Canon EOS R1 prototypes are in the wild [CR3]

I have no idea how Nikon is doing so and I make no assumptions that Canon can do the same.
I also have no idea how Nikon would get enough people to still buy a Z 9 over a Z 8 to justify selling both cameras.
Two fair points to mention. Maybe Canon would charge a bit more (+10%) over the Z8 if it were stacked. Alternatively, Canon could match the R5 with the Sony A7R V a go with 60+ MP and non-stacked. If launch rumors are correct we should know more in 4 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not sure about the technicalities, but I do find the files on the R3 to be much more "pleasing" and easy to work with than the R5. The difference is noticeable when using Electronic Shutter on both bodies, less so when comparing the R3 ES vs R5 mecanical
The R3 is the only Canon camera (so far) that delivers the full 14-bit depth with electronic shutter. The other cameras drop down to 12-bits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
He has not, since Sony does not have it. His point (as usual for him) was to troll CR by implying Canon could give us QPAF but won't, but Sony will with their next camera because Sony is just so awesome and loves their customers so much they give them all the newest tech all the time. Go Sony!

I will say that my R3 misses focus sometimes because DPAF is single-orientation for phase detection. The solution is to select another feature at the same distance or to rotate the camera a bit to AF then rotate it back, but those are not optimal solutions. For me, QPAF was the main addition I was expecting from an R1. Without it, it's just a maybe-buy. QPAF would be great, but that alone is not enough to induce me to consider a m4/3 camera (the OM-1 has it).

QPAF is something you always forget you want/need until you miss a shot, banging your head against the AF/ON button set for spot focus. It doesn't happen often. I'll go a week or two completely forgetting that this AF system works along only one axis. It's always when I'm taking a fleeting shot at something ephemeral that the focus racks into blur on an easy, gimme focusing situation.

If I get a second chance with the same subject, I've sometimes figured it out and throw the camera into the opposite portrait/landscape angle. I find that just tilting it a little bit works only sometimes, and only if I twist it at least 15-20 degrees. I will say that Canon's AF on birds at great distance against busy backgrounds isn't so reliable that I always can attribute misfocusing to the DPAF axis issue. The Canon AF sometimes just doesn't have enough pixels on the subject to do the work, or its algo likes the background too much (more often than the other systems I've shot).

I agree with Neuro that QPAF would be nice, but not game-changing. I also wonder what the image quality opportunity cost would be by dedicating a good portion of the sensor's photo sites to QPAF.

Another digression still: I don't think QPAF is a feature that will make a camera upgrade desire obvious or adequately distinguish a 1 series from a 5 series price point. Canon using the focus-point-AF feature as a market segmentation tactic for the 1 series has become similar. It's useful in some cases, but often not, so Canon trying to segment the market by putting stuff like that in the 1 series serves mostly as a spec-sheet-stuffer. Just annoys people who require other features lacking in the 1 or 3 series (like, currently, high resolution).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
On wide-aperture bokeh...
I'm often guilty of overdoing it, and even so, sometimes I'd like to take it even further! For me, it's something that is nearly impossible to achieve in painting (without a photographic reference). Possibly, after software calculated depth of field becomes common, it'll lose it's appeal with me and others over doing it now, but will bet money a much greater number of people will be enjoying overdoing it on their cell phones...

Today, it's a primary distinguishing visual element between amateur shots and professional shots. The AI bokeh stuff is pretty terrible right now, but I'm sure it'll get to be great soon. I think this is a bit arbitrary, of course, mostly because the better photos they see tend to be shot by people with big lenses. Their aesthetic has been affected by this funny, arbitrary distinction in the suppliers of images.

[AI velocity example: Four weeks ago I hired a person in Colombia to do 25 minutes of speaking with me as I'm learning Spanish. Cost me $10, and it was useful. Two weeks ago, I got an account using Microsoft's AI thingamabob, and told it I spoke Spanish as a primary language, and was doing the same thing for free with the AI in the text box. I thought to myself, "Wow, this is really cool. I bet someday we could do this by voice." Two days ago, I upgraded my Duolingo app so that I got the ChatGTP feature, and I'm speaking to my phone, having a full dialog in (bad) Spanish on any topic I want, and it's telling me precisely where I'm making mistakes, and even giving me alternate phrasings. I feel that in less than a month, I've personally travelled about 10 years in tech development. Of course, given that the Japanese camera makers are, um, different, we're not going to see that sort of velocity here.]

