Here are some crazy Canon EOS R1 specifications [CR0]

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,053
2,310
I have, I still don’t get on with EVF’s as well as OVF’s. I accept there are some benefits to EVF’s but after looking through an OVF for 40 odd years I still find looking through an EVF is nauseating after several hours, I get eye strain and the latency, even on high refresh rate EVF’s, doesn’t match what my brain expects.

Personally I think it is down to my age and generation, I believe newer and younger photographers can embrace EVF’s without the brain memory (like muscle memory but different!). I have used 1 series cameras since forever and so have been very spoilt with OVF’s, but I will be very interested to see what Canon can do with the EVF in the R1.

I’m 57, have crap eyes, and love my EVF cameras more every time I pick them up.
 
  • Love
Reactions: pj1974

slclick

If Only Campagnolo Made Cameras
Dec 17, 2013
4,416
2,563
How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.

I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.
Same, 56, semi crap eyes with a retinal scarring (from AMPPE )and EVF's really mess with me. #1 reason I'm still using my 5D3. I keep trying out new bodies but more than a couple minutes and I have a terrible adjustment period with the camera away from my eye. OVF? I can shoot and shoot with only the minimal issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,053
2,310
How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.

I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.

You’d have to define ‘hours at a time’ because I have never held a camera of any kind up to my eye continually for hours at a time.

On a typical shooting day - out hunting wildlife or whatnot - I’ll be out anywhere from 2 to 12 hours. Depending on what I’m looking for, my camera will be up and down from my eye constantly all through that period. Sometimes for minutes at a time, sometimes only for seconds. I don’t know how that equates to what you’re saying. It’s really hard to equivocate.

The EVF transition was truly seamless for me - I honestly didn’t know I was supposed to have trouble until I started reading about it on the internet.

The first things I notice when I shoot my 5D4 or 7D2 now is how dull and dim the OVF is, and I have to remind myself to take test shots to make sure my settings are close before I start trying to move in on a subject. With the EVF I just lift the camera and keep walking and adjust as I’m going knowing beforehand what I’m going to get as I go...
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
Sep 25, 2020
1
0
The 85mp is correct allas misinterpreted by the whistle blower. Its a quad af sensor and the actual resolution is 85/4=21.25Mp which is comparable with 1Diii.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,808
4,422
The 85mp is correct allas misinterpreted by the whistle blower. Its a quad af sensor and the actual resolution is 85/4=21.25Mp which is comparable with 1Diii.
We might have more faith in your input if you were a little more precise. The Canon 1D MkIII was a 10mp APS-H sensored camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,808
4,422
You’d have to define ‘hours at a time’ because I have never held a camera of any kind up to my eye continually for hours at a time.

On a typical shooting day - out hunting wildlife or whatnot - I’ll be out anywhere from 2 to 12 hours. Depending on what I’m looking for, my camera will be up and down from my eye constantly all through that period. Sometimes for minutes at a time, sometimes only for seconds. I don’t know how that equates to what you’re saying. It’s really hard to equivocate.

The EVF transition was truly seamless for me - I honestly didn’t know I was supposed to have trouble until I started reading about it on the internet.

The first things I notice when I shoot my 5D4 or 7D2 now is how dull and dim the OVF is, and I have to remind myself to take test shots to make sure my settings are close before I start trying to move in on a subject. With the EVF I just lift the camera and keep walking and adjust as I’m going knowing beforehand what I’m going to get as I go...
Hours at a time would include things like soccer matches, and tournaments where you cover three or four matches a day of continuous play, or three day music festivals where you are shooting for 12 hours a day three or four days in a row. Wildlife from blinds. All kinds of things really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
246
188
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.

I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.
I agree. Shooting international sporting events for a week or more, waking at 6AM and shooting until dark or into the evening we take extreme stress on our eyes before we edit a single shot. No one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports. Looking through glass is pure and your eyes for days and weeks on end will never stress. Shooting tight fast sports is tough on the eyes period. No EVF can match the speed, agility, clarity of an OVF in all lighting conditions.....anyone who shoots pro sports in these circumstances will understand.

If you can shoot a slower or less eratice sport normally on a gimbal and not miss the action, then a EVF could work for a brief period of time under lighting conditions not deemed tropical bright ot low light.
 
Oct 27, 2020
1
0
If shooting wildlife in crop mode for extra reach, 85MP would translate into 33MP. About the same as 90D and M6 Mark II.

