensors. I've always taken "creamy" to be a strong AA filter/lower MP count. But, at least in Daylight, there does seem to be a change in Canon's more recent sensors.

Anyways...off to finish making dinner.

 

[Jethro]

Anyways...off to finish making dinner.

Eat well - and thanks for taking the trouble to do that. Very interesting!

 

[mmmm]

Yeah I always found that argument not to hold water. We are talking about $4000 - $6000 cameras (before spending even more $$ for exotic superteles) here. A $3000 MacBook Pro or the PC equivalent will handle 100 MP Fuji GFX files just fine, never mind R5 sized files.

Indeed of course even low range computers with minimal ram can handle even extremely large raw files. It’s how well, and how fluid when dealing with many many thousands that matters for many photographers.

Dealing day in and day out processing 100’s and sifting through many thousands - the file size and the image resolution most certainly makes a difference. I’ll probably concede it’s more of an issue with the software than the hardware, especially with LRC but regardless, there is a big enough difference for things to get slightly frustrating with raws the larger they get.

Also for storage considerations (depending on what you shoot). I have to keep all the raws from each of my shoots for at least a year, then the culled raws indefinitely. My personal raws get kept forever. The ‘storage is cheap‘ mantra only gets you so far if you use a proper backup solution, as one must shooting professionally.

All that said, although it was a small consideration when I decided my purchase, and I’m glad to have lower file sizes with my R1 for what I consider would be the same picture I would take with an R5ii in my hands, it wasn’t ever going to be a deal breaker.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The ‘storage is cheap‘ mantra only gets you so far if you use a proper backup solution, as one must shooting professionally.

It’s all relative, of course. If you’re just looking to archive files, a 20 TB HDD is less than $300.

 

[mmmm]

It’s all relative, of course. If you’re just looking to archive files, a 20 TB HDD is less than $300.

I don’t live in the US, but yeah they’re not particularly expensive. But a 321 back up strategy and its infrastructure isn’t pennies, is all I mean. Double the file size is double the space and therefore double the cost. I have a fairly extensive system which requires maintenance and replacement drives etc. As I said, it’s not anything like a deal breaker for me, but I can see some people being concerned.
Anyway, the point is is that there are benefits to smaller raw file sizes when it comes to processing and storing.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

While I accept his experience, this is 'review' feels rather biased for supposedly only being a "field report on my experiences". It doesn't read like a field report.

A lot of these quotes sound like they might as well be Canon marketing speak.







I also didn't find his last argument 'against' higher resolution very convincing.

...Because it would give you the option to shoot a high res file OR a low res binned file with similar noise performance. You can't create detail from a lower res image. You CAN pixel bin a higher res file into a lower noise, lower res image.


Besides all that, those are some great photos

This is the best comment I've seen regarding any review of any type ever. Well done and good points to be reminded of when it's easy to get glazed eyes wanting the next new thing.

 

[mmmm]

This is the best comment I've seen regarding any review of any type ever. Well done and good points to be reminded of when it's easy to get glazed eyes wanting the next new thing.

Some guy telling how they found the camera whilst on a field trip or anny type of shoot isn’t a review. It’s a collection of thoughts regarding said experiences. It doesn’t need to weigh up any pros or cons. It merely needs to state how he found it, and his opinion on it. If he loves the camera, I absolutely don’t demand he forces himself to include any bad bits if he even found any. In a review then that’s obligatory. As this isn’t a review nor stated as a review I hardly think it matters.

Besides, the images speak for themselves.

I have an R1, and I also struggle to find anything bad enough to dent my opinion of it. If I was writing a review, these things need to be included, however minor. If I was writing a forum post then no - unless it was hindering my ability to produce the results I liked.

 

[docsmith]

Some guy telling how they found the camera whilst on a field trip or anny type of shoot isn’t a review. It’s a collection of thoughts regarding said experiences. It doesn’t need to weigh up any pros or cons. It merely needs to state how he found it, and his opinion on it. If he loves the camera, I absolutely don’t demand he forces himself to include any bad bits if he even found any. In a review then that’s obligatory. As this isn’t a review nor stated as a review I hardly think it matters.

Besides, the images speak for themselves.

I have an R1, and I also struggle to find anything bad enough to dent my opinion of it. If I was writing a review, these things need to be included, however minor. If I was writing a forum post then no - unless it was hindering my ability to produce the results I liked.

