Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
987
1,230
Northeastern US
You're not being imaginative enough. 30MP at 120FPS, right? Now add a composite high resolution mode using sophisticated sensor movement, four times the resolution at 1/4 the speed. Would 120MP at 30FPS be good enough? However, the current R5 system and the 80MP mode in the OMD OM-1 don't tolerate subject or shooter motion very well. So,the OM-1 has a 50MP handheld mode which might give 75MP at 30FPS in the R1. And Canon has had 4 years to look at what Olympus/OMD has been doing and to do it better.
Even at 30 MP there is a lot any photographer can do especially if Canon found the way to keep the same high ISO performance of the R3. While I do wish for a bit more resolution (33-36 MP) I would be content with 30 MP.
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,720
1,540
Yorkshire, England
Even at 30 MP there is a lot any photographer can do especially if Canon found the way to keep the same high ISO performance of the R3. While I do wish for a bit more resolution (33-36 MP) I would be content with 30 MP.
I'm just curious; how much more resolution would 33 mp give on a FF sensor over 30 ?
 
Upvote 0
Very very little. Increasing the MP by 50% (20 MP to 30 MP) only provides an increase in the linear dimension by 1.25.

https://pixelcraft.photo.blog/tag/megapixels/
The article has a number of errors. No, it's not 1.25. Take a square root of 1.5 and you'll see the actual gain in linear resolution.

Next, the author uses dpi instead of ppi when talking about printing.

When talking about the 'sensor size', the author completely loses the track and talks rubbish.

Basically the blog is written by someone who doesn't fully understand the topic. In fact, the author is unknown, I couldn't find the name. Better drop it and never return to that site again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,720
1,540
Yorkshire, England
The article has a number of errors. No, it's not 1.25. Take a square root of 1.5 and you'll see the actual gain in linear resolution.
Or you could use the Sporgon calculation:
From 20 to 30 = very little
From 30 to 33 = Naff all
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
452
561
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
5 series and 1 series cameras are completely different beasts, intended for different audiences.
There is no expectation that one would change their R5 for an R1.
I wouldn't make absolute statements...
I, for once, did a 5D II -> 1D X
And I would consider doing a R5 -> R1 if the R1 resolution was at least 45mp
But alas that doesn't seem to be the case.

I am sure I am a niche type of customer, but I would think I am not the only one? And I am sure that Canon wouldn't mind selling R1's outside the intended audiences, whatever those might be.
 
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
953
1,834
www.1fineklick.com
I wouldn't make absolute statements...
And I am sure that Canon wouldn't mind selling R1's outside the intended audiences, whatever those might be.
I see what you're saying, and of course they'd love to sell R1s outside of the target audience.
My comment was basically refuting the idea that Canon expects people to trade-in their 5 for a 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Aug 9, 2016
368
442
I wouldn't make absolute statements...
I, for once, did a 5D II -> 1D X
And I would consider doing a R5 -> R1 if the R1 resolution was at least 45mp
But alas that doesn't seem to be the case.

I am sure I am a niche type of customer, but I would think I am not the only one? And I am sure that Canon wouldn't mind selling R1's outside the intended audiences, whatever those might be.
No, you are definitely not the only one, I have friends in wildlife photography that hope for the same, Im only using the R5 cause the R3 is 24mp, and like you if the R1 were to be 45+ I'd jump on it in a heart beat. If not, R5 it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 9, 2016
368
442
No, it's not 1.25. Take a square root of 1.5 and you'll see the actual gain in linear resolution.

Yes, yes he is right, it is 1.25, well it actually is 1.22 to be exact, but its like having a 1.22 teleconverter built in. Having a 30mp sensor, you can crop it by 1.22 and you'd be left with 20MP. Its a fact. Whether someone says its little increase or not, that's their decision.

What on earth is the square root of 1.5 suppose to give you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,196
13,064
Maybe?
7nfIPYKIYVIg5LZXIQG5WZvUlesYUsaFWuj6chCnHPhGoO3FpW1hIZgwi5WqflkEVgXP1ifNBg=s900-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj
Not. In. A. Million. Years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,440
22,865
Yes, yes he is right, it is 1.25, well it actually is 1.22 to be exact, but its like having a 1.22 teleconverter built in. Having a 30mp sensor, you can crop it by 1.22 and you'd be left with 20MP. Its a fact. Whether someone says its little increase or not, that's their decision.

What on earth is the square root of 1.5 suppose to give you?
square root of 1.5 = 1.22 to 2 decimal places. The relative linear resolutions of a particular size of sensor sensor with varying number of pixels varies as the sqrt of the number of pixels.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,196
13,064
Yes, yes he is right, it is 1.25, well it actually is 1.22 to be exact, but its like having a 1.22 teleconverter built in. Having a 30mp sensor, you can crop it by 1.22 and you'd be left with 20MP. Its a fact. Whether someone says its little increase or not, that's their decision.

What on earth is the square root of 1.5 suppose to give you?
Interested to know how you arrived at 1.22 being the correct value, given a 1.5x increase in MP count, without understanding the relevance of taking the square root of 1.5. Google that somewhere? Take a very lucky guess?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2021
1,842
1,643
The article has a number of errors. No, it's not 1.25. Take a square root of 1.5 and you'll see the actual gain in linear resolution.

Next, the author uses dpi instead of ppi when talking about printing.

When talking about the 'sensor size', the author completely loses the track and talks rubbish.

Basically the blog is written by someone who doesn't fully understand the topic. In fact, the author is unknown, I couldn't find the name. Better drop it and never return to that site again.
The author points about viewing distances are ignoring or just not thinking about the fact that some percentage of people will look at an image as close as they can - sometimes using magnification.
 
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
No, you are definitely not the only one, I have friends in wildlife photography that hope for the same, Im only using the R5 cause the R3 is 24mp, and like you if the R1 were to be 45+ I'd jump on it in a heart beat. If not, R5 it is.
If you're cheap like me, you can use an R7. Its pixel size scales up to 83MP FF, almost exactly the same as the OM-1.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2021
1,842
1,643
No, you are definitely not the only one, I have friends in wildlife photography that hope for the same, Im only using the R5 cause the R3 is 24mp, and like you if the R1 were to be 45+ I'd jump on it in a heart beat. If not, R5 it is.
Aren't you the same person that said something like "the difference from 30mp on the 5Div to 45mp on the R5 is in many cases irrelevant"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,140
2,444
I wouldn't make absolute statements...
I, for once, did a 5D II -> 1D X
And I would consider doing a R5 -> R1 if the R1 resolution was at least 45mp
But alas that doesn't seem to be the case.

I am sure I am a niche type of customer, but I would think I am not the only one? And I am sure that Canon wouldn't mind selling R1's outside the intended audiences, whatever those might be.
5D > 1D
5D S > 1D S
There was never a 5DX
 
Upvote 0