Let’s talk Canon EOS R1, the flagship of flagships?

[shadowsports]

Will likely ship 9-12 months from now for the July 2024 Summer Games.

I would not be surprised it will MSRP at $9,999 due to inflation and worse economies of scale.

If you have a paid project today or a once in a lifetime unpaid shooting event that would benefit from a R3 then buy one today.

@dolina,
I think a $10k price tag might be a little steep. About $7k is a little more realistic I agree the economy is horrible, but I don't believe it will bear a $10k body. Do I need one, probably not. I'd do fine with a pro-sumer body in the $4~$5k range. I also believe a fall release is more likely than summer.

 

[LocationImaging]

Three big items stand out to me as a power user of Canon bodies.

1) Durability is the biggest selling point for me, but I believe that with the advent of mirrorless bodies, this may no longer be a major issue. All three of my 1Dx Mk III bodies have been in for shutter and mirror replacement, but I haven't had a single issue with my R3 bodies (except two of them don't turn on consistently unless I remove and reinstall the battery).

2) The ability to set shooting rate!!!! The choice of 1 frame, 3 frames per second, or 30 frames per second is totally unacceptable on the R3. I can set shooting rate to 4 fps, 6 fps, 8 fps, or anything up to the max rate of the shutter of my 1Dx Mk III and my clients love that. Please Canon! Give me control of frame rate!!!!!

3) Global shutter - I shoot moving subjects most of the time and I do get some rather odd results with the R3. When this happens, I have to revert back to my Mk III bodies.

Overall, my transition to mirrorless bodies has been slow and steady, and I look forward to the R1. If Item #2 above is worked out, I will take 3 R1 bodies tomorrow!

John Moore
Location Imaging

(PS - The equipment list below is wildly outdated! How do I fix?)

 

[LocationImaging]

For the record. I don't believe the Type C information. Type B 4 is on the near horizon, and I believe it will double the throughput of the current fastest type B cards. There are type C prototypes out there (Angelbird), but really nothing to put them into. Dual Type B with the v4 spec is more likely. Some current CFe cards may require a firmware update to work in the v4 slot (but at their current speed). I hope to address this in the near future.

A must in my eyes for the R1 regarding memory card slots is the ability to use the same card in both slots. I live the fact that my R3 and Mk III bodies share the same batteries, as I have many of each to support the fleet. I am probably close to 40 Type B cards and 14 batteries. If there is a performance improvement, then I can justify a change. But it should be a big change!

 

[koenkooi]

For the record. I don't believe the Type C information. Type B 4 is on the near horizon, and I believe it will double the throughput of the current fastest type B cards. There are type C prototypes out there (Angelbird), but really nothing to put them into. Dual Type B with the v4 spec is more likely. Some current CFe cards may require a firmware update to work in the v4 slot (but at their current speed). I hope to address this in the near future.

Is PCIe4 support for CFexpress a 'proper' standard or just something card vendors are doing? https://compactflash.org/industry-standards/ only mentions 1.0 and 2.0, both of those specify PCIe3.

The R5 seems to top out at 400Mbyte/s write speed for CFe, so there is still a lot of headroom for the Digic X to get faster without having to resort to PCIe4. A 1600MByte/s write speed is within reach for recent high end CFe cards, which is a lots of fps

 

[bbasiaga]

Would $7k be better spent on a new-er used big white? Or a kahuna body like this? If I had that kind of money once in my life, which way would I go? I'll have some fun pondering that.

I would have hoped for an R3 sized body. I held one, and it was perfect. The 1Ds were bricks, but that doesn't mean a bigger R1 won't be more ergonomic than that.

-Brian

 

[dolina]

@dolina,
I think a $10k price tag might be a little steep. About $7k is a little more realistic I agree the economy is horrible, but I don't believe it will bear a $10k body. Do I need one, probably not. I'd do fine with a pro-sumer body in the $4~$5k range. I also believe a fall release is more likely than summer.

This assumes that the R3 price will remain "as is".

It is possible that Canon will knock it down and have the R1 take over the R3's introductory MSRP.

But given the volume of digital cameras have returned to year 1999-2000 lows... it isn't that far fetch.

Check out the pricing of the EOS 5D Mark IV vs the EOS R5.

 

[whothafunk]

3) Global shutter - I shoot moving subjects most of the time and I do get some rather odd results with the R3. When this happens, I have to revert back to my Mk III bodies.

I'm guessing you're also a sports photographer (or wildlife?) but do want to know at which specific thing you had issues with the rolling shutter on the R3? The ball, assuming it is sports, must have been really fast then.
I also notice, albeit rarely, some/really small warping on really fast moving balls but to such low degree no one really gives me a hard time, not even Red bull, so I'm not bothered at all.

