Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[Maximilian]

Sorry, but DPP is not free. It is bundled with a camera purchase.

Fully accepted, So somehow you sponsor the development of DPP with what you pay for camera or lens.
I wanted to be a little bit provocative.

and for many of us who already have our preferred software for that task we may not care, but it is not difficult to understand why Canon wants to supply a package which provides at least some ability to process images.

My point is, that you pay a lot for that SW, developed by independent companies.
And then people complain that DPP is not delivering the same functionality, features or performance.
It is just a basic image editing program (almost) for free.
If one wants more one has to pay extra.

On the other hand I repeat my question:
Do Nikon, Sony, etc. offer anything better (for free)?

 

[Anon]

I think Sony included a simplified version of Capture One with their cameras (at least some of them). While C1 for sure beats the Nikon and Canon software it seems that C1 has discontinued the Express version of their software when restructuring their licensing model and it will stop working end of this month. I wonder if a new agreement will be found.

IMO that is a good way for both camera and software manufacturers: include a simpler version of a good commercial product. The camera manufacturer can leave the software development to the pros and these guys in turn might get a few users upgrading to the "better" paid version.

This is common practice for example for DJ equipment: DJ Midi controller are shipped with a simple version of Traktor Pro or Serato or something similar. If one needs more features than included in the base version, these can be unlocked for a fee.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I think Sony included a simplified version of Capture One with their cameras (at least some of them). While C1 for sure beats the Nikon and Canon software it seems that C1 has discontinued the Express version of their software when restructuring their licensing model and it will stop working end of this month. I wonder if a new agreement will be found.

IMO that is a good way for both camera and software manufacturers: include a simpler version of a good commercial product. The camera manufacturer can leave the software development to the pros and these guys in turn might get a few users upgrading to the "better" paid version.

This is common practice for example for DJ equipment: DJ Midi controller are shipped with a simple version of Traktor Pro or Serato or something similar. If one needs more features than included in the base version, these can be unlocked for a fee.

Capture One Express for Sony is gone, with no replacement. Sony expect users will buy their own software so they cheap out on it..... Which is the most typical Sony thing. Sony will abandon anything at anytime just because of they need to cut cost.

 

[koenkooi]

Capture One Express for Sony is gone, with no replacement. Sony expect users will buy their own software so they cheap out on it..... Which is the most typical Sony thing. Sony will abandon anything at anytime just because of they need to cut cost.

So they want you to run C1 Express on a Vaio laptop?

 

[sanj]

As a professional nature and adventure photographer, the prospect of having just 30mp is a big drawback for me and would make me consider not getting this camera. I’ve used the R5 for a few years now and it’s been amazing, and when I get back to some of old photos taken in the 1Dx Mk 2 and 3, I find the resolution extremely limiting. I find the image files captured with the 5D Mk IV much more useful for working with than 1Dx.

I’ve also played around with the R3 and I find the Raw files a lot better on the R5. Even found that noise performance is better with a higher resolution - not because the R5 has less noise or grain, but because the files have so much more information that it becomes much easier to remove any noise in post. Combined with the need to print for magazines and large fine art prints.

I don’t think I’d settle for less resolution than the R5 after having used it for years, so no matter all the other specs which potentially are great, that’s a possible dealbreaker for me.

As an extreme nature photographer, I’m taking very dynamic photos in challenging conditions, and not able to have the perfect lens for every job because the moment would be gone - and having the versatility that comes with added resolution is a total game changer.

So honestly I think they dropped the ball on this one (if res specs are true) and I might just get the R5 Cine instead on a good price for second body or wait for the R5 Mk II.

I think the real user group who cares more about speed (that is already amazing) over resolution is a very small group of people. Probably they spend more time reviewing specs than using the camera itself. Building an extremely rugged all round camera that has the best possible image quality is however a much more appealing proposition if you ask me. It seems that you are talking about the R1.

 

[sanj]

As a professional nature and adventure photographer, the prospect of having just 30mp is a big drawback for me and would make me consider not getting this camera. I’ve used the R5 for a few years now and it’s been amazing, and when I get back to some of old photos taken in the 1Dx Mk 2 and 3, I find the resolution extremely limiting. I find the image files captured with the 5D Mk IV much more useful for working with than 1Dx.

