Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry, I should have worshipped with the peanut gallery

Poor you. Play that victim card, you wear it well.

and agreed with everyone who says no one needs a pro body high resolution camera.

Who is saying that? I haven’t read it here yet, but anyone saying something that ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed as much as you do for your ‘cripple hammer’ comments.

Canon is all knowing and is perfectly aware of the needs of the masses.

You seem to like putting words in people’s mouths. Again, who is saying that? Canon has led the market for 20 years, and dominates today. Clearly they do have a pretty good idea how to design and produce cameras the majority of camera buyers want.

I forgot it's considered heresy to criticize Canon.

I guess I’m a heretic, too, because I’ve said many times that DPP is horrible, among other criticisms.

Oh, and we’re still waiting for you to share your citation for that quote you say came from a Canon executive. Did you forget that, too?

 

[Gogo7]

The GOOD: I'm very glad the RUMOR is that global shutter isn't part of the package. Image quality matters more than anything and, if Sony is any indication, global shutter isn't ready to provide that.

The BAD: This seems like a pretty small step up from the R3. It's about what I would expect an R3ii to be. Perhaps this is verification that the R3 was really the R1, then was renamed at the last minute. Great camera . . but for birds, we need more than 24MP . . . or even 30MP.

Agree with you !!

 

[Gogo7]

Quite disappointed again. This MP count is again not sufficient for my needs. Sounds very good...for an R3ii!

My thoughts too

 

[raptor3x]

The one series has never been high megapixel. It is more a sports camera. This is the highest megapixel count ever on 1-series. EOS 1D X Mark III has just 20 megapixels.

You can maybe say that the 1D bodies were not high megapixel, but the 1Ds bodies were definitely high megapixel.

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

Poor you. Play that victim card, you wear it well.


Who is saying that? I haven’t read it here yet, but anyone saying something that ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed as much as you do for your ‘cripple hammer’ comments.


You seem to like putting words in people’s mouths. Again, who is saying that? Canon has led the market for 20 years, and dominates today. Clearly they do have a pretty good idea how to design and produce cameras the majority of camera buyers want.


I guess I’m a heretic, too, because I’ve said many times that DPP is horrible, among other criticisms.

Oh, and we’re still waiting for you to share your citation for that quote you say came from a Canon executive. Did you forget that, too?

When did I say I was a victim? I'm just apologizing for offending the Canon fans by criticizing their preferred brand. Of course, I'm sure that their market share is because of their high end cameras and has nothing to do with the plethora of inexpensive cameras sold to amateur hobbyists.
As far as the "master of everything" quote. I gave you a reference from this very site. I'm not going to do any legwork to satisfy your claim that the R1 is the master of everything. If the source isn't a Canon executive or anyone of substance, then so be it. It's been a huge part of the narrative for almost three years by most of the media covering photography.
I'll leave you with a more palatable comment more akin to what you prefer - The new R1 is an amazing camera. I have no interest in it but I sure hope some of the technology will trickle down to other cameras. "
There you go.. happy now??

 

[BBarn]

This exhaustive discussion highlights how little is gained when spending 2x or 3x for a top level camera body.

 

[TedYork]

This is fantastic!
The readout is faster than I would ever need for my wildlife photography and 1/1250th of a second flash sync speed should be a welcome addition for people who use strobes.
I am really happy they prioritised dynamic range over a global shutter design and added the 1 second pre roll.
I am sure people will be disapointed with the 30mpx but I see this as a good upgrade from the R3 and is more than enough for what I do. Getting close to your subject will always work better than cropping the files. Bring on the pre order link!

Is that 1/1250 legit or a misprint? We have waited so long and now I'm a bit disappointed. Obviously this is not official nor everything, but i was hoping for something that would blow me away. Why can't landscape, portrait and fine art photographers not have heavily sealed cameras. Who needs 40 frames/sec.? I shutup now until I hear Canon's announcement.

 

[jam05]

Image quality can't be measured, only observed. *IF* a global shutter somehow (such as faster/more frequent AF adjustments, lack of banding, lack of jello, or simply better-stopped action) provides more chances to make a high quality image, then it's ready.


What are you talking about? There were no CMOS global shutter sensors in 1975, nor did the CCD sensors in 1975 have two stops more dynamic range than modern CMOS global shutter sensors from companies like Sony or OnSemi. Calling it "recycled tech" is asinine. Might as well call anything that uses a transistor recycled 1947 technology.

