Canon EOS R1 Spotted in the wild at the Monaco GP

[DhlcadR6]

It's a nice niche camera. But flagship? 24MP can't be your flagship in 2020 . . . much much less 2024. Heck, iPhones are over 40MP these days! (Even APPLE knows 24MP isn't enough anymore!) This is an embarrassment. Worst of all . . . Canon KNEW you couldn't have a 24MP "flagship" four years ago! Why was the original R1 labeled "R3"? Why did they deny the "R3" was their flagship? Because every other manufacturers' "flagship" has twice the resolution.

You can talk "benefits of a low res sensor" all day . . . but it's an excuse. No amount of AI can give a low res image the beauty and detail of a 45MP image. Just not possible.

Stop the bs. The 40mp from your iPhone will be mushy when look at 100%. And Topaz works well for m43, let alone FF/APS-C.

R3 has less MP & no 8K when compared to a1 amd Z8/Z9, but pretty much slams down the competition in other areas such as AF and 4K video work. Right now only a9iii is faster on the burst with the sacrifice of low iso performance. For a 2021 camera, it is not a bad product as everyone else insists.

It's too early to call guilty for R1. Save your bashing after R1's specs are announced.

 

[Fbimages]

Can I interest you in a copy of Topaz Labs Photo AI?

I was at El Classico a few weeks ago, of course I look at the photographer areas. I saw 2 black lenses in a sea of red ring white lenses. A few Sony's splattered around. Canon isn't competing with Nikon. One of the Nikon cameras was a D6.

I have used topaz and DXO for a while. It’s great what you can achieve with software these days but it doesn’t beat real detail, and I’m speaking from an R5 and GFX 100 perspective. Horses for courses but I don’t get how or why the R1 wouldn’t be able to match an older Z9 in the resolution department.
Now of course if it’s sports and sports only and all one is interested in is a football player filling the frame or a car, why not, but the wildlife photographer in me feels left out!

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

It is not very clear to me who the R1 is built for that the R3 isn't.

The same people

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is not very clear to me who the R1 is built for that the R3 isn't.

The 1D X III is four years old, the 1D X II is 8 years old. Some of those people may have bought the R3, but even that’s now three years old.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

I have used topaz and DXO for a while. It’s great what you can achieve with software these days but it doesn’t beat real detail, and I’m speaking from an R5 and GFX 100 perspective. Horses for courses but I don’t get how or why the R1 wouldn’t be able to match an older Z9 in the resolution department.
Now of course if it’s sports and sports only and all one is interested in is a football player filling the frame or a car, why not, but the wildlife photographer in me feels left out!

Because Canon doesn't have to buy from Sony. Nikon is also competing just to be relevant. The internet is just regurgitating the same stuff they always have.

On the flip side, I loved when the 5D Mark II launched with 21mp and people lost their minds because their 512mb CF cards were useless!

Nothing changes.

 

[Gendra]

Not if the R5 II rumored specs are true.
It beats out the a1, Z 9, and Z 8.
IMHO the R1 also beats out the a9 III for most practical purposes.

Does it? The problem is, what are actually the rumored specs of the R5 II espcially when it comes to readout speed?

I have to say I am not a native speaker so please correct me, if I am understandings things the wrong way, but from the article and forum posts about the R5 II I am getting the following:
CanonRumors got handed a plain number (ms) for the readout speed from its source. To protect the source, he himself came up with the comparison to the R3 (30% faster).
However, when I look at the forum posts from Canon Rumors Guy it seems that they did the comparison to the video (!) readout-speed of the R3 which is 9.5ms. So this would put the R5 II not on par with the Z8/9 or a1 (~4ms) but more in the range of 7-8ms.

That would mean the risk of rolling shutter is twice as large as the competition especially when you need it the most (fast burst during action).
Moreover (and maybe even more critical), this would also mean, that the R5 II will most certainly have no flash-sync-option in electronic shutter (like the mark I), so no flash with silent shutter and no flash in focus bracketing, which would be very sad.

 

[koenkooi]

Does it? The problem is, what are actually the rumored specs of the R5 II espcially when it comes to readout speed?

I have to say I am not a native speaker so please correct me, if I am understandings things the wrong way, but from the article and forum posts about the R5 II I am getting the following:
CanonRumors got handed a plain number (ms) for the readout speed from its source. To protect the source, he himself came up with the comparison to the R3 (30% faster).
However, when I look at the forum posts from Canon Rumors Guy it seems that they did the comparison to the video (!) readout-speed of the R3 which is 9.5ms. So this would put the R5 II not on par with the Z8/9 or a1 (~4ms) but more in the range of 7-8ms.

