Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications

[Ozarker]

True, but it won't stop me from saying "My R8 has the same performance as an R1!"

My '92 F/150 gets me to the grocer the same as a Raptor too. Just as fast on marked roads.

 

[Ozarker]

I do not belong to the privileged group that canon consults, but as a sports photographer, mainly polo and rugby, I will tell you that if you need 40 or more fps to do your job is that you do not know what you're doing.

Nothing wrong with making the job of capturing a particular instant easier. I'm sure birders appreciate it. Also, not all are pro sports photographers. The camera needs to appeal to more than pro sports photographers. Let's not pretend you don't miss shots.

 

[Richard-CN]

"Mind Control AF"

Canon owes me money for that

 

[Ozarker]

Canon owes me money for that

Yup. That was good.

 

[TwoWheeler]

Canon owes me money for that

But which way does it work? Does the mind control the AF or the other way ‘round?

 

[Arude]

Question: for last couple days I read and watch all the stuff about R1 - and realistically - can someone provide any serious reason to upgrade or buy R1 over R3.

The only major upgrades over R3 I found are:
1. pre-release burst
2. slightly higher ISO
3. slightly faster continuous shooting
4. allegedly better EyeAF

Or am I missing something? If someone is OK with how R3 works is there really anything else that justify almost 40% higher price?

I understand that for uber-pro photogs in very specific environments these paper thin differences might be day and nigh - although I'm already pretty OK with 15 to 20 FPS and 16000 ISO on 99% stadiums in Europe (but maybe I'm not pro enough) - but for the majority is there anything else that might be a reason to go for R1?

To be honest, at this point, after almost 15 years with Canon I am starting to think if I would still recommend to someone this system instead of Nikon with its Z9.

Any ideas?

 

[john1970]

Question: for last couple days I read and watch all the stuff about R1 - and realistically - can someone provide any serious reason to upgrade or buy R1 over R3.

The only major upgrades over R3 I found are:
1. pre-release burst
2. slightly higher ISO
3. slightly faster continuous shooting
4. allegedly better EyeAF

Or am I missing something? If someone is OK with how R3 works is there really anything else that justify almost 40% higher price?

I understand that for uber-pro photogs in very specific environments these paper thin differences might be day and nigh - although I'm already pretty OK with 15 to 20 FPS and 16000 ISO on 99% stadiums in Europe (but maybe I'm not pro enough) - but for the majority is there anything else that might be a reason to go for R1?

To be honest, at this point, after almost 15 years with Canon I am starting to think if I would still recommend to someone this system instead of Nikon with its Z9.

Any ideas?

Fair question and comments. A few other features I would point out would be:

1) cross-type AF sensors across the entire frame
2) dual CFE B cards so one can write redundantly to both without buffer limitations
3) brighter, higher resolution, higher magnification EVF
4) deeper buffer than the R3 (1000+ frames in lossless RAW)
5) strap lug on bottom of camera
6) faster sensor readout with electronic shutter so less rolling shutter
7) 6144-devision metering (compared to 384 on R3) for more precise exposure metering even when subject is small in frame. (shared with R5 Mk2)

For me there is not a single reason to upgrade, but it is the combination of all of these features that might make the upgrade worthwhile. Yes, I do wish that Canon would have slightly increased the resolution as well, but 24 MP is okay especially given the fact that I started out with 16 MP back in the day.

The Nikon Z9 is an excellent camera and one that I do use specifically with the Nikon 800 mm f6.3 PF lens. I use the 800 mm focal length for small birds / animals and the Z9+800 mm f6.3 combo is less costly than the Canon RF 800 f5.6.

With that said, both Canon and Nikon cameras have their pluses and minuses; I have yet to find one camera that checks all the boxes.

 

[charly1d]

There is no way you have shot every sport in existence.
You are the one who is generalizing.
Some sports have different requirements.

You're right, I didn't. My bad English made me misunderstand your sentence, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Your comments are polite and professional so I apologize if I have insulted you in any way shape or form.

You haven't done it.
PD. I hope I have used understandable grammar.
Greetings

 

[charly1d]

Nothing wrong with making the job of capturing a particular instant easier. I'm sure birders appreciate it. Also, not all are pro sports photographers. The camera needs to appeal to more than pro sports photographers. Let's not pretend you don't miss shots.

I admit it's a good point.
It's not something I can do easily, lots of missed shots to get a shot, but work alongside photographers who have done it with cameras like 1D mkIV or 1DX on a regular basis.

Is what I admitted in answer #109

 

[Richard-CN]

Question: for last couple days I read and watch all the stuff about R1 - and realistically - can someone provide any serious reason to upgrade or buy R1 over R3.

