Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[3kramd5]

Isn't that essentially the same thing?

Going with buckets, the same size of buckets (R5, per Neuro's post). For APS-C mode, the R5 has 17 million of those buckets capturing light. In FF mode, the R5 has 45 million buckets capturing light. Thus, more light is captured by 45 million same sized buckets compared to the 17 million buckets. But...the 17 million buckets can be framed to show the exact same image as the FF bucket using different focal lengths (in camera) or print outs, which some reviewers do. But, it is still 45 million buckets vs 17 million buckets. More overall light gathered vs less overlight gathered....even though each bucket is gathering the same amount, you simply have more buckets with FF.

Yes, that's what's happening. But not everyone has the technical acumen to understand that when looking at a chart.

 

[koenkooi]

Is it implied that this chart represents imaging the same scene with two different sensor sizes, or alternately up-scaling the cropped image?

The chart is about viewing the image printed to 8x11 at arms length (or a similar size, the website has a section explaining it)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I thought I’d read on Bill Claff’s site that the reason the crop to APS from FF readings on his PDR readings was due to the crop having to be enlarged more for equivalent viewing.

Here's what he has to say about crop mode:

DX Crop Mode Photographic Dynamic Range

 

[AlanF]

Here's what he has to say about crop mode:

DX Crop Mode Photographic Dynamic Range

Bill Claff, bless his heart, severely overestimates the ability of not just the average punter but also the reasonably numerate to understand his explanations. But, it would clearly help certain respondents here to realise that he uses a standard physical sized output (about 8"x11" at arms length) for measuring DR and S/N related data and not the same number of pixels.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Bill Claff, bless his heart, severely overestimates the ability of not just the average punter but also the reasonably numerate to understand his explanations.

So very, very true.

 

[roby17269]

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.

Look at it this way: in good light more pixels = more details. In bad light more pixels have the same image-level noise than less pixels if the sensor size is the same and the tech is recent.
In the end what matters more? I do pixel peep when I post process, but I share images with people, not single pixels.

More pixels do have disavantages, but they are not related to quality at an image level. All else being equal, those are bigger file size, slower frame rates, shallower buffers and the need for more horsepower when post processing.

For me, I do not shoot subjects that require super fast frame rates, but I do need details for fashion images, and I have a powerful desktop... so I am firmly in the camp of the more pixels the better.

 

[frankchn]

Having used the R3 and a prior 1-series camera, I disagree. 1-series bodies have a level of functionality and available customization that the R3 simply lacks. It’s a great camera, but it’s not a 1-series camera. The R1 will be, obviously.

There also the obvious 4-year cycle for the 1D X releases, into which the R1 fits perfectly but the R3 doesn’t.

I've used every 1DX camera since the original 1DX and have two R3s, and the only features I miss in the 1DX series are (1) the ability to select a custom fps for the drive modes and (2) (your favorite) AF-point linked spot metering. Even then I don't miss them all that much since the metering in general is so good and I'll just buy bigger memory cards. I haven't used much of any other 1D exclusive functionality not also in the R3.

Those two features are curious omissions from the R3 since they can both be implemented in software (no metering sensor any more on the mirrorless cameras), but I personally don't think having these additional custom functions make or break the camera's "flagship" status.

 

[Eersel]

If true, this will absolutely big big trouble for Nikon.
Already putting huge discounts on the Z8 and Z9 just to get them to move here in the Retail space.

 

[3kramd5]

The chart is about viewing the image printed to 8x11 at arms length (or a similar size, the website has a section explaining it)

My comment was really just drawing attention to the fact, viewing the chart without footnotes, someone could draw the wrong conclusion.

 

[DrD]

Look at it this way: in good light more pixels = more details. In bad light more pixels have the same image-level noise than less pixels if the sensor size is the same and the tech is recent.
In the end what matters more? I do pixel peep when I post process, but I share images with people, not single pixels.

More pixels do have disavantages, but they are not related to quality at an image level. All else being equal, those are bigger file size, slower frame rates, shallower buffers and the need for more horsepower when post processing.

For me, I do not shoot subjects that require super fast frame rates, but I do need details for fashion images, and I have a powerful desktop... so I am firmly in the camp of the more pixels the better.

I checked out your portfolio...you have cultivated a unique style..well done. I like your medieval (grungy look) pics and you still manage to incorporate colour as a dominant theme. Also, the other aspect of your style - high colour and high contrast (definitely not pop-art, but somewhat akin to it) is really exciting. I am sure your clients can pick your photos out of a photo array with ease.