That would mean the risk of rolling shutter is twice as large as the competition especially when you need it the most (fast burst during action).
Moreover (and maybe even more critical), this would also mean, that the R5 II will most certainly have no flash-sync-option in electronic shutter (like the mark I), so no flash with silent shutter and no flash in focus bracketing, which would be very sad.

I very much hope that the R5II can use flash and ES together!

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

I very much hope that the R5II can use flash and ES together!

It will.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Does it? The problem is, what are actually the rumored specs of the R5 II espcially when it comes to readout speed?

I have to say I am not a native speaker so please correct me, if I am understandings things the wrong way, but from the article and forum posts about the R5 II I am getting the following:
CanonRumors got handed a plain number (ms) for the readout speed from its source. To protect the source, he himself came up with the comparison to the R3 (30% faster).
However, when I look at the forum posts from Canon Rumors Guy it seems that they did the comparison to the video (!) readout-speed of the R3 which is 9.5ms. So this would put the R5 II not on par with the Z8/9 or a1 (~4ms) but more in the range of 7-8ms.

That would mean the risk of rolling shutter is twice as large as the competition especially when you need it the most (fast burst during action).
Moreover (and maybe even more critical), this would also mean, that the R5 II will most certainly have no flash-sync-option in electronic shutter (like the mark I), so no flash with silent shutter and no flash in focus bracketing, which would be very sad.

Well, the test referenced from CineD puts the Z8/Z9 at 14.5ms. The a1 is an impressive 8.1ms. The claimed readout for the R52 is 30% faster than the R3... again.. claimed.

Their tests are video related.

I haven't found a database with stills readout that I trust.

 

[koenkooi]

It will.

My next hope is that the R5II supports ‘traditional’ flashes and the Godox V860IIC works well with it. If not, I’ll have to set a price alert on the EL-5.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Stop the bs. The 40mp from your iPhone will be mushy when look at 100%.

Nonsense. An iPhone pic looks every bit as good as an image from the 24 MP R3. They’re so similar that I bet you and @FaolainWolf would have as much trouble distinguishing them as I do, especially at 100%.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Nonsense. An iPhone pic looks every bit as good as an image from the 24 MP R3. They’re so similar that I bet you and @FaolainWolf would have as much trouble distinguishing them as I do, especially at 100%.

View attachment 216952
View attachment 216953

Obviously you didn't give the one on the left a lint shaver.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

My next hope is that the R5II supports ‘traditional’ flashes and the Godox V860IIC works well with it. If not, I’ll have to set a price alert on the EL-5.

I missed the $199 EL-5 a month ago... still annoyed by that!

 

[DrMathochist]

Well at least that last pic resolves that if it does lack a shutter and has some other sensor cover when changing lenses, it will indeed open for lenses without electronic contacts

 

[KT]

Am I the only one shocked they are still using mechanical shutter, 3 years after Nikon dropped it from their top-tier pro bodies? and that's even with a 24 MP sensor.

I'm sure the R1 will have a ton of impressive tech features that folks will salivate over, Quad pixel AF, Eye-control II, and all sorts of AI wizardry just to mention a few, but mechanical shutter in 2024?

 

[Gendra]

My next hope is that the R5II supports ‘traditional’ flashes and the Godox V860IIC works well with it. If not, I’ll have to set a price alert on the EL-5.

Are there any problems with a godox flash on an R3 (aside the Off camera TTL bug)?

Well, the test referenced from CineD puts the Z8/Z9 at 14.5ms. The a1 is an impressive 8.1ms. The claimed readout for the R52 is 30% faster than the R3... again.. claimed.

So I am understanding correctly: the R5 IIs sensor ist also claimed to be faster then the R3 in stills?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Obviously you didn't give the one on the left a lint shaver.

That’s the Apple cripple-hammer in action. Automatic lint removal is coming on the iPhone 17 Pro.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I missed the $199 EL-5 a month ago... still annoyed by that!

I saw it, but passed. I have one EL-5 and four 600EX-RT (originals). Would have been a net $100 each to swap them.

I use the EL-5 on-camera, and don’t see any advantage to the EL-5 for remote use. The opposite, actually, since then I’d need to charge 5 batteries before use instead of just changing out the eneloops.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So I am understanding correctly: the R5 IIs sensor ist also claimed to be faster then the R3 in stills?

That is not what was claimed. Nor is it likely.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Are there any problems with a godox flash on an R3 (aside the Off camera TTL bug)?


So I am understanding correctly: the R5 IIs sensor ist also claimed to be faster then the R3 in stills?

Yes