My prediction is that until that AI stuff gets to be unweird when published at 300 dpi in a magazine, the wide aperture, deep bokeh effect will continue to give a photo a "pro" feeling, and will be part of the current desired style. Once the AI not only develops, but winds up in cameras (not post processing), then it will likely move the market's desire to a more rational aesthetic.

I teach photography to some people, ranging from random parents to editorial staffs at magazines. When I talk about aperture, I show them a bunch of slides and ask them to tell me what they feel about the quality of the photos. Wide aperture is the single factor most associated with a sense of high quality. I think this is only partly due to better subect isolation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Most people I talked to that have a micro 4/3 care about the weight and monetary savings as their priority. It's fine with me as long as they aren't arguing unnecessary criticisms against something else. Ideally, it would be good to gave a camera with each size sensor, but I don't think many people want to spend that much money to have a good kit for each.

I've noticed there is a lot unnecessary criticism on photography related facebook groups. When I look at the profiles of positive people, they usually have nice photos even if it isn't always to my taste, but when I look at negative people, they tend to not share any photos with the group (I see this trend here on Canon Rumors, too), or if the do share, either only have photos of their lenses or photos which exhibit some of the same things they criticize. I admit that's what I've usually seen and not always the case nor does my limited experience mean everyone will notice things the same way.
In posts on those facebook groups asking questions, there will be people who either troll or criticize perfectly acceptable answers. So, I just kinda lerk there to get an idea of what's going on with other companies than Canon and the opportunity to see random people's photos.
Maybe facebook's just a nexus for toxic people unless your friends?
Facebook camera groups are nowhere near as toxic as internet forums like this one, in my experience. That's almost certainly because they target specific cameras or lenses, so people in the group are either owners of that equipment or thinking about getting it. Forums like this one get critical comments from people who will never own the particular camera or lens they are trashing, and often don't even own equipment in that brand. For those that are tired of forum trolls and Canon trashers, I would recommend Facebook groups as a far better alternative. They are not without some rude comments and biased trolls, but not nearly as toxic - at least in the few groups I belong to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The R3 is the only Canon camera (so far) that delivers the full 14-bit depth with electronic shutter. The other cameras drop down to 12-bits.
That would explain the major difference in IQ between the two bodies! I also tend to not use ES on the R5 for any fast moving subject, as the rolling shutter can be quite problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Two fair points to mention. Maybe Canon would charge a bit more (+10%) over the Z8 if it were stacked. Alternatively, Canon could match the R5 with the Sony A7R V a go with 60+ MP and non-stacked. If launch rumors are correct we should know more in 4 months.
I doubt it, The A7Rv has a lot of rolling shutter because of its high MP. Its purpose and market is for high resolution photos and the video is there for the sake of being there.
It would not make any sense to cripple the R5 with horrible video rolling shutter and remove the 4k 120 just for higher resolution.
That is where the R5s variant would come into play for high resolution needs.
Sony has a different focus on bodies then what Canon seems to have. Sony is focused on 3 A7 lines, General Hybrid (33MP), High Speed (12MP), High Resolution (61MP). Canon seems to be focused on Low Res Hybrid (24MP) and High Res Hybrid (45MP). The R3 and R1 should and will be the stacked speed demons required for Sports and Flagship rights (Just like the A9 and A1 Series)
This is why in my opinion, all these rumors are more wish lists than actual rumors.
Nikon is trying to entice their customer base with cheaper prices to regain some of their lost market share (one could make the assumption their profit margins are much lower because of this and it's the sacrifice they are willing to make as a company for sub par performance).
Sony is trying to entice their customers with higher MP sensor technology and their AF.
Canon is at that sweet spot with a 45 MP camera that comparably competes with the Sony a7siii 12MP 4k video centric camera and the A1 flagship (if you exclude all the A1 benefits it gets from the stacked sensor it uses).
It does not make any logical sense for the R5ii to have a stacked sensor, the same way it didn't make any sense for the R6ii to have a stacked sensor.
What does make sense is the R1 flagship to have a stacked sensor that is comparable to the A1 and Z9 and go for their jugular.