I am good calling them field reviews, maybe field reports? But I find value in hearing how other photographers accomplish great photos. How they go about their work. I have learned from wedding photographers to wildlife photographers. I even find tests some have done comparing tripods with spikes vs tripods with rubber feet interesting (landscape photographers). There are so many aspects and nuances to photography. Here we had a professional with a new camera in an extreme environment and the camera checked all the boxes. Good information, great to know. After that it is up to an intelligent person to decide if what he experienced is relevant to them.

 

[SvO2]

I am good calling them field reviews, maybe field reports? But I find value in hearing how other photographers accomplish great photos. How they go about their work. I have learned from wedding photographers to wildlife photographers. I even find tests some have done comparing tripods with spikes vs tripods with rubber feet interesting (landscape photographers). There are so many aspects and nuances to photography. Here we had a professional with a new camera in an extreme environment and the camera checked all the boxes. Good information, great to know. After that it is up to an intelligent person to decide if what he experienced is relevant to them.

It would have been more useful if he gave examples of things that couldn’t be accomplished on other cameras. But he didn’t. For all I know if they stuck an r8 in an r1 disguise, he’d be singing the same praises.

 

[docsmith]

It would have been more useful if he gave examples of things that couldn’t be accomplished on other cameras. But he didn’t. For all I know if they stuck an r8 in an r1 disguise, he’d be singing the same praises.

Ahhh...yes, the R1 disguise kit. I hear they are selling them like wildfire on Amazon.

But more seriously, you would like examples of what can't be accomplished with other cameras, someone else might want something else, and a third person something else. You can see how this would spiral.

And, of course, there are and will be more comparative reviews, many by people trying to make a living off online reviews. This was an alternative, a professional photographer using gear to meet his needs and providing us a report on how it went. His impressions and his experiences. It is what it is, not what everyone else wants it to be. But I appreciate having both in the world, comparative reviews by those trying to make a profession out of reviewing cameras and field reports by those whose profession is taking photos.

 

[koenkooi]

It would have been more useful if he gave examples of things that couldn’t be accomplished on other cameras. But he didn’t. For all I know if they stuck an r8 in an r1 disguise, he’d be singing the same praises.

The R8 has much more fps, so it would be better

 

[SvO2]

Ahhh...yes, the R1 disguise kit. I hear they are selling them like wildfire on Amazon.

But more seriously, you would like examples of what can't be accomplished with other cameras, someone else might want something else, and a third person something else. You can see how this would spiral.

And, of course, there are and will be more comparative reviews, many by people trying to make a living off online reviews. This was an alternative, a professional photographer using gear to meet his needs and providing us a report on how it went. His impressions and his experiences. It is what it is, not what everyone else wants it to be. But I appreciate having both in the world, comparative reviews by those trying to make a profession out of reviewing cameras and field reports by those whose profession is taking photos.

I mean call it what you want, but it certainly reads like a Canon marketing fluff piece and does make me question if he's sponsored by them.

 

[mmmm]

I mean call it what you want, but it certainly reads like a Canon marketing fluff piece and does make me question if he's sponsored by them.

Using the camera daily, like I do, I can certainly appreciate what he’s saying. I got the same great shots with my 5div, but the r1 benefits speed and accuracy, on top of the mirrorless v dslr benefits. I suppose it’s down to you whether the benefits outweigh the perceived negatives. The fact of the matter is, if you review pieces like this, coupled with genuine ‘reviews’, then you can make a decision suited to you. If it’s a megapixel or a body size issue, then canon offer an alternative. If it’s a canon thing, then there are multiple alternatives. For me, the R1 is a proverbial machine. It suits me perfectly. And the OP it seems. If you have one and say different then that’s your prerogative.

 

[Josh-H]

I mean call it what you want, but it certainly reads like a Canon marketing fluff piece and does make me question if he's sponsored by them.

Nope, I'm not - paid hard-earned for all my Canon cameras over the last 25+ years.

 

[mmmm]

Nope, I'm not - paid hard-earned for all my Canon cameras over the last 25+ years.

Nothing wrong with pointing out a good camera when you use one. Don’t worry about all the naysayers. They’re never gonna buy one nor ever going to have the equivalent skills to know if it’s right for them if they did. Fantastic work, lovely write up.