The only major upgrades over R3 I found are:
1. pre-release burst
2. slightly higher ISO
3. slightly faster continuous shooting
4. allegedly better EyeAF

Or am I missing something? If someone is OK with how R3 works is there really anything else that justify almost 40% higher price?

I understand that for uber-pro photogs in very specific environments these paper thin differences might be day and nigh - although I'm already pretty OK with 15 to 20 FPS and 16000 ISO on 99% stadiums in Europe (but maybe I'm not pro enough) - but for the majority is there anything else that might be a reason to go for R1?

To be honest, at this point, after almost 15 years with Canon I am starting to think if I would still recommend to someone this system instead of Nikon with its Z9.

Any ideas?

I mean if you watched any videos on the R5 Mark II or the R1 you would have gotten more details than that.

 

[Ozarker]

I admit it's a good point.
It's not something I can do easily, lots of missed shots to get a shot, but work alongside photographers who have done it with cameras like 1D mkIV or 1DX on a regular basis.

They miss shots too. Humans.

 

[Arude]

Fair question and comments. A few other features I would point out would be:

1) cross-type AF sensors across the entire frame
2) dual CFE B cards so one can write redundantly to both without buffer limitations
3) brighter, higher resolution, higher magnification EVF
4) deeper buffer than the R3 (1000+ frames in lossless RAW)
5) strap lug on bottom of camera
6) faster sensor readout with electronic shutter so less rolling shutter
7) 6144-devision metering (compared to 384 on R3) for more precise exposure metering even when subject is small in frame. (shared with R5 Mk2)

For me there is not a single reason to upgrade, but it is the combination of all of these features that might make the upgrade worthwhile. Yes, I do wish that Canon would have slightly increased the resolution as well, but 24 MP is okay especially given the fact that I started out with 16 MP back in the day.

The Nikon Z9 is an excellent camera and one that I do use specifically with the Nikon 800 mm f6.3 PF lens. I use the 800 mm focal length for small birds / animals and the Z9+800 mm f6.3 combo is less costly than the Canon RF 800 f5.6.

With that said, both Canon and Nikon cameras have their pluses and minuses; I have yet to find one camera that checks all the boxes.

Good points, but to be honest I consider them as a minor tweaks for daily usage and not real change in the output. After all, R3 already has a solid AF and 1000+ RAWs? Maybe if someone's shooting style is spray and pray - but for most aware sport shooters it's a solid overkill. I imagine wildlife photographers will benefit from this (and from pre-burst).

As for resolution I really hoped that they will push at least 30mpx (if they can't compete with 45mpx Z9). I'm not saying that you can't print a whole page from 10mpx - but it's just a peace of mind if you can crop a shot if needed.

That said I really still don't know what Canon had in mind with such specs for their flagship - especially while already having a R3. It's like they've got a prime camera like Z9 and spited it in half (R1 + R5II). Being a Canon shooter is really tough these days - there's no all-in-one like Nikon has, and if you want proper studio gear you have to go for Sony or Fuji anyway.

I mean if you watched any videos on the R5 Mark II or the R1 you would have gotten more details than that.

So can you - really please - give me these game changers from R1? But please find some at least as significant as adding EyeAF or BSI sensor to R5II

 

[Loswr]

Good points, but to be honest I consider them as a minor tweaks for daily usage and not real change in the output. After all, R3 already has a solid AF and 1000+ RAWs?

With electronic shutter at 30 fps, the R3 can shoot 150 RAW (5 seconds) or 420 C-RAW before slowing down. It can only keep going indefinitely at slower frame rates. The R1 will shoot >1000 RAW at 40 fps.

So can you - really please - give me these game changers from R1? But please find some at least as significant as adding EyeAF or BSI sensor to R5II

No other Canon mirrorless camera can focus on horizontal lines. It's not like there's not a workaround for the R3 (focus on something else, rotate the camera to focus then rotate back to shoot). But cross-type AF was eventually a feature of even the entry level DSLRs, even if restricted to just the central AF point. The R1 will do cross type AF through the full FoV.

 

[Quack]

Good points, but to be honest I consider them as a minor tweaks for daily usage and not real change in the output. After all, R3 already has a solid AF and 1000+ RAWs? Maybe if someone's shooting style is spray and pray - but for most aware sport shooters it's a solid overkill. I imagine wildlife photographers will benefit from this (and from pre-burst).

As for resolution I really hoped that they will push at least 30mpx (if they can't compete with 45mpx Z9). I'm not saying that you can't print a whole page from 10mpx - but it's just a peace of mind if you can crop a shot if needed.

That said I really still don't know what Canon had in mind with such specs for their flagship - especially while already having a R3. It's like they've got a prime camera like Z9 and spited it in half (R1 + R5II). Being a Canon shooter is really tough these days - there's no all-in-one like Nikon has, and if you want proper studio gear you have to go for Sony or Fuji anyway.



