Upvote
0
Canon Interview: EOS R1 is the true flagship
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
For me, the 45MP and CFExpress slot were very important and after spending half a year without an R5, I still stand by that. The R8 gets me all the shots I want, but I routinely run into the buffer limits and 24MP doesn't allow for extensive cropping.
With Sigma now doing APS-C lenses, I could imagine trading the R5II for a future R7, but that's at least 5 years into the future, something for when both kids are finished with primary school
ES+flash is, I suspect, the last technical feature that can really improve my style of shooting. Everything else is just GAS!
Upvote
0
I get great enjoyment out of bringing the R8+28mm with me for family outings. It's not an EOS-M+22mm, but still small enough for me. For the next 1.5 weeks it also has the best Canon AF you can buy
Good tip! I think the 28mm made it on the lens list.
Because I usually have one normal camera and one IR-modded camera, the difference in weights add up fast. so for that, it became a no brainer. full frame 24mp is good enough for me these days.
Upvote
0
For me, the sheer quality and density of the R5 sensor and its speed and accuracy of latching on to BIF (and DIF) and tracking are what makes the R5.For me, the 45MP and CFExpress slot were very important and after spending half a year without an R5, I still stand by that. The R8 gets me all the shots I want, but I routinely run into the buffer limits and 24MP doesn't allow for extensive cropping.
With Sigma now doing APS-C lenses, I could imagine trading the R5II for a future R7, but that's at least 5 years into the future, something for when both kids are finished with primary school
Upvote
0
I know many photographers, including myself, who would love to own a Canon camera like the A1 or Z9. To say that one can't critique a camera makes me wonder what world you're living in—some sort of echo chamber? Most of the people defending this camera seem to think everything revolves around sports. Unfortunately, Canon has lost the trust of me and many others. If Canon doesn't release something truly spectacular, I think they'll have to go back to the drawing board, though they probably hold a world record for back-patting at the Canon office.
Upvote
0
Lol speak for yourself, I was ready to drop whatever amount the R1 cost if Canon really knocked it out of the park and they didn’t. I don’t care about AF at this point, I’ve rarely missed shots with the R3 and when I have it wasn’t the camera’s fault. I have incredible BIF shots with the R3, R5, a9, and 1DX/1DX Mark II hanging on my wall. If you couldn’t nail focus with any of those cameras and need the tracking of the R1 you need to spend more time in the field practicing and learning your subject and the camera you’re using.
What I want at this point is speed and resolution and there’s no denying that what the R1 offers in those regards is barely an improvement over the R3.
That’s what I think as well. You pay a premium for an R5ii but then comes a cheaper camera and surpasses in every sense the other in a matter of months . Just look also at the frames per second of the flagship R1 and R7ii.
Even a 4000$ cheaper camera can shoot as fast as their flagship for way way less money
Upvote
0
So basically this article suggest that Sony A1 (4 years later) and the newer Sony A9iii, Canon still doesn’t have an answer for that ?
If the Z9 is their only competitor for the R1 … then they are saying that 4 years later and they still don’t know what to do against the Sony A1 !
Also they are basically saying that the R7iii will be way better than the 4200$ Canon R5ii so why bother buying the R5ii in the first place ?
Especially if they release the R7iii in a few month from the R5ii release. Technology advances I understand but only after certain years , not 3 months laters from this new releases
If the Z9 is their only competitor for the R1 … then they are saying that 4 years later and they still don’t know what to do against the Sony A1 !
Also they are basically saying that the R7iii will be way better than the 4200$ Canon R5ii so why bother buying the R5ii in the first place ?
Especially if they release the R7iii in a few month from the R5ii release. Technology advances I understand but only after certain years , not 3 months laters from this new releases
Because you are comparing two different sensor sizes. APSC cameras have been shooting faster than FFs for a while, it's apples to oranges. APSC sensors are smaller, meaning that you can read it both faster and they are considerably cheaper to produce.
Also, in everything else that is actually important while shooting fast, readout speed (as you are comparing ES vs ES) and buffer size, the R7 doesn't even come close to either the R5 (and R5ii), R3 or R1. The R7's buffer fills with less than 30 raws if you are shooting fast, it's less than a second in case you are shooting with its 30 fps ES mode. The R7's readout speed is basically unusable for any kind of slightly fast movement, as it is about 30 ms (over 10x the RS of the R1's sensor), so you are basically stuck with mechanical shutter (which is also faster than most FF mechanical shutter because, again, it is smaller, so cheaper to produce and make it go faster - for example, the 5 years old 800 USD m6ii has a faster mechanical shutter, 14 fps, than the 6500 USD a1, 10 fps).
EDIT: something I didn't even remember and just realized, when it comes to ES, the 800 USD m6ii, released in 2019, also shot faster (with 30 fps) than the 4500 USD a9ii (20 fps), released in the same year, and just as fast than the 6500 USD a1, released in 2021. When it compares to the a9ii, the m6ii even has higher resolution. Man, comparing framerate alone of cameras with different sensor sizes and technologies end up being so silly.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I was very disappointed with the R1. The initial rumor had the R1 with 60-80 mp, and people were excited about that, especially me. In the film days, when I added a 6x6 Hasse for studio work, I came to realize what high resolution brings to the table. The R3 could easily be the flagship for photojournalists, and who is to say that all cameras have to have the same resolution? Indeed, you can use a 24mp image for most things, but what do you do when you realize that not having a model's toes in the frame is messing it up? Or if you just had enough resolution to make it a vertical when you shot a horizontal shot? For many photographers, you don't have the time like Ansel Adams to perfectly frame your image and need to add a little extra to make sure you've got everything in the frame.
A serious camera needs to have the backup capability to assist the photographer in saving a photo after the lights are off and everyone has gone home. Why do people buy Snapon tools? They work every time and don't break in a clinch. When you can save a shot because the camera had your back, that's the kind of camera I want.
My R5, which I've had since the first day of release, has been the best camera I've ever had and never failed to deliver. But I think that having an 80mp sensor would be much better. Everyone doesn't need to shoot 40 FPS or record video for an hour. And why is the "flagship" made for a tiny segment of the population? Just like professional basketball players, there are only so many photojournalists in the world.
That's why I reluctantly ordered the R5 Mk II and may end up canceling the order, but probably not. Now I read about the R1X, which sounds like the camera I want, but originally, the R1 had the capability I wanted.
A serious camera needs to have the backup capability to assist the photographer in saving a photo after the lights are off and everyone has gone home. Why do people buy Snapon tools? They work every time and don't break in a clinch. When you can save a shot because the camera had your back, that's the kind of camera I want.
My R5, which I've had since the first day of release, has been the best camera I've ever had and never failed to deliver. But I think that having an 80mp sensor would be much better. Everyone doesn't need to shoot 40 FPS or record video for an hour. And why is the "flagship" made for a tiny segment of the population? Just like professional basketball players, there are only so many photojournalists in the world.
That's why I reluctantly ordered the R5 Mk II and may end up canceling the order, but probably not. Now I read about the R1X, which sounds like the camera I want, but originally, the R1 had the capability I wanted.
Upvote
0
\"We also wanted the shutter speed to be as high as possible. And, as you know, the camera can capture 40 frames per second. But if you go for a high definition, the available frame rate is usually quite low.\" This is what it is all about. They want to give us 40 fps of uncompromised frames. THAT is why 24 fps. Once faster processing is possible, they will increase fps and resolution. In my opinion and use: 40 fps is a lot and the focus now could be to increase the resolution.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