I’ve also played around with the R3 and I find the Raw files a lot better on the R5. Even found that noise performance is better with a higher resolution - not because the R5 has less noise or grain, but because the files have so much more information that it becomes much easier to remove any noise in post. Combined with the need to print for magazines and large fine art prints.

I don’t think I’d settle for less resolution than the R5 after having used it for years, so no matter all the other specs which potentially are great, that’s a possible dealbreaker for me.

As an extreme nature photographer, I’m taking very dynamic photos in challenging conditions, and not able to have the perfect lens for every job because the moment would be gone - and having the versatility that comes with added resolution is a total game changer.

So honestly I think they dropped the ball on this one (if res specs are true) and I might just get the R5 Cine instead on a good price for second body or wait for the R5 Mk II.

I think the real user group who cares more about speed (that is already amazing) over resolution is a very small group of people. Probably they spend more time reviewing specs than using the camera itself. Building an extremely rugged all round camera that has the best possible image quality is however a much more appealing proposition if you ask me.

Gunnar. Could I get a link to your website or Insta? Thank you!

 

[jd7]

Fully accepted, So somehow you sponsor the development of DPP with what you pay for camera or lens.
I wanted to be a little bit provocative.

My point is, that you pay a lot for that SW, developed by independent companies.
And then people complain that DPP is not delivering the same functionality, features or performance.
It is just a basic image editing program (almost) for free.
If one wants more one has to pay extra.

On the other hand I repeat my question:
Do Nikon, Sony, etc. offer anything better (for free)?

I can't say I've ever looked that closely at DPP or the equivalent software from Sony or Nikon, but I do have the impression all of them provide a fairly basic package and are content to let third parties like Adobe do the more advanced software.

 

[john1970]

Call me crazy but when I started seeing a live view of my exposure in the EVF, metering suddenly meant very little to me anymore. ‍

I would still find spot metering linked to AF point very useful in specific scenarios. For example, when photographing a mature bald eagle (with a while head) being able to have the metering linked to the AF point which is on the eagles head would be useful to ensure that one does not clip the eagle's white head when ETTR.

 

[john1970]

As for the story about the R3 being a one-off, I think that in 2-3 years the R3 Mark II will be the first Canon camera equipped with a 24MP sensor with a global shutter, but without the compromises of a semi-finished product like the A9III.

It is challenging to accurately conjecture what Canon is going to do long-term with R3 series camera. IMO it is either a one off camera or it will be used as a test bed for new technology going forward before it is released into 1-series system.

 

[jd7]

Capture One Express for Sony is gone, with no replacement. Sony expect users will buy their own software so they cheap out on it..... Which is the most typical Sony thing. Sony will abandon anything at anytime just because of they need to cut cost.

Sony's equivalent of DPP is Imaging Edge, not C1 Express for Sony

Imaging Edge Desktop | Creators' Cloud

creatorscloud.sony.net

Yes, Sony had an arrangement with C1 which gave Sony users (not sure if it applied to all Sony cameras or just some though) Capture One Express for Sony and allowed then to buy Capture One Pro for Sony at a lower price than buying ordinary Capture One Pro. That was and is separate from Imaging Edge though. So, I don't think Sony's approach is very different from Canon's.

 

[Del Paso]

I guess but I still think I can dial it in more accurately just by looking at it, lol.

OK, but not with the original EOS R, whose EVF hates high contrast scenes!

 

[Brikna]

OK, but not with the original EOS R, whose EVF hates high contrast scenes!

For me, the real problem with the EVF on the R is that it doesn't have automatic brightness adjustment.

 

[Del Paso]

For me, the real problem with the EVF on the R is that it doesn't have automatic brightness adjustment.

For me, the real problem with the EVF on the R IS the EVF. The only feature I really dislike in an otherwise fine and reliable camera.
I've always bought cameras known for excellent viewfinders in the past, Leicaflex SL, SL 2, Leica R 4, 5, 6, 7, Nikon F2 . But, since I wanted a Canon mirrorless, I bought the EOS R. I still like it. But in spring forests, I use the 5 D IV.
Yet, my next camera will have the highest EVF definition Canon do offer.
And I'm frustrated like hell that the R5 II will be delayed! Unfortunately, the R3 or R1 don't fit in with my carrying system (Capture Peak clip on backpack strap). They are too high.

