Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications

I would agree, but DGO would be neat if it did/does work well in photo mode. R3 already does extremely well with back lit subjects while maintaining the highlights and bringing up the shadows in photos. That would only enhance it imo

that's just it - it may not work in stills. so it's difficult to say that Canon left out a feature that they could have put in.

adding 32MP doesn't seem like a lot or a big lift - but that's reading 64 million pixels hundreds of times a second (for AF). versus 48 million - so that's processing 33% more data.

Canon apparently did something with respect to noise in the R1 as well, I remember reading something about it. so it will have some tricks up it's sleave there as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Unless this has atleast 1 full stop better noise compared to R3, the sensor is a joke and has very little to show. Improved rolling shutter, which isn’t already bad on the R3.
Probably the only worthy thing is the AF.
This doesn’t even have the CLOG2, waveform, SRAW like the R5II.
 
Upvote 0
that's just it - it may not work in stills. so it's difficult to say that Canon left out a feature that they could have put in.

adding 32MP doesn't seem like a lot or a big lift - but that's reading 64 million pixels hundreds of times a second (for AF). versus 48 million - so that's processing 33% more data.

Canon apparently did something with respect to noise in the R1 as well, I remember reading something about it. so it will have some tricks up it's sleave there as well.

Why all pixels need to be dual pixel design? Why not to have every second or fourth pixel only? That is still 6 or 12 million AF pixels.
 
Upvote 0
Canon apparently did something with respect to noise in the R1 as well, I remember reading something about it. so it will have some tricks up it's sleave there as well.
The 1 series always has the best file cooking. I would expect this will be a benefit (to the 90 percent who aren’t purists) in the 1 over the 5ii. Is the main reason I’m going to have to try both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
A few interesting observations from Petapixel`s Chris:

Would be interesting to see if others have the same feeling:

Is the Canon R1 Good? It’s Too Early to Tell​

Given the pre-production nature of the R1, we got to test, it’s too early to make any solid evaluations about this camera. What we could see though is the potential for the R1 to be a very powerful journalistic style camera. There is no denying that it will be fast focusing, fast shooting, rugged, and with image quality that is ideal for journalism and web publication.

However, I keep saying words like “journalistic” when describing this camera and that is where the R1 falters as a flagship. When the R3 came out, it was very apparent that it was intended as a specialized tool for lower-megapixel shooting — namely, journalism. It was fast and rugged but very expensive, and it only found a market with publication outfits that needed such a specialized tool.

When I got my hands on the R1 and saw the specifications and the two shooting situations that Canon set out for us to test it in, I couldn’t help but feel that this camera was far more like an R3 Mark II rather than a modern flagship worthy of the R1 name.

There are so many unanswered questions about this camera regarding image quality and true autofocusing potential that can only be done with a final production camera, so we will have to save any final judgments for when we get a production R1 to evaluate.

What is clear about this new R1 camera — and what becomes my main issue — is that this it targets the same customer base that the R3 does regardless of how many thoughtful improvements there are. There is no denying that the R1 has some powerful tech inside it but it is walking a path Canon already treaded and frankly, it is a path that relatively few photographers choose to walk.

I can only hope that Canon recognizes this and is developing a higher-megapixel, less-specialized version of the camera to be released soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
24 MP on the R3 was borderline low, but now 3, 4 years later... huuuu

24 MP are a joke these days for THE R1, but shows perfect, how hard Canon struggles with the data at the speed they want at high burst rate to not bring a up-to-date 45 MP (or at least 30 MP) Sensor with the same specs they do.

For me, the R1 is only an R3 MK2.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
This also means that there likely won't be an R3 Mark II.

It also makes the insistence from Canon that the R3 wasn't a flagship weird. You can draw a through line from 1DX3 to R3 to R1 pretty clearly, and the first and last cameras there are flagships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
I mean they were trying to be nice. In the video version they literally said "this feels more like an upgrade to the R3 than it does anything else". It's a really weak offering for being "THE" R1, and the comparisons to other flagship cameras are just not pretty.
Gee what a surprise that would be Chris' first reaction ...
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Why all pixels need to be dual pixel design? Why not to have every second or fourth pixel only? That is still 6 or 12 million AF pixels.
that would mess up predictive speed analysis.

the camera calculates out the speed of the target and where it's likely going to be so it can tell the lens to move. there's a lag there between the prediction, and the focus.

DSLR's used to do the same, but had it worse because they had to predict where the subject would be after they flipped up the mirror as well.

and it wouldn't really buy you that much anyways.

also I've never seen a canon patent even talk about doing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Will no one just say it? CANON IS DOOMED.

There, do we all feel better now?

:ROFLMAO: :rolleyes::ROFLMAO::rolleyes::ROFLMAO:

Canon is Doomed™

the camera doesn't even need your hands to adjust AF. they recommend just looking at the target.

It even will predict what player will actually get the ball if it's kicked towards them. it literally will anticipate a sports play and the result.

but yes, horrible camera.

The R1 is the best 1 series camera that they have ever made, and I don't think any of the 1DX's are even close.

This is what the 1 series is supposed to be. if people don't get that, they aren't the ones buying 1 series camera bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
we know, we know, Canon is always doomed.

But really though, honest question, how does this look compared to any possible A1 successor? It's not a great look.

you mean the A1 isn't a good look? the DR is horrible. even with a heavy handed noise reduction scrub.

The A1 III was released this year, if anything you'd be comparing the R1 Mark II against the A1 Mark IV.
 
Upvote 0