So can you - really please - give me these game changers from R1? But please find some at least as significant as adding EyeAF or BSI sensor to R5II

So, the Nikon z9 is an all-in-one, but the R5, and now the R5 II is not? Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

Seems like the R1 has some game changers for sports shooters.
You can register a specific person and the camera will keep AF on that person.
AF that will automatically follow a ball from one individual to another in basketball, volleyball and soccer.
Eye AF is apparently much better.

As is usual with these types of posts, you assume incorrectly that the R1 is meant for owners of the R3, thus it must be significantly better than the R3. No, it does not, as Canon obviously knows many R3 owners will have no need to buy an R1 now. The R1 is aimed at 1 series DSLR owners and to some degree owners of 5 and 6 series cameras looking to upgrade.

And proper studio gear needs to be Sony or Fuji? Please, you just lost all credibility with that statement.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I can see that their sports photographer focus groups telling them 24 MP is fine since most images are just published to digital where 8 MP is plenty, but I am not sure the same focus groups will also tell them, "40 fps is enough" at the same time.

From what I know of them, those folks will take as many fps as they can get away with, even if they may not use all of it all the time.

There is a point however where more images actually becomes a liability as opposed to a benefit. If a single photographer sends 100 thousand photos of a sports match back to an agency, the reality that people need to sort through those images to pick one to publish. Nobody is going to have time to be so thorough that they always get the best image. They will settle for what they can go through in a given period of time. So you may as well only shoot half as many images anyway. As for myself as a solo wildlife photographer. Anything more than 2k images per day is my limit for sorting through. So I rarely even shoot at 20fps even though I have the ability to do so .

 

[frankchn]

There is a point however where more images actually becomes a liability as opposed to a benefit. If a single photographer sends 100 thousand photos of a sports match back to an agency, the reality that people need to sort through those images to pick one to publish. Nobody is going to have time to be so thorough that they always get the best image. They will settle for what they can go through in a given period of time. So you may as well only shoot half as many images anyway. As for myself as a solo wildlife photographer. Anything more than 2k images per day is my limit for sorting through. So I rarely even shoot at 20fps even though I have the ability to do so .

Yeah, of course no one sane will shoot 120 fps all the time and end up with 100k photos.

However, (and I've posted about this elsewhere) when I shot college sports for the student newspaper, my editor always wanted ball on bat/racket/paddle photos of specific players. 120 fps + precapture will make this particular assignment trivial.

Sorting it is relatively easy too -- just scroll to look for the moment the ball comes into contact, star that one, delete the rest of the sequence. The batter swung and missed? Don't even bother downloading it to a computer, just trash the entire sequence right on the camera.

 

[Richard-CN]

So can you - really please - give me these game changers from R1? But please find some at least as significant as adding EyeAF or BSI sensor to R5II

Action and person priority.

an actual literal game changer.

 

[frankchn]

No other Canon mirrorless camera can focus on horizontal lines. It's not like there's not a workaround for the R3 (focus on something else, rotate the camera to focus then rotate back to shoot). But cross-type AF was eventually a feature of even the entry level DSLRs, even if restricted to just the central AF point. The R1 will do cross type AF through the full FoV.

Has this been an issue for photographers using the R3 practically speaking?

I've not really heard any complaints about this either about the R3 (or the competition for that matter, which I assume also doesn't do cross-type AF). Of course, I've also never experienced this myself when shooting theater/dance with a pair of R3s either.

I am struggling to think of a scenario in sports or photojournalism where you want to focus on perfect neatly arranged vertical lines (I can see this happening in architecture and maybe landscapes, but likely not the target market for the R3 or the R1).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Has this been an issue for photographers using the R3 practically speaking?

I've not really heard any complaints about this either about the R3 (or the competition for that matter, which I assume also doesn't do cross-type AF). Of course, I've also never experienced this myself when shooting theater/dance with a pair of R3s either.

I am struggling to think of a scenario in sports or photojournalism where you want to focus on perfect neatly arranged vertical lines (I can see this happening in architecture and maybe landscapes, but likely not the target market for the R3 or the R1).

I could see it being useful for the fault lines in tennis but I have never heard anyone complain about the previous autofocus.

 

[Loswr]

Has this been an issue for photographers using the R3 practically speaking?

It’s been an issue for me, personally. There are times/subjects when my R3 simply fails to lock focus. Press the button, see the red square, done.

To be fair, I can’t specifically ascribe all of those to a lack of cross type AF points. I know some are due to extreme defocus, but others are not. I shot similar subjects with my 1D X, which had no difficulty locking on in those situations.