So 85MP is not TO much :)
 
Nikon will be announcing their equivalent pro body tomorrow (March 10). Actually it's a development announcement not a release announcement, but still I wonder if this will spur Canon to make a similar development announcement?
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,053
2,310
Hours at a time would include things like soccer matches, and tournaments where you cover three or four matches a day of continuous play, or three day music festivals where you are shooting for 12 hours a day three or four days in a row. Wildlife from blinds. All kinds of things really.


Okay. By that measure I could say that I do it infrequently, but I have done it on several occasions both with my EOS-R and my R5. I haven't had an issue but I know my experience is peculiar to me and other people have genuine issues with using the EVF. I suppose I'm just one of the folks that doesn't.

I have the luxury of being retired early (almost ten years now) and not being pressured to shoot in the manner that you describe. If I had to, I doubt I would enjoy it and photography likely wouldn't be the enjoyable activity that it is for me.
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,053
2,310
No one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports. Looking through glass is pure and your eyes for days and weeks on end will never stress. Shooting tight fast sports is tough on the eyes period. No EVF can match the speed, agility, clarity of an OVF in all lighting conditions.....anyone who shoots pro sports in these circumstances will understand.

You know the trouble I find when speaking in blanket absolutes? I end up being wrong 100 percent of the time.

Everything you list is your opinion and many, many professionals obviously disagree with you because some of the top pro shooters, including sports and wildlife photographers, have already moved to mirrorless. I believe the exodus will accelerate as the fresh tech pours into the mirrorless world and DSLR gets left even further behind. I believe we're reaching the point where mirrorless bodies will be able to deliver results that DSLRs just can't match and that gap is going to grow, not shrink. I think that's a statement that everyone can agree with to some degree.

Mirrorless tech is going to advance and DLSR tech is pretty much at a standstill - at least in the Canon world. I also thought this was interesting to read although it isn't really on-topic for this discussion.

So far, I haven't had a single image where I've looked at my result and said "rolling shutter ruined the shot..." I've had dozens, however, where I've looked at a shot and thought "I'd have never gotten this shot if I wasn't shooting the R5" simply because of the higher FPS. Getting acceptable or 'good' wildlife photos, especially birds, can often be down to the wing position you're able to capture. I'm sure some aspects of sports would be the same. 8FPS out of a 5D4 or 10 FPS out of a 7D2 can't compete with 20FPS out of an R5 - and the R5 does it silently.

Imagine if the 40FPS rumor here is true. Sorry, but once you've shot 20FPS with a completely silent shutter the CLACK-CLACK-CLACK of 10FPS on my 7D2 sounds like a Gatling gun in church - and the critters notice the difference. The regular shutter on my R5 is quieter than the 'silent' shutter on my 5D4, forget the 7D2.

In some sports that obviously doesn't matter, but in many situations (pro golf for example) silent shutter is now preferred around the tee and greens. I'm reading tennis as well. I'm also reading that it's becoming preferred in pre-game and post-game interview rooms as well - just as we've seen in other press events. I can understand why. Not a deal breaker of course but the trend is there and will likely continue rather than recede.

Eventually, unless you're still competitive shooting your ten year old 1DX III, the switch is going to be forced upon you. You'll either switch or you won't be a working photographer anymore because you won't have a mainstream choice.

My bet is that this R1 or whatever it ends up being called is going to be a 20MP monster that opens the door to the remaining DSLR sports and wildlife pros to make the move to mirrorless with all its benefits while still providing the small file size they love for moving things quickly along the wire.

Either way, it is what it is. Saying "no one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports" is ridiculous. They can express their opinion just as you have expressed yours and it will be just as valid but neither opinion survives as an absolute blanket statement. It's only a 'fact' to the person looking through their choice of viewfinder - whichever viewfinder that may be. At least that's how I see it.

For me, the advantages of mirrorless are beyond reproach. EVF, edge to edge auto-focus, touch and drag, crop-mode, 8K frame grab, best AF system per dollar spent, subject tracking, silent shutter, FPS, resolution - to me, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to see and sieze the advantages. Luckily for everyone that disagrees with me my opinion only has to matter to me. It isn't even remotely fact, it's just my point of view.

BTW - is your screen name based on a motorcycle preference? I'm only asking because I happen to be a GL1800 lover as well.
 
Last edited:

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,185
2,062
If shooting wildlife in crop mode for extra reach, 85MP would translate into 33MP. About the same as 90D and M6 Mark II.

So 85MP is not TO much :)

If 85 MP isn't too much why are you planning to crop 50MP away? :D

(Asked tongue in cheek...I know the answer.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

Methodical

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 27, 2013
96
12
Yeah, the price is crazy. They won't get 85 hundreds of my dollars. I don't care how much it's this or that it is. Give me some big glass instead.
 
<-- start Taboola -->