I do not pixel peep, or shoot test images. I understand the desire to have high resolution images. Using the 45 MP on the R5 makes it difficult to revert to a smaller resolution camera. I agree about the bigger file sizes, 45-50 Mb per image and shooting many images.

What really matters is the how good the new Canon sensors are in terms of SNR (SNR < DR as gap between pixel saturation and total noise incl lens is always smaller than the gap between pixel saturation and the noise floor). All images have noise, just not always visible. Noise comes from a variety of sources, photons hitting photo sites at random (shot noise), thermal noise from capacitance gain,...read noise after analog-to-digital gain etc. etc. ad nauseum. Really boring stuff actually! I much prefer when people post photo images here instead of technical charts. We are all aware that our images lose bits of information as we increase ISO levels, especially colour depth info.

Today, we learnt a useful tidbit of information from a post here, namely; Sony engineers lost out to their marketing department, in that they were forced to opt for shallow wells in the new A9 III sensor, so marketing could advertise a global shutter. They did not chose a base ISO, it was thrust upon them, limited by processing horsepower and the max number of photo electrons these shallower wells can store (between read and reset). Fuller wells = higher SNR (not linear, but as a rule of thumb holds true).

Lets hope Canon do not make the same mistake as Sony, and give us a stellar R1 sensor in terms of SNR -> like the R5 did in beating BSI-CMOS sensors in Sony/Nikon cameras at lower ISO levels (albeit with lower colour depth bit info).

We will have to wait for the R5 II later in the year to see what the resolution will be in that camera body. Personally, I do not want more pixels, but lets wait and see what the new tech can deliver.

 

[scyrene]

Sony and Nikon have both already had high res flagships for a couple years, and I think it's a mistake for Canon to not try to compete with those.

Can you explain why?

 

[Sporgon]

Bill Claff, bless his heart, severely overestimates the ability of not just the average punter but also the reasonably numerate to understand his explanations. But, it would clearly help certain respondents here to realise that he uses a standard physical sized output (about 8"x11" at arms length) for measuring DR and S/N related data and not the same number of pixels.

I'm really pleased you made this post Alan !

 

[Sporgon]

Here's what he has to say about crop mode:

DX Crop Mode Photographic Dynamic Range

Thanks Neuro, I appreciate you taking the time to dig this out, but I have to confess, I can't make head nor tail of it !! But then I can't tell a Buzzard from an Eagle.
Are you able to explain what he's saying in Layman terms ?
I particularly liked the last line;
I certainly advise that if you're choosing a camera and you're comparing a DX body to an FX body in DX Crop Mode, to examine the PDR curves rather than simply making a quick estimate.
Maybe Spock's quick estimate would suffice

 

[Sporgon]

With face+eye detect AF I would hope it would meter on the face, not the shirt.

And if I'm a very pale white guy ?
Or a black guy ?
TBH I'm not sure how the latest colour metering has impacted on the accuracy of reflected light metering on recent cameras, but my 2015 to 2019 era cameras certainly can't cope with accurate metering of black or white.

 

[russellm]

why is canon try to take all my money...

 

[CafferyPhoto]

This is going to be a true workhorse. I can't imagine needing anything different. The 1/1250 sync speed is what makes me the most pleased - I thought the Sony A1 1/400th was killer. I can now take the A1 out of my Save for Later on BH. Greater dynamic range and that sync speed makes it the perfect camera. I've never bought anything other than a 5-series, but this will make it to my studio. I'll pawn off the R5 and still keep the 5DSR for studio product stills. Thanks Canon.

 

[Vilacom]

These specs are what I expected from an R3 Mark ii. Sony and Nikon have both already had high res flagships for a couple years, and I think it's a mistake for Canon to not try to compete with those. I know everyone wants something different and it's impossible to please everyone, but for me, I almost switched from the R5 to Z9, and the main reason I didn't is because I was anticipating the R1. If 30mp is accurate, I'm going to be disappointed.

When you say Canon isn't competing I think you are applying a very specific form of competition that meets what you want. Making something largely the same with small differences and hoping people prefer the way you do it compared to how they do isn't really competing.

Canon seems to be trying to create an ecosystem where if you want to be able to do the things it offers, you have to buy Canon. The 28-70 f2, 100-300 2.8, 10-30 f4, 200-800, the 24-105 2.8. These are all things that say if you want this, you shoot canon or you dont get them. That is real competition, and that is something that is literally unattainable by someone shooting any other company.