What are YOU talking about? The global shutter doesn't have a damn thing to do with what type of sensor it is. The global shutter has been around for nearly 50 years now. It's not NEW. Just hasn't been used in FF cameras. Because it's noisy. Some people were not born yesterday. Dynamic Range isn't "Image quality". Its signal + noise. Period. You can measure from the files or you can get an o'scope or spectrum analyzer and measure the circuit. I've done it myself for over 40 years.

 

[jam05]

Many bird photographers want a weatherproof body with a large battery that can move big primes quickly. We photograph small birds from long distances and crop substantially. It's not just getting a high megapixel camera. It's simply getting a legit camera that can match what other companies offer. Canon still doesn't have a camera that can compare to the Z9, and that's a two year old camera. They basically put out a R3 MK2. Point me to a camera in the Canon lineup that has a pro body with the ergonomics and weatherproofing of 1-series and has 45 mpx (which is not even considered excessive in 2024). Why be an apologist and insist that no one wants or needs a camera similar to the Z9 which was a game changer for Nikon, the same way the 5D MK2 was a game changer for Canon over a decade ago.

And the EOS R5 was a game changer for ALL hybrid mirrorless cameras. Like the 5D, the EOS R5 set the standard.

 

[Bob Howland]

You can maybe say that the 1D bodies were not high megapixel, but the 1Ds bodies were definitely high megapixel.

Then Canon introduced the 5D2 with the same pixel count as the 1Ds3 and the market for the 1Ds3 disappeared. A local camera store ended up selling their two1Ds3 bodies on ebay. Nikon had a comparable model, the D3X, that they replaced with a less rugged body and 50% more pixels but selling for 60% less money.

The reality of cameras in the R1 and Z9 class is that they are built for professionals who absolutely have to get the shot but then are often purchased by wealthy amateurs like Neuro. The professionals don't need a lot of pixels because their images are rarely enlarged to wall-filling size. You can get a very nice 20x30 print with a 12.8MP body and I have a couple waterfall landscape prints on my living room wall to prove it.

About your kit, what provoked you to buy MFT? I'm getting to the age where light weight equipment is desirable and I very nearly bought a duplicate OMD setup. Mostly it was nostalgia for the days when I backpacked and walked up creeks to photograph waterfalls. Anyway, I bought a Canon R7, about the same size as the OM-1, instead.

 

[SnowMiku]

Isn't there still some issues with a full electronic shutter vs mechanical shutter? Like shooting at f1.4 at fast shutter speeds as such 1/8000? Or flickering lights at some concerts? Or has that all been worked out these days?

 

[Richard CR]

The industry is changing a little more rapidly than it has when you had these small incremental advances. The fact remains that Canon will not have a comparable camera to compete with the A1 and Z9. And this is what they produce two years behind their competition. The "master of everything"? Hardly. Very disappointing. Canon cripple hammer strikes again!

Yet still behind the competition who put out better offerings over two years ago...

the difference between Canon and other brands aka Sony - is that Canon most times waits until they have it right.

Take IBIS - Canon spent 2+ years working in the technology instead and released class-leading IBIS on their first rendition.

How many renditions of stacked back-side illuminated sensors did Sony do? It took Sony 4 generations of sensor design. Canon? did it in one step.

We won't even get into the variations of Sony's UI and ergonomic nightmare, or how no one thought that Canon could catch up to Sony's AF, while they ended up doing so in basically 2 years. Now Canon isn't perfect. they have gone a little batshit crazy with ergonomic decisions in the R series, but for the most part - they get it right. At least I wouldn't be scared of unmounting a lens with my grip fingers with a Canon camera.

Some people will like Sony's method - while others appreciate how Canon does it. There's no real right or wrong.

Here's what Telsa said about Edison.. "If he had a needle to find in a haystack he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once, with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search."

I'd rather Canon be like Nikola than Thomas.

But you are disappointed based upon rumored specifications - unlike Sony, Canon doesn't tend to sell their cameras based solely on specifications.

The beauty of photography is that there are multiple brands and possibilities to perfect your craft. If Canon isn't it for you, then another one will most likely be better for you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

When did I say I was a victim? I'm just apologizing for offending the Canon fans by criticizing their preferred brand.

