The 1DX Mk III is going for $6499 and I bought my Mk II for $5699. $8500 is not near those prices. Hell, you could buy any 1D X and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for less and still get tack sharp images. It will have to be a banger of a camera before I would even think about it, and even then I would want to wait for at least 6 months to see how it goes. Think I will just buy a Mk III. I already have an R5 for high res shots.
Here are some crazy Canon EOS R1 specifications [CR0]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Nobody uses that app on their cameras anymore.
Last edited:
I'm finding the further these comments go, the more they are being treated and argued as if it was something other than a CR0.
ZERO, which means phone included and drink holders are the most on topic part of this filbert.
ZERO, which means phone included and drink holders are the most on topic part of this filbert.
I hear you, and that's normally good advice especially if the camera and lens were priced similarly. However, the 600mm prime is very likely to cost 2x that of the R1, which may put it forever in dream territory.Wrong way around - get the lens first, and match that to whatever you've got (assuming you have an R body) and then get a better camera later. Bodies come and go, lenses are (almost) forever
I already have the 100-500L, which is a very nice lens especially in good light. My photography life won't end if I'm unable to supplement it with a nice prime. Meanwhile, if the R1 performs as well or nearly as well as does the Sony A1, then that body will make my 100-500L a better lens while I continue to dream about the 600mm prime.
Last edited:
A year or two?
Canon released the original 1D X in 2012 with a 12fps mechanical shutter with full AF. It took 8 years for that tech to trickle down (to the R5). Canon released the 50MP 5Dr in 2015, six years later, Canon still hasn't released another 50MP+ ILC body (okay, you might want to count the R5 with 45MP, so 5 years).
As these examples show, technology--at least the really good stuff--can take a while to trickle down.
With the head of Nikon saying the Nikon D6 pro mirrorless replacement is coming this year and mentioning that it may have 8K, I'm strongly, strongly suspecting Canon will go big on resolution with the R1. I don't think this CR0 rumor is as crazy as we all think it is. The R5's specs also make far more sense at the pricepoint if the R1 gets more resolution and higher FPS.
Interesting speculation at this point is all I can say. Personally, I would be happy with quad-pixel AF, global shutter with 30 MP at my disposal. In a few more months we should see how this one develops. Will I buy one? Maybe? For me the R5 is already very capable. I am also very interested in seeing which lenses they announce and when they will ship.
We simply cannot rely on old patterns any longer. Canon is the new Canon
it's one or the other.
At one stage in the pipeline, an 85 megapixel global shutter sensor would have have to be (very roughly) x1000 faster than the rolling shutter sensor in the R5. If it was a ~35 megapixel global shutter it would annihilate.
So, is Canon going the path of global quad bayer sensor? 85MP actual and 21MP quad bayer processed, it's possible and is interesting. This explain the higher ISO and high DR performance quoted. Also 4x4 pixels working together for quad pixel AF. Interesting!
The specs look like a quad Bayer sensor so it is possible.
Fast action photographers would shoot at 21 MP.
A quad sensor would be 85 MP even if it were read at 21 MP.
It makes sense that the AF pixels could be read at 21 MP even when the rest of the sensor was read at 85 MP.
If that were so why do Canon call the 90 million photodiode R5 sensor 45 million pixels?
As for the AF reading less, I think you have that the wrong way around, the AF treats the different photodiodes as individual, the imaging side ‘sees’ the lower number.
It is more difficult to get a high dynamic range in super 35.
C300 needed DGO to get one more stop than C500.
I hear you, and that's normally good advice especially if the camera and lens were priced similarly. However, the 600mm prime is very likely to cost 2x that of the R1, which may put it forever in dream territory.
I already have the 100-500L, which is a very nice lens especially in good light. My photography life won't end if I'm unable to supplement it with a nice prime. Meanwhile, if the R1 performs as well or nearly as well as does the Sony A1, then that body will make my 100-500L a better lens while I continue to dream about the 600mm prime.
Get the MkI EF600/4LIS. It's optically very nearly as good as the MkIII (maybe worse flare?), but due to weight--which everyone put up with until 2013 or so--is twice the MkIII. And they go for like $4000, and you'll probably get the same when selling it many years so it doesn't really even have much of a cost of ownership.
Meanwhile, using a white telephoto half the time you have a TC involved anyway, so it's not like having to use an EF-RF convertor makes you do something appalling that other photogs aren't doing all the time anyway.
I have no idea what the R1 specs is going to be. But I will preorder it. Because I believe it is not going to be a small incremental update of 1dxiii specs. It is most likely going to be the same jump as 5div=>R5. And the R5 already qualify as my dream camera. Or am I living in a dreamword of my own?
I hear that as well, but as I get older carting around extra weight becomes less acceptable. I've been using the Nikon 500mm pf, which is an absolute delight in the field. It's not significantly heavier (if at all, I haven't weighed them) than the If I doubled the weight with the M II (or tripled the weight with the M I), it would clearly take much of the joy out of going out into the field.
My true dream is that Canon produces a DO version of the 600mm f/4 (or Nikon a pf version). If so, I might have to sell a kidney to fund the acquisition.
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
<-- start Taboola -->