Here are some crazy Canon EOS R1 specifications [CR0]

Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Let's be clear, with Nikon's announcement of the Z9, both Sony and Nikon will have 8K pro cameras.

There is absolutely zero chance that Canon will release a 20mp pro model with a price-tag almost twice that of the R5. I think these "crazy" rumors are actually far more in line with the R1's actual specs than anyone thinks, and Canon can totally get away with a higher price-tag if they can pack everything they can into it.
I do give some merit to the 20(mp) 80 photodiode quad sensor idea. It automatically gives you two stops more dynamic range than a regular sensor, it vastly improves af performance, and if they can do some clever maths gives you oversampled 8k and depending on how they demosaic it potentially a lot more detail than the 20mp figure would suggest for stills. Also, if they averaged the four photodiodes it would be an incredible low light 20mp camera.

Potentially they can have their cake and eat it by giving the best of both worlds to everybody, new generation low light performance with modest resolution, high resolution with fast fps, and oversampled 8k for those people that live and die for video specs. Given that I think it is too much to ask...
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I admittedly am not the expert on it, but from my perspective, even if they're under the same lens, wouldn't they still have a different perspective from each other simply because they're different positions under the lens? After all a lens does have a coverage area and doesn't project exactly the same points of light across the whole coverage area it's projecting.
they do indeed have a different perspective - in DPAF one pixels 'sees' the right side and the other one the left side of the aperture, and therefore, they look at the scene under different angles. And this is essential for the autofocus to work, because the algorithm tries to match the images coming from the left and right pixels. If they match: focus is achieved. If they don't match, then they are either shifted to the left or to the right w.r.t. each other, and that is how the autofocus algorithm can determine whether it needs to focus nearer or further away. But the point is: when focus is achieved, the images from the left- and right pixel array are perfectly aligned (in the in-focus areas), so each left and right pixel covers the same area on the subject.
 
Upvote 0

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
404
279
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
To my point. No technology today can replace an OVF for professional sports where a gimbal or monopod would suffice to follow the action.
Just to be clear. If you can use a gimbal or monopod with a big white to completely follow the action of any sports, then "I do not think" a OVF ir required 100% of the time.

For sports where a gimbal or monopod would impede coverage, then a OVF is "required".

Perhaps with advancements in technology this will change. But as of 3/2021 we have not seen or reviewed an EVF that equals an OVF for these purposes.

Please note we are talking about professional sports cameras that work in very hard environments. Water, rain, hard knocks, abusive conditions on land and sea.
 
Upvote 0

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
404
279
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Indeed.

How do you put an OVF on a mirrorless camera, unless, of course, you're willing to tolerate it being off-axis?

Which, if such a thing were tolerable, would have meant no one would have bothered to invent such a kludgy thing as an SLR.
The 1DX I, II, III provide for and OVF and a digital back for live view shooting. I think we are already using the technology..... ROFL
 
Upvote 0

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
803
1,637
I do give some merit to the 20(mp) 80 photodiode quad sensor idea. It automatically gives you two stops more dynamic range than a regular sensor, it vastly improves af performance, and if they can do some clever maths gives you oversampled 8k and depending on how they demosaic it potentially a lot more detail than the 20mp figure would suggest for stills. Also, if they averaged the four photodiodes it would be an incredible low light 20mp camera.

Potentially they can have their cake and eat it by giving the best of both worlds to everybody, new generation low light performance with modest resolution, high resolution with fast fps, and oversampled 8k for those people that live and die for video specs. Given that I think it is too much to ask...

I 100% agree with you, and I think this is what makes the most sense for Canon in this "new" 8k pro market. At the very least, whatever pro camera Canon releases will have to have a 20-ish megapixel mode for the pro photographers who simply don't need the resolution. I would definitely shoot most of my general assignment R5 images at 20 megapixels if there was an option for a raw, 20 megapixel output.

At the same time, if the R1 also was able to do 80 megapixels, that's a huge added value for portrait and landscape work when 80 megapixels is a bonus. Add to that, it would be totally possible to switch between a full sensor 20 megapixel low light mode and a 30 megapixel 1.6x crop mode, which also would help make the R1 into an absolutely excellent camera for wildlife/birding photographers, on top of news and sports photographers. It would truly be a no-compromise pro model across the board, and I think a ~$7500+ price tag would be survivable for the people who could replace multiple cameras with one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
404
279
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Those aren't mirrorless cameras. Your original comment was demanding that the R1 have an OVF. ROFL indeed.
I think the RI will meet most expectations, If they provide an EVF that does not meet the standards of the 1DXMKIII, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Upvote 0
they do indeed have a different perspective - in DPAF one pixels 'sees' the right side and the other one the left side of the aperture, and therefore, they look at the scene under different angles. And this is essential for the autofocus to work, because the algorithm tries to match the images coming from the left and right pixels. If they match: focus is achieved. If they don't match, then they are either shifted to the left or to the right w.r.t. each other, and that is how the autofocus algorithm can determine whether it needs to focus nearer or further away. But the point is: when focus is achieved, the images from the left- and right pixel array are perfectly aligned (in the in-focus areas), so each left and right pixel covers the same area on the subject.
That makes sense. So if they weren't to combine a quad AF array, then the areas of the image that were in perfect focus wouldn't really gain much additional spatial detail, but, as the parts of the image started to fall out of focus, they could potentially extract additional spatial detail during de-mosaic. OK.

I wonder how the anti-aliasing filter would affect this.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
It will literally be the last camera you buy, you'll be paying it off till you fall over dead and then come after your family for the balance.

When the 1D X debuted in 2012 it was $6,799 in the U.S.

$6,799 USD in 2012 is worth $7,789 today.

By the time the R1 is actually shipped, $6,799 from March, 2012 may be actually worth almost $8,000.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
How does that explain anything? Unless you have documentation or quotes from Sony decision makers, causation is very difficult to prove. The A7r4 was announced ten or more months before the R5. "I suspect companies always want to be first on the market." More than likely--and just as good an explanation--Sony had produced a workable high MP sensor and wanted to take the high-MP crown from Nikon (remember, Nikon held the crown for awhile at 45.7MP). Similarly with the A1. The A1 is the camera the A9II should have been (my opinion), but the 50MP stacked sensor just wasn't ready. Now it's ready, so the A1 is released. Thus, rather than a "quick" release, the A1 is actually 15-16 months late.

Do I have inside knowledge to support this hypothesis? No, but my explanation is at least as good as yours and far more compelling.

Aren't you forgetting the 50MP 5Ds/5Ds R?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

Let's see: $5,699 + $3,799 = $9,498

Or you could buy one that can do what both can do for only $7,499.

Hmm....
 
Upvote 0

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
268
537
Aren't you forgetting the 50MP 5Ds/5Ds R?
Definitely. Soon after writing the above, I remembered those lenses, but didn't go back and edit because the point was the same. If you like, just replace Nikon with Canon. Either way, the A7RIV took the crown and still holds it. But other than bragging rights, neither the A7RIV nor the Canon 5Ds twins particularly impress. Neither camera really delivered on the promise that their higher resolution sensor suggested. Yes, you can detect some resolution improvements, but you really have to work at it. I think that we'll need a 90MP (or greater) sensor before we actually see a perceptible improvement in resolution.
 
Upvote 0