Yes, that’s how the card is played.

As far as the "master of everything" quote. I gave you a reference from this very site. I'm not going to do any legwork to satisfy your claim that the R1 is the master of everything. If the source isn't a Canon executive or anyone of substance, then so be it.

LOL. Did you even read the page you linked? It says, ‘a source’. Not ‘a Canon executive’ or even ‘a source at Canon.’ You’re the one who stated —repeatedly— that the source was a Canon executive. When challenged to substantiate that claim, you fold. Weak.

I'll leave you with a more palatable comment more akin to what you prefer - The new R1 is an amazing camera. I have no interest in it but I sure hope some of the technology will trickle down to other cameras. "
There you go.. happy now??

I couldn’t care less. As I stated, it’s perfectly fine to state your opinion, whether you like what the R1 offers or not.

I do think that most people criticizing or praising a camera that will cost >$6K are not likely buyers. Doesn’t mean they can’t voice their opinion, but it does mean that even if Canon heard their opinion it wouldn’t and shouldn’t carry any weight.

_____________________

FWIW (nothing, of course), I somewhat disagree that the R1 sounds ‘amazing’. I think (if the specs are true…it’s still just a CR2 rumor, albeit a reasonable sounding one) that the R1 sounds like a pretty good camera, but not amazing. No mention of quad pixel AF, and the inability of the R3 (and most other MILCs) to focus on horizontal lines is frustrating.

It wouldn’t make a spec list, but the recently-discussed better detection of extreme defocus (another generic failing of MILCs) would also be a very welcome addition. Having $15K of high-end technology (R3 + 100-300/2.8) need me to manually adjust focus to somewhat close when going from a near to a distant subject is a fail, especially when my 1D X + 600/4 II could do that without a hiccup (even if the new subject was a horizontal line).

The super fast frame rates are niche, IMO. Water drops? Ok. But 30 fps is already lots of shots to triage. The faster flash sync is great. But honestly, if I buy the R1 it will mostly be because it’s a 1-series and as such will likely offer a higher level of customization even compared to the R3 (e.g., the ability to actually select a frame rate instead of being limited to the three options Canon chose).

Oh…and AF point-linked spot metering. If you really want an example of the ‘cripple hammer’, that’s it. With DSLRs there was a hardware reason to keep that in the 1-series. With MILCs, there isn’t…but Canon has (assuming the R1 has it, of course).

 

[Richard CR]

Isn't there still some issues with a full electronic shutter vs mechanical shutter? Like shooting at f1.4 at fast shutter speeds as such 1/8000? Or flickering lights at some concerts? Or has that all been worked out these days?

I could be wrong but i think that was more EFCS + mechanical shutter.

it's because the electronic first shutter is the sensor itself, while the mechanical shutter is a few mm's in front of the sensor. that distance difference causes the problems with bokeh, etc. A fully electronic shutter, the first and last shutter action is both on the sensor - so same distance.

 

[sanj]

How can you be underwhelmed by a camera that hasn't been announced?

All we have is some rumored specs, and we have no idea of what new/additional features it may have.

This is CR2. The specs are almost there.

 

[Richard CR]

This is CR2. The specs are almost there.

*almost*

there's alot that could be in the camera that isn't in 20 some odd bullet point specifications.

The GOOD: I'm very glad the RUMOR is that global shutter isn't part of the package. Image quality matters more than anything and, if Sony is any indication, global shutter isn't ready to provide that.

The BAD: This seems like a pretty small step up from the R3. It's about what I would expect an R3ii to be. Perhaps this is verification that the R3 was really the R1, then was renamed at the last minute. Great camera . . but for birds, we need more than 24MP . . . or even 30MP.

just to clarify - Sony's Global shutter isn't ready for it, but we have no idea what magic Canon has done, and can do in the Global shutter space.

 

[philHolland]

Interesting in many ways. If these specs result in something like a 26-30mpix sensor, the likely direction will also purposing it in a future Cinema EOS line. Which will likely be the destiny for the Sony A9 III sensor as well.

I see two layers to this. And I'm curious if they want to do anything related to their digital SLR's past. i.e. This is the R1 and is there room for a R1s with a higher resolution sensor, but with similar technology? And would that work with bodies like the R5 likely getting a refresh relatively soon?