 

[LocationImaging]

I'm guessing you're also a sports photographer (or wildlife?) but do want to know at which specific thing you had issues with the rolling shutter on the R3? The ball, assuming it is sports, must have been really fast then.
I also notice, albeit rarely, some/really small warping on really fast moving balls but to such low degree no one really gives me a hard time, not even Red bull, so I'm not bothered at all.

Yes, sir. Motorsports, specifically. We actually use the images for an engineering purpose and do study the images very carefully. Many times, our speeds are in excess of 210 mph.

 

[nickditoro]

For me a I am fine with 45 MP. I do not have a need for more. For me I would like to see 40 fps 14 bit RAW with a solid 10 sec buffer.

Completely agree. I was concerned when I read about 100 MP, as files would be much too large for sports photography. If the R5 Mark II ends up with 100 MP, that would be fine.

 

[Lance vdv]

45mp....bugger, now I will want one.

All I read from "similar battery", "10 inch extender screen", "color TV on top" and "besterest VF EVER" is worse battery life

Let's hope canon gets the good parts right and forgets to add the duds!

 

[scyrene]

BTW, bit surprised to not hear about internal memory. I was hoping the R1 would have 1-2 TB internal.

Why? Isn't that unprecedented?

 

[John Wilde]

I doubt that the unicorn of a global shutter will be included in the R1.

 

[koenkooi]

Why? Isn't that unprecedented?

I think Leica and Hasselblad are including built-in storage in their recent models.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think Leica and Hasselblad are including built-in storage in their recent models.

Some Canon camcorders have internal storage. IIRC when I bought my first one, the Vixia HF M41 with 32 GB internal storage and two SD slots, there were two similar but lower-spec variants, one with 16 GB internal and one with no internal storage. My current camcorder (Vixia HF G60) has no onboard storage, just dual SD slots.

 

[Del Paso]

I think Leica and Hasselblad are including built-in storage in their recent models.

I can confirm, at least for the Leica M 11. It's fortunate, since it lacks a second memory card.

 

[Hector1970]

As an owner of a 1DXIII it is an under whelming camera that hasn't aged well. I find the R5 far superior in all aspects. I considered the R3 but it felt to me at the time an R1 that they name changed when it underwhelmed compared to the competition. The R1 could yet end up being an R2 depending on Sony / Nikon. I guess it will be 45/50MP's even 60MP but not higher. Thats fine for me. R5 images are great, MP is becoming a diminishing return.
For me it will be all about focus ability. 1DXIII was a slight improvement, the R5 is better but far from perfect. It will be interesting if they can make a significant improvement on initial acquisition of the most important things in the image. That's where I find Canon autofocus weakest. It's pretty good at sticking to the subject once acquired. Global shutter would be good. FPS is definitely a diminishing return. If they are increasing that they need to make it a big buffer. The R5 runs out of buffer too quickly in Raw. Size wise I would have thought the R3 size would be best. The 1DXIII is really just too big and heavy. I hope there isn't a new memory card type. Type B are expensive (card reader that came with the 1DXIII Sandisk was rubbish - two of them have broken on me). Some internal storage would actually be helpful in an emergency. Price $10,000 - It would want to be wonderful for that. It's hard to justify buying anything else with the R5 - its so good.

 

[SHAMwow]

Why? Isn't that unprecedented?

Yeah, that's the last thing I would want. All my work stuck inside of a brick if something happens.

 

[kaihp]

(PS - The equipment list below is wildly outdated! How do I fix?)

I believe that it is in your signature. You need to go to https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/account/signature and edit it there.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, that's the last thing I would want. All my work stuck inside of a brick if something happens.

Certainly there would be card slot(s) and the ability to write to 1/2 card(s) and the internal memory concurrently. Internal storage would be faster, and thus be one way to allow a higher burst rate with a larger MP count, with images copied off to the card after shooting. Essentially a massive buffer.

 

[snapshot]

MP is becoming a diminishing return.

i agree with this. For my work, the extra resolution in the photos from R5 has vs the 5D mark iv is unimportant. BTW, this statement is mostly about EF 100-400 @ 300mm & F/5 @ with subject about 100ft away.

For me it will be all about focus ability.

I have wondered about resolution vs auto-focus for DPAF. I think higher resolution may help eye-detection find eyes when they are a smaller fraction of the frame. I haven't had an R3 to play with to see if this is true or not.

Global shutter would be good. FPS is definitely a diminishing return. If they are increasing that they need to make it a big buffer. The R5 runs out of buffer too quickly in Raw.

I like the idea of global shutter, but am worried about the effect on dynamic range. Honestly, if the sensor readout would occur < 1/300 s it would be close enough for me. FPS does diminish in value, but right now R5 is limited to 12 fps in fast action. If electronic shutter were to be free of rolling shutter, feature full RAW dynamic range and support full tracking/servo auto-focus, I think I would often use 30 fps. I have not experienced buffer issues with R5, but I do experience overheating shutdowns when shooting a lot of bursts in summer heat. Maybe the camera should be white along with the lens.