Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Maximilian]

... On the flip-side, in my neck of the woods, I see well over a 100 people each year who own lenses and cameras in this category so I know the market isn't nearly as small as some people think.

And how many people with big whites do you see at the baseline of any NFL, NBL, soccer, kricket, rugby, etc. stadium each weekend...?
I'd guess those are a few more than your 100 people each year.
Just my 2 ct.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

An apt summary of your contributions to it.

For many years you were one of the best contributors to this forum. Your contributions were intelligent, informative and considerate. Of late your comments appear to be all too often venting your frustration / dislike of other member's posts thinly disguised as an attempt at wit. Can we have the old neuroanatomist back please ?

 

[Quack]

You can call them inaccurate but you offer no evidence of anything. Just your opinions like everyone else here.....

You are the one accusing Canon of using the "Cripple Hammer" - so I do not need to offer any evidence. The specs here are more advanced than any Canon camera up to now. So there is NO evidence whatsoever that they have crippled the camera. As for the camera being behind the competition's cameras that came out 2 years ago, again, the specs here are in many ways better than any camera being made today. So, Let us know what camera came out 2 years ago with a faster read out speed, or more than a 1 second pre-shooting mode, that high flash sync speed? Or any other spec listed here other than MPs?

So, yes, factually inaccurate.

I think you are missing the point completely as to why folks are commenting on your posts. We are not apologists, we just understand the difference between being personally disappointed in the specs of a camera and making declarative negative statements. For example, if you had written:

"Wow, I am really disappointed in the rumored specs of this camera. I was hoping the R1 would have at least 45 MPs, and be more similar to the Z9 or A1 in terms of sensor resolution. What a let down. I will pass on this camera."

Not one person, I think would have commented. We understand that each person has different wants and needs. We understand that some people will be very disappointed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For many years you were one of the best contributors to this forum. Your contributions were intelligent, informative and considerate. Of late your comments appear to be all too often venting your frustration / dislike of other member's posts thinly disguised as an attempt at wit. Can we have the old neuroanatomist back please ?

“Well spoken, Sir.” (Except I don’t have six fingers on my right hand.)

However, I don’t think I’ve changed. Some of the other names have, but I have never had patience with or respect for those who distort facts, come in with manifest bias, or claim to speak for those other than themselves. You may not recall the ‘discussions’ with Mikael/angkorwatt, Ryshi Sanyal, Graham Clark (Breakthrough filters founder), CarlTN, or others, but I do.

 

[Quack]

I don’t have anything meaningfull to ad but an annoying comment on that famous „cripple hammer“: Please, please, please at least in this particular case don‘t reference to that damn cripple hammer. Arguably that term is not completely stupid regarding specs of lower price cameras if one assumes certain specs are hold back solely to sell more upper price cameras. But why on earth in this case? They smashed the R1 to better sell what…? The R0? The R-1? Or even the R-2?

The fact that someone would use the term "cripple hammer" on a companies flagship camera that has their most advanced specs yet, only shows how that some people just come on social media to bash and complain. and then lo and behold, they want to be taken seriously!

 

[Quack]

They’re separate points.

The idea that Canon developed the R1 but then panicked over Sony’s awesomeness and rebadged it as the R3 is Internet stupidity.

But the idea that the R3 was a stopgap is perfectly reasonable. When Canon launched it, they said they were working on the R1 flagship, but that certain aspects of the technology were not sufficiently mature, so voilà…here is the R3. I read that as the R3 is a stopgap by design, and it’s likely there will not be a MkII version of it (but there might be, if only to test something like a global shutter).

Well said. And not without precedent. The R and RP, one could say, were stop gaps until Canon felt that they had advanced enough mirrorless tech to bring out their mirrorless versions of their 5 and 6 series DSLRs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well said. And not without precedent. The R and RP, one could say, were stop gaps until Canon felt that they had advanced enough mirrorless tech to bring out their mirrorless versions of their 5 and 6 series DSLRs.

Indeed. They were in no rush to jump into FF mirrorless anyway. Funny how some people claim Canon was late, yet it wasn’t until after the launch of the R and RP that mirrorless ILC sales overtook DSLRs.

 

[3kramd5]

People put different meaning in 'image quality', but many aspects of image quality can be measured. Noise, resolution, sharpness, blown highlights...

These days people often equate image quality with dynamic range. That's better described as data quality.

That being said, you could have a low noise, high resolution, tack sharp, no-blown highlights or clipped shadows image, and it still be a boring, poor quality image. It may look something like this!


By comparison, you can have something with noisy shadows, and nothing really quite in focus or tack sharp, but it's a higher quality, more pleasing to look at image. It might look something like this (credit Vladyslav Dushenkovsky):

 

[tvexecutive]

Only point I disagree with is that they believe their software is great. It’s a virtual certainty that they’ve got design and product folks in house who know DPP isn’t very good. But the higher up product folks know they don’t “need” to make it better. If I were a shareholder I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the business decision, but as an end user I just thinking “if something is worth doing right…”

And as a guy who leads a software design team, if they don’t have a team who think DPP needs an overhaul, they need to hire better folks.

Always wished Canon would put some secret sauce in there.... But it never happened.

