More thoughts on the Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II from Paris

[frankchn]

Interesting, thanks for sharing!

Does it change the increments as determined by the photo increment setting (1/3-stop default, optionally 1/2-stop steps), or the finer gradations available for video (I don't recall if it's 1/8-stop, 1/10-stop or 1/32-stop increments)? I would guess the former.

The in camera display only shows 1/3 stops, but from observing the physical aperture as I turn the aperture ring with the 24-105Z, it definitely seems like you can get it between the 1/3-stop settings.

 

[RobbieHat]

I haven't shot in really cold weather but should a cold camera be taken into a warm car without a plastic sealed bag around it?
Wouldn't you have condensation issues?

Believe me the car was not warm. I slowly warmed the camera up over hours to avoid condensation issues with the body and lens. Most of the frost was on the back of the camera due to my breath.

 

[Michael Clark]

The thing I found most impressive, and which shows just how wrong people are in how they thing pro sport photojournalism works, is his keeper rate. He kept one out of three and a half shots. Not only is that worlds away from "spray and pray", but it is also a great keeper rate for any level of photography.

It also means the issue of "pro sports photographers live and die on data flow and on the speed of finding the one shot out of a hundred worth keeping so they need small sensors" is totally wrong since that's a tiny number of shots taken at any one time.

He may have kept 25,000, but he only 'favorited' 266. That's probably about the same number he pushed to the wires. 266 out of 85,000 is 1 in 320, or 0.31%. Knowing when you got "the shot" and marking it is paramount for sports journalism.

 

[Michael Clark]

Based off a lot of reviews I've seen, the AF has improved better than the R6II but not dramatically, but is incredibly sticky and is really good with locating the eye or head of the subject. Plus with 14 bit on Mechanical and Electronic Shutter Modes and how much rolling shutter has been improved, Canon has a real winner here at it's price point with everything it can do/provides.



R5ii was definitely a bigger upgrade (As technically there was never an R1, but let's be real, the R1 is a early R3ii). With all the upgrades to the sensor, i can see most people shooting in Electronic Shutter majority of the time since there will be little/no loss in majority of use cases.




^^ One of the most under-rated comments. That keep rate for the amount of photos taken is very impressive. There's not many times where i kept about 30% of the photos taken from shooting sports. And I'm suspecting he's using pre-shooting too.

Since Canon introduced flicker reduction about a decade ago, my "keeper rate" (defined as shots I wouldn't mind other people seeing and knowing I took it) shooting sports is well above 50%. Many of them are "duplicates" of the same action in a burst, and I'll only publish the best one or two of a string of 5-10 frames, but I save the others in my archives. I still wind up publishing several hundred frames per game if I shoot the whole thing. I don't tend to ride the burst more than 4-5 frames unless it's something like a long touchdown run, though.

 

[Loswr]

The in camera display only shows 1/3 stops, but from observing the physical aperture as I turn the aperture ring with the 24-105Z, it definitely seems like you can get it between the 1/3-stop settings.

I wonder what the EXIF reports (in something like exiftool)…

 

[Michael Clark]

When I taught photography (back in the neolithic when we used a thing called "film") I used to tell my students that if they got one keeper in a 24 exposure roll that was doing well and if they got a lot more they either weren't shooting enough and were keeping the best they got because it was all they got or they weren't being sufficiently critical.

To get a keeper rate eight times that level at the quality bar for professional work under massive time pressure shows just how good top pros are.

AF is a lot better now than then. Before Canon introduced USM lenses very few sports shooters even used AF when it first became available in the late 1980s.

Lenses are a lot better.

Flicker reduction has been revolutionary when shooting under flickering lights typical of high school and small/medium college stadiums and gyms. Just the color shift from one side of the frame to the other due to flickering lights used to deep six over half of the frames I shot under artificial lights.

The cameras today make it a lot easier to get the shot than it used to be.

 

[frankchn]

I wonder what the EXIF reports (in something like exiftool)…

Just took some test shots and EXIF tool reports the aperture value in 1/3 stops.

Also played around with it a bit more and it doesn't seem like the aperture opening/closing is completely stepless like in video mode. For instance it seems to make a jump from f/2.8 to f/3.2 and then there seems to be finer graduations between f/3.2 and f/4.0 than just f/3.5.

 

[john1970]

Is that 230 frames RAW or cRAW?

From what I can tell it is 230 RAW frames not CRAW. I would expect CRAW to be around 420 frames (based on the ratio of 170/93, which is the CRAW/RAW frames for the R5 Mk2). I typically shoot in RAW because I want to maximize my ability to recover details in the shadows.

 

[Toamelicious]

I just remembered something: didn't the earlier rumours for the R1 and R5II come with rumours of a new and improved camera connect app?
Is that still a thing or did I overlook something? My last experience with CCC is still the same old horrible piece of garbage software from before.