 

[Anon]

For me, the real problem with the EVF on the R IS the EVF. The only feature I really dislike in an otherwise fine and reliable camera.
I've always bought cameras known for excellent viewfinders in the past, Leicaflex SL, SL 2, Leica R 4, 5, 6, 7, Nikon F2 . But, since I wanted a Canon mirrorless, I bought the EOS R. I still like it. But in spring forests, I use the 5 D IV.
Yet, my next camera will have the highest EVF definition Canon do offer.

The F2's viewfinder is like going to the IMAX cinema. I picked up my dad's F2 to get rid of an expired roll of T-Max and honestly taking the pictures was more fun than looking at them (I might also have messed up the development, but luckily no one knows that ).

 

[Quarkcharmed]

It's not that simple. The R5 raw files are cooked up to ISO 640 - hence the data points are shown as triangles. Basically Canon applies a mild noise reduction to the shadows which adds about 2/3 of a stop to those dynamic range charts (it also improves the DR shown by DxOMark).
If you check the R3's chart, it'll be cooked through the whole ISO range.
How much of noise reduction is applied exactly is impossible to tell according to Bill Claff himself, so it's just shown in triangles that indicate manipulation.

Canon has not only done a pretty good job with the FSI sensor in the R5 but has proven that FSI can outperform the best BSI sensor in terms of dynamic range. For example, the R5 has a better dynamic range (albeit only marginally, but still...) than the A1.

View attachment 214334

 

[Quarkcharmed]

And I'm frustrated like hell that the R5 II will be delayed!

In order for the R5II to be delayed, it would have needed to be announced with a release date first

 

[DrD]

The "raw" dimension of full frame sensor divided by the megapixels is not the full story.
I'm definitely not an expert but doesn't the microlens and well depth make a difference?
BSI wil reduce the circuitry on the front of the sensor making the light gathering size different as well.
Dynamic range should improve using BSI vs FSI although Canon did a pretty good job with the R5. Given that Canon already splits the pixel into 2 for DPAF, that already reduces the available area slightly vs a single pixel.
At the end of the day, it isn't a spec sheet mp number but the images produced

Not so fast... smaller lithography allows shorter distances/smaller transistors so power consumption goes down. Larger wafer diameter is independent but is more efficient for rectangular chips within a wafer circle. Harder/expensive for optics with bigger diameters as well.
I don't see diminishing returns though. Definitely exponentially higher costs for new fabs but the resulting (eventual) cost benefit does come with it with volume.

That is not the point, lower power consumption + faster processing are achieved, but you cannot make the silicon wafer width zero! As you approach zero with thinner and thinner wafer sizes the gains diminish -> that is the point. I have an M1 Max Macbook Pro, not a lot of difference in real world applications use e.g. processing video in FCP between a 64GB M1 max and a 64GB (or higher) M3 Max.

 

[DrD]

Personally, I look at pictures…not pixels. The noise from a pixel is inversely proportional to its size. The noise in a picture is inversely proportional to the size of the sensor. In other words, when comparing FF sensors of a similar generation, if you downsample the image output of a 60 MP sensor to 24 MP, the noise will be similar to that from a native 24 MP image, despite the higher pixel-level noise.

Try this – look at images from the Phase One XF IQ4 150MP sensor and the Sony a7R IV. Both have the same 3.76 μm pixels, but at the same ISO the image from the medium format will be less noisy than the FF image. Less noise than image from the big R3 pixels, too.

My point is that spatial resolution may be better with more pixels, often improved fine detail in images too, however, only in ideal lighting conditions. With less light, the camera sensor with larger pixels will produce superior images, especially in rendering shadows and darker colors. We rarely have ideal light.

 

[DrD]

Please explain the significance of this post. Please. I want to learn. Thx.

Pixel size is important in determining the ability of cameras to cope with darker lighting conditions. Smartphones have tiny pixels. A FF camera could use the same pixel density as a smartphone, but what would the quality of the images be like when lighting is not optimal?

 

[vikingar]

Pixel size is important in determining the ability of cameras to cope with darker lighting conditions. Smartphones have tiny pixels. A FF camera could use the same pixel density as a smartphone, but what would the quality of the images be like when lighting is not optimal?

The question is if it averages out when looking at the whole image or not. I suspect very small pixels are worse at some point, even when looking at the whole image. But I don't know when that happens.