 

[ChrisWeller]

Maybe I don’t understand the technology, but why don’t these camera manufacturers simply make a 48 mp sensor that can also shoot pixel binned 24 MP? You would have “the camera to rule them all”. They would both be full frame as opposed to lowering the MP with a crop, but each would have the unique benefits associated with those MP’s. This would make the camera appealing to everyone.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…ome people just come on social media to bash and complain. and then lo and behold, they want to be taken seriously!

…and you’ve probably noticed how such people never seem to post answers to others’ technical questions, never seem to share any images, etc. Basically, they add zero value to the forum (the entertainment value of their ridiculous posts notwithstanding).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe I don’t understand the technology, but why don’t these camera manufacturers simply make a 48 mp sensor that can also shoot pixel binned 24 MP? You would have “the camera to rule them all”. They would both be full frame as opposed to lowering the MP with a crop, but each would have the unique benefits associated with those MP’s. This would make the camera appealing to everyone.

Binning without changing the aspect ratio means 2x2. 48 MP would bin to 12 MP.

80 MP binned down to 20 MP might make more sense. Still, there would be a loss of color resolution in the full resolution images, because greater levels of interpolation would be required. I’m not sure sacrificing color resolution at the high end is consistent with best possible IQ.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

These days people often equate image quality with dynamic range.

I didn't use the term 'dynamic range'.

By comparison, you can have something with noisy shadows, and nothing really quite in focus or tack sharp, but it's a higher quality, more pleasing to look at image.

And?..
As I said, you can put different meaning into what image quality means.
We can talk about 'technical image quality'. It's perfectly measurable indeed.

You're talking about artistic qualities.

Yes you can have a good artistic image with poor technical quality, and vice versa. Also, what was accepted as a good technical quality 10-20 years ago might be found subpar or unacceptable today.

The examples you've shown above only illustrate a selection bias. More often when I see a technically poor image, it's also not a great one artistically.

 

[3kramd5]

I’m asking a legit question here, my experience with birding is just a few shots with my R5 and its not something I ever do seriously.

Isn’t the entire point of crop sensors(which to my knowledge have never been adapted to the pro/1 series style bodies) to get far more effective pixels on a subject than basically any available flagship camera out there?

No, the point is to lower costs.

Also, five 1-series cameras had cropped sensors:

• EOS-1D
• EOS-1D Mark II
• EOS-1D Mark II N
• EOS-1D Mark III
• EOS-1D Mark IV

 

[3kramd5]

I didn't use the term 'dynamic range'.

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.

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.

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.

 

[USMarineCorpsVet]

An apt summary of your contributions to it.

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...

 

[frankchn]

Maybe I don’t understand the technology, but why don’t these camera manufacturers simply make a 48 mp sensor that can also shoot pixel binned 24 MP? You would have “the camera to rule them all”. They would both be full frame as opposed to lowering the MP with a crop, but each would have the unique benefits associated with those MP’s. This would make the camera appealing to everyone.

You have mRAW and sRAW in Canon cameras, and other manufacturers offer similar technology if the desire is simply for a smaller file.

However, the downsampling there is done after reading out the full sensor and processing it later on. You are still limited by sensor readout speeds (so you won't be able to achieve very high targeted fps for instance).

Binning it on the sensor would probably require more circuitry (sometimes you are reading 1 photosite, sometimes you are reading 4 simultaneously) and that in itself has compromises in terms of design complexity, manufacturing cost, and potentially image quality (more wires and capacitors on the chip means more heat, etc...).

 

[danfaz]

Apparently the hype train is slowing down with the A9III. Even Tony Northrup is saying the (now 2+ year old) R3 for the most part has better image quality than the A9III.
So, is the R1 really already dooooooomed?

 

[vignes]

Specs looks great and also realistic, something between A9III and Z9 in terms of read out speed and resolution. Arguably striking a perfect balance with no/minimal IQ loss (unlike A9iii) and extreme speed. Increased DR also looks promising!

0.8 Microsec, is in another level. Putting Z9 there makes people think Z9 is in the same league which is not.
I think GS sensor instant read is not 0 sec, there'll be some time lag but certainly the fastest but 0.8 microseconds is close.
This looks like the best balance between better sensor output (IQ), minimise to no-rolling shutter, faster flash sync speed. Canon is in the right direction.
I hope the usual crap reviewers don't do spec sheet review i.e. this is not GS rather actually demo that the R1 can do the job.

 

[AJ]

The R and RP, one could say, were stop gaps until Canon felt that they had advanced enough mirrorless tech to bring out their mirrorless versions of their 5 and 6 series DSLRs.

I disagree. The RP targeted a totally different market segment than the R5 and R6. IMO it wasn't a stopgap. There was some overlap between the R and R6 though.

Mirrorless tech (or all tech for that matter) is continually evolving. At some point in time Canon takes the technology available, puts it in a body, and puts a label on it like RP, R, R6, R5, R3, R1. One can argue that any camera is a stopgap until the next one comes out, but that doesn't really help. A 2022 Kia Rio isn't really a stopgap for the 2023 Kia Rio.

At this point in time it seems that tech isn't quite ready for both high-speed readout and high megapixel count. The R1 by the sounds of it will have the fast readout. Another camera may get a high megapixel count (long overdue in the mirrorless department by the way). I'm sure that in the future there will be a 100+ mpix sensor/DIGIC with a global shutter and incredible DR. But this isn't ready yet. There is no cripple hammer. When the time comes, Canon will put this technology in a body and give it a name. IMO the rumored R1 isn't a stopgap for this future camera.