Could other companies develop and release their versions of those lenses? Sure, but they're playing catchup in a much more meaningful way than a camera spec that, as demonstrated by this thread alone, is very tenuous in what people actually want/need/can ever find real differences in and frankly is much harder and more time consuming to play that catch up game, not to mention retain a lot more value for the consumer given good glass is good glass forever, that top of the line $6000 camera is going too be available for $2000 in 4-5 years as the new models come out.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks Neuro, I appreciate you taking the time to dig this out, but I have to confess, I can't make head nor tail of it !! But then I can't tell a Buzzard from an Eagle.
Are you able to explain what he's saying in Layman terms ?
I particularly liked the last line;
I certainly advise that if you're choosing a camera and you're comparing a DX body to an FX body in DX Crop Mode, to examine the PDR curves rather than simply making a quick estimate.
Maybe Spock's quick estimate would suffice

Practically, what he's saying is that the 'quick estimate' simply using the relative sensor sizes is not very accurate, but that doing that yields a bigger difference than the real data.

Mathematically, the difference in sensor sizes means that (all else being equal), 1.6x APS-C should have ~1.3-stops less DR – that's the 'quick estimate'. Calculating it correctly as he does for the plots, the R5 loses ~1-stop of DR in crop mode, which is 1/3-stop 'better' than you'd get with the quick estimate.

 

[AlanF]

Practically, what he's saying is that the 'quick estimate' simply using the relative sensor sizes is not very accurate, but that doing that yields a bigger difference than the real data.

Mathematically, the difference in sensor sizes means that (all else being equal), 1.6x APS-C should have ~1.3-stops less DR – that's the 'quick estimate'. Calculating it correctly as he does for the plots, the R5 loses ~1-stop of DR in crop mode, which is 1/3-stop 'better' than you'd get with the quick estimate.

Yes, I just do that quick estimate of number of stops = log(base2)[1.6x1.6] = 1.3. What's 0.3 stops between friends, anyway?

 

[roby17269]

I checked out your portfolio...you have cultivated a unique style..well done. I like your medieval (grungy look) pics and you still manage to incorporate colour as a dominant theme. Also, the other aspect of your style - high colour and high contrast (definitely not pop-art, but somewhat akin to it) is really exciting. I am sure your clients can pick your photos out of a photo array with ease.

Thanks! I do appreciate the compliments!

I do not pixel peep, or shoot test images. I understand the desire to have high resolution images. Using the 45 MP on the R5 makes it difficult to revert to a smaller resolution camera. I agree about the bigger file sizes, 45-50 Mb per image and shooting many images.

What really matters is the how good the new Canon sensors are in terms of SNR (SNR < DR as gap between pixel saturation and total noise incl lens is always smaller than the gap between pixel saturation and the noise floor). All images have noise, just not always visible. Noise comes from a variety of sources, photons hitting photo sites at random (shot noise), thermal noise from capacitance gain,...read noise after analog-to-digital gain etc. etc. ad nauseum. Really boring stuff actually! I much prefer when people post photo images here instead of technical charts. We are all aware that our images lose bits of information as we increase ISO levels, especially colour depth info.

Today, we learnt a useful tidbit of information from a post here, namely; Sony engineers lost out to their marketing department, in that they were forced to opt for shallow wells in the new A9 III sensor, so marketing could advertise a global shutter. They did not chose a base ISO, it was thrust upon them, limited by processing horsepower and the max number of photo electrons these shallower wells can store (between read and reset). Fuller wells = higher SNR (not linear, but as a rule of thumb holds true).

Lets hope Canon do not make the same mistake as Sony, and give us a stellar R1 sensor in terms of SNR -> like the R5 did in beating BSI-CMOS sensors in Sony/Nikon cameras at lower ISO levels (albeit with lower colour depth bit info).

We will have to wait for the R5 II later in the year to see what the resolution will be in that camera body. Personally, I do not want more pixels, but lets wait and see what the new tech can deliver.

I would just say that, in the not so distant past, many claims about noise and DR improvements have been made for many cameras... and in many cases those improvements have been hardly any material at all, let alone visible in ways that matter to photographers.

So I will wait for the R1 to come out and be properly tested.

This does not change the fact that, should the resolution be indeed 30mp, I will not buy it and will keep my fingers crossed for the R5 II.