 

[P-visie]

I just remembered something: didn't the earlier rumours for the R1 and R5II come with rumours of a new and improved camera connect app?
Is that still a thing or did I overlook something? My last experience with CCC is still the same old horrible piece of garbage software from before.

Version 3.2.11 was released on IOS on August 20, same date as the R5 Mk II. New features are support for R5 Mk II and import of the ‘new’. Video formats. I haven’t tested this version so I cannot tell you if it is improved from previous versions.

 

[HarryFilm]

Thought I would chime in here that I notice a DISTINCT difference between the old 1Dx mk3 and the R1 introduction where photographers were a bit blase' about the 1Dx3 but are much more excited about the R1. The R1 is actually a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 1Dx3 especially in focusing.

That said, I definitely notice A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE are truly excited by the R5 Mk2. That 8K video resolution and big image resolution boost over the R1 and the R5's on-screen waveform monitor means that this time around it doesn't actually make sense to buy an R1 when you get a heck of a lot more Bang-for-the-Buck from the R52 over the R1.

I already sense the R52 is a much bigger hit of a camera than the R1 and Canon will be selling at a 4:1 or even 6:1 ratio of R5's versus R1's sold. I cannot see a good reason to buy the R1 over an R5 when it seems to me the R52 is simply the BETTER CAMERA features-wise and price-wise! The R1 is NOT THAT MUCH of an improvement over the older 1Dx3! It's merely a better focusing camera with a different lens mount and if YOU are looking for a new camera, the R52 is simply too much of a better deal when compared to the R1!

Buy the R52! You get a Waveform monitor and higher resolution! It's the BETTER CAMERA FOR THE PRICE!

V

 

[koenkooi]

Version 3.2.11 was released on IOS on August 20, same date as the R5 Mk II. New features are support for R5 Mk II and import of the ‘new’. Video formats. I haven’t tested this version so I cannot tell you if it is improved from previous versions.

The icon changed It behaves the same as always, though.

I did test the livestream feature, fun, but limited to 1080p and 6 mbit/s.

 

[Del Paso]

Thought I would chime in here that I notice a DISTINCT difference between the old 1Dx mk3 and the R1 introduction where photographers were a bit blase' about the 1Dx3 but are much more excited about the R1. The R1 is actually a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 1Dx3 especially in focusing.

That said, I definitely notice A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE are truly excited by the R5 Mk2. That 8K video resolution and big image resolution boost over the R1 and the R5's on-screen waveform monitor means that this time around it doesn't actually make sense to buy an R1 when you get a heck of a lot more Bang-for-the-Buck from the R52 over the R1.

I already sense the R52 is a much bigger hit of a camera than the R1 and Canon will be selling at a 4:1 or even 6:1 ratio of R5's versus R1's sold. I cannot see a good reason to buy the R1 over an R5 when it seems to me the R52 is simply the BETTER CAMERA features-wise and price-wise! The R1 is NOT THAT MUCH of an improvement over the older 1Dx3! It's merely a better focusing camera with a different lens mount and if YOU are looking for a new camera, the R52 is simply too much of a better deal when compared to the R1!

Buy the R52! You get a Waveform monitor and higher resolution! It's the BETTER CAMERA FOR THE PRICE!

V

Thank you Harry for your very precious insights!
But I will rather wait for your super acrylic zoomlens, since I don't know for sure whether it will be available in RF mount.
It would be a pity to invest in an obsolete camera system!
I want your fantastic ultra zoomlens, the camera is a negligible detail!

 

[bendilts]

Hi: I had the same experience getting eye control to work at first. It would work, but it was consistently off by 10 degrees or more.

I then tried calibrating with both eyes open as I shoot this way pretty often. My left eye was focused on a small object six feet away. I then moved the camera until the calibration dot I saw with my right eye lined up with the object I saw with my left eye. Since your eyes work in unison, they focus on the same object, which feels more natural than looking at the dot alone.

It now works pretty well. I need more practice to decide whether this is more of a gimmick than a great feature.

I saw a comment in the article saying the R1 joystick was better than the R3's. The same is true for the R52 vs. R5. They look almost exactly the same, but the texture is softer and has a much better feel to it.

It's so bad for me that if I stare at a single point in the frame and don't move, the target cursor will wander around half of the frame constantly. It never sits still.

 

[mmmm]

Thought I would chime in here that I notice a DISTINCT difference between the old 1Dx mk3 and the R1 introduction where photographers were a bit blase' about the 1Dx3 but are much more excited about the R1. The R1 is actually a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 1Dx3 especially in focusing.

That said, I definitely notice A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE are truly excited by the R5 Mk2. That 8K video resolution and big image resolution boost over the R1 and the R5's on-screen waveform monitor means that this time around it doesn't actually make sense to buy an R1 when you get a heck of a lot more Bang-for-the-Buck from the R52 over the R1.