Just look at the price range. Making the R5 more expensive leaves a large gap.
R6ii $2500
R5 $3900
R3 $6000
R1 $7500???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not sure about the technicalities, but I do find the files on the R3 to be much more "pleasing" and easy to work with than the R5. The difference is noticeable when using Electronic Shutter on both bodies, less so when comparing the R3 ES vs R5 mecanical
If you're not sure, is it possible there are other technical differences between R5 and R3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Facebook camera groups are nowhere near as toxic as internet forums like this one, in my experience. That's almost certainly because they target specific cameras or lenses, so people in the group are either owners of that equipment or thinking about getting it. Forums like this one get critical comments from people who will never own the particular camera or lens they are trashing, and often don't even own equipment in that brand. For those that are tired of forum trolls and Canon trashers, I would recommend Facebook groups as a far better alternative. They are not without some rude comments and biased trolls, but not nearly as toxic - at least in the few groups I belong to.
I'm glad you're having a better experience there than I did. If it's ok, which groups do you recommend?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not sure about the technicalities, but I do find the files on the R3 to be much more "pleasing" and easy to work with than the R5. The difference is noticeable when using Electronic Shutter on both bodies, less so when comparing the R3 ES vs R5 mecanical
The R3 files in ES and low iso should have greater DR than the R5. For what I do, I am afraid I am always at too high iso to make any difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
You mean in size? This would be a bit over the top, for an MFT :unsure:
Edit: seems they have discontinued it, at least in France. Maybe it stood no chances after the OM 1 got introduced.
Yes in size. It's not exactly, but surprisingly close.
B&H have it for $1,499.95, if you want to try importing it.
At least the OM 1 and G9 ii can use a battery grip. I'm sure it's interesting to 100MP Handheld High-Res Mode. That would be equivalent to cropping 400mp on full frame, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Yes in size. It's not exactly, but surprisingly close.
B&H have it for $1,499.95, if you want to try importing it.
At least the OM 1 and G9 ii can use a battery grip. I'm sure it's interesting to 100MP Handheld High-Res Mode. That would be equivalent to cropping 400mp on full frame, correct?
No chance I'll be importing it (OM-DE-M1X) because:
- I'd have to pay 20% TVA (VAT)
- Plus 16 % custom duties (at least)
- International warranty wouldn't be valid in France if it's a US import
- I love :love::love::love: the OM 1
- Most important: I'll buy either an R 5 II or an R 3 next year (the OM 1 maybe a bit later...)
Happy North Americans, we pay such a high "bonus" on cameras (thanks God, there's Panamoz !)
Yes, I know, we may have a much better (?) health insurance...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Yes in size. It's not exactly, but surprisingly close.
B&H have it for $1,499.95, if you want to try importing it.
At least the OM 1 and G9 ii can use a battery grip. I'm sure it's interesting to 100MP Handheld High-Res Mode. That would be equivalent to cropping 400mp on full frame, correct?
The OM 1's 100 MP handheld mode is a feature I miss on FF cameras, as well as the IP 53 certification (except Leica SL- SL2).
And the AF too. Rotating a camera 90 degrees to get it focused is a bit awkward, even though not dramatic.
As to the cropping equivalency, better wait for an answer by one of our real experts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not sure about the technicalities, but I do find the files on the R3 to be much more "pleasing" and easy to work with than the R5. The difference is noticeable when using Electronic Shutter on both bodies, less so when comparing the R3 ES vs R5 mecanical
I assume the faster readout improves the dynamic range? But I also find that the files are much more flexible in editing than the R6 and R5 files.
 
Upvote 0
The R3 files in ES and low iso should have greater DR than the R5. For what I do, I am afraid I am always at too high iso to make any difference.
I have found the raw files to be quite flexible even at high isos compared to the R5, though I have taken to shooting my R3 at 3200 max and boosting more in post as that seems to me to have the best results in terms of noise.
 
Upvote 0
Probably will buy. Current price for R3 is tempting but must wait for R1 announcement.

My wishlist:
-insane good AF
-less noise on same ISO compared to R3

Other specs I'm sure they meet my needs. Resolution will be nice but anything they'll deliver, I'll take. I do like R5 cropping capability over R3 and 1DX, so more is better.

For bonus points I'd like to see some high fps video mode like 1080p480.
 
Upvote 0