This will sell and this will maybe frustrate R3 owners. But I'll echo that Canon should find a way beyond the 45mpix barrier of the R5. The R5 holds up well and in most ways better image quality than some of the 60mpix bodies, but it's clearly an area where something is missing. And in the era of middle format 44x33 100 megapixel sensors I think there's a few things Canon can do to sway folks from jumping over to that realm if those features are desirable.

The technology behind such a sensor will be very interesting and if done right, lots of dynamic range with very exceptional low light performance.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

My assumption is that the person I responded to first meant that specifically. Maybe he can respond to the contrary, but the entire thrust of my post, and my replies to yours, are based on that assumption.

Yes - a higher DR allows to achieve a better technical image quality (less noise, less chances to blow the highlights etc.).
The talk you're referring to was about the technical qualities anyway.

Image quality in my opinion is first and foremost, and overwhelmingly, about composition (to include focus, stopping action - or not, and exposure). If a camera allows you to get a better composition even at the expense of noise, that's a good thing. State of the art global shutters may do that for particular types of photography. For the types of photography where more time on target is a recipe for success, they aren't applicable.

IQ is typically associated with more technical aspects, at least in forum discussions like this
When we talk about the tech specs of a camera, artistic qualities of the future images fall beyond the scope of the conversation.

Although you can talk about creative freedom new camera might give you. Such as more keepers when shooting birds in flight etc.

Incidentally, your 500px portfolio is fantastic. Not a single image is low quality, and I don't think that's a testament the sensors in the cameras you used.

Thank you!
In fact a better sensor (which includes a higher dynamic range) gives me more creative freedom, if I know how to use the advantages. For example, thanks to a higher DR in the R5 (compared to 5DIV), I'm doing much much less of exposure blending; most of the time I only need one shot for a scene. I can take variations but I don't need to shoot 2-3 bracketed frames every time. And it's easier to do postprocessing. There's more than just the high DR, but the point is, it's not bad to have a better camera, if you actually need it and know how to use it.

 

[Bonich]

No, the point is to lower costs.

Noted. However, my guess is that the image processors in cameras are massively parallel.

Processors do have an architecture: 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, 64bit
Images do have pixels generating somewhat like 14 or 16bit, ... signals, let us simplify to 2 Byte per pixel.
So a 50 MP picture is represented by a 100 MB file.

No, you can't run 100MB parallel through a 64bit processor, it takes close to 200 processing cycles.
128 bit architecture? you come down to close to 100 processing cycles.

How many processing steps per processing cycle?
That's depending on the process in work, the SW performance and eventually HW acceleration in the loop.

"Massively parallel" is not the word to be applied to this reality.

 

[Maximilian]

Sorry, I should have worshipped with the peanut gallery and agreed with everyone who says no one needs a pro body high resolution camera. Canon is all knowing and is perfectly aware of the needs of the masses. I forgot it's considered heresy to criticize Canon. Please accept my apologies...

No need to get cynical and no need to deliberately misinterpret and misquote others here.
I didn't read

no one needs a pro body high resolution camera

from others than you.

To make it clear:
I fully understand that many people want/need/desire a high MP camera.
And I really (!) hope for them and you that this camera will come soon from Canon and if you wish that it'll have a R3/R1 housing.
But what I say is, that canon will decide on their opinion and market research if their "flagship camera" will be either

• a high MP resolution monster or
• a high speed monster.

And the past has shown that Canon most of the time with their 1 series did choose the latter. And the market share shows that they did something right here.

Their last high MP resolution monster in a 1 series housing was the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III with 21.1 MP, released in 2007. Quite a while ago, isn't it?
So if I would have to make a bet, I would set my money on a R5 shaped camera, coming in about 1 or 2 years and having about the pixel density of the R7 on a FF sensor - newly developed, supposedly not BSI, surely no global shutter. If you don't like that spec, go and grab that tool that you prefer.
But don't expect Canon to leave the road of success for their 1 series.
Of course, Canon could try to make a 60+ MP camera "fast", but the main crowd of sports and other photo journalists need a fast workflow to get their photos on time to the agencies. Because the first one with a good photo will earn the most money, not the one with the best and highest resolution but processed one hour after the headlines appear on the internet.

And here a compromise or call it sweet spot of MP is what Canon will choose. That's what I and some others are trying to tell you.