I already sense the R52 is a much bigger hit of a camera than the R1 and Canon will be selling at a 4:1 or even 6:1 ratio of R5's versus R1's sold. I cannot see a good reason to buy the R1 over an R5 when it seems to me the R52 is simply the BETTER CAMERA features-wise and price-wise! The R1 is NOT THAT MUCH of an improvement over the older 1Dx3! It's merely a better focusing camera with a different lens mount and if YOU are looking for a new camera, the R52 is simply too much of a better deal when compared to the R1!

Buy the R52! You get a Waveform monitor and higher resolution! It's the BETTER CAMERA FOR THE PRICE!

V

Focusing on the perceived and arguable benefits of an r5ii, whilst completely disregarding the perceived and arguable benefits of the r1. Using capital letters no less!

Really, they both have unique benefits which will really only be applicable to the buyer in question.

Go you with the r5ii love though! Warms my cockles to see blossoming young romance.

Seriously though, I really think many of the perceived downsides of the r1 v the r5ii, are actually upsides to many people. And many of the perceived benefits of the r5ii are superfluous to perhaps the same group.

 

[john1970]

Thought I would chime in here that I notice a DISTINCT difference between the old 1Dx mk3 and the R1 introduction where photographers were a bit blase' about the 1Dx3 but are much more excited about the R1. The R1 is actually a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 1Dx3 especially in focusing.

That said, I definitely notice A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE are truly excited by the R5 Mk2. That 8K video resolution and big image resolution boost over the R1 and the R5's on-screen waveform monitor means that this time around it doesn't actually make sense to buy an R1 when you get a heck of a lot more Bang-for-the-Buck from the R52 over the R1.

I already sense the R52 is a much bigger hit of a camera than the R1 and Canon will be selling at a 4:1 or even 6:1 ratio of R5's versus R1's sold. I cannot see a good reason to buy the R1 over an R5 when it seems to me the R52 is simply the BETTER CAMERA features-wise and price-wise! The R1 is NOT THAT MUCH of an improvement over the older 1Dx3! It's merely a better focusing camera with a different lens mount and if YOU are looking for a new camera, the R52 is simply too much of a better deal when compared to the R1!

Buy the R52! You get a Waveform monitor and higher resolution! It's the BETTER CAMERA FOR THE PRICE!

V

Just FYI Canon has always sold more 5 series cameras than 1 series cameras that is no surprise. The 5-series is a great all-around professional grade camera while the 1-series focuses on a very specific audience (e.g. photojournalist, sports photographers) who demand the best in terms of reliability, low-light performance, best possible focusing, etc.

I saw a video where a Canon rep described the R5 Mk2 as a Swiss Army knife (great all-around) and the R1 as a surgeon's scalpel (more specialized tool for a specialized task/group).

 

[AlanF]

Just FYI Canon has always sold more 5 series cameras than 1 series cameras that is no surprise. The 5-series is a great all-around professional grade camera while the 1-series focuses on a very specific audience (e.g. photojournalist, sports photographers) who demand the best in terms of reliability, low-light performance, best possible focusing, etc.

I saw a video where a Canon rep described the R5 Mk2 as a Swiss Army knife (great all-around) and the R1 as a surgeon's scalpel (more specialized tool for a specialized task/group).

More like a sledgehammer than a scalpel.

 

[Bob Howland]

Why do you need more mpx for landscape photos?

Wild guess: for whatever reason, people tend to think of landscape prints as large, 20x30 seems about right, maybe even larger. When people do portraits they think 8x10 or 11x14. Ironically, the largest prints I've ever seen were 7 feet high and about 40 inches wide. They were life size standing portraits of the buyer's two sons. There was also a more square portrait of the daughter, in an unwise pose for a 16 year old. The buyer had a two story living room with lots of bare wall space. They were taken with a Canon 5Ds, maybe 5DsR.

 

[AUGS]

Wild guess: for whatever reason, people tend to think of landscape prints as large, 20x30 seems about right, maybe even larger. When people do portraits they think 8x10 or 11x14. Ironically, the largest prints I've ever seen were 7 feet high and about 40 inches wide. They were life size standing portraits of the buyer's two sons. There was also a more square portrait of the daughter, in an unwise pose for a 16 year old. The buyer had a two story living room with lots of bare wall space. They were taken with a Canon 5Ds, maybe 5DsR.

I have regularly created prints 20x60" for landscapes - about 10 in the last 2 years. It isn't common, but this format lends itself to the old 6x17 medium format film camera era. They are expensive to print on typical papers - and then frame (you don't need as many pixels if you print on canvas due to the texture). I have normally stitched multiple images to get this size, but if you have "any" moving elements (like seascapes, clouds or even trees in the wind) this isn't always possible. More megapixels would be useful for these cases, so you can crop the height where you want to get the best proportions for final composition. My 5DsR holds up okay, but I'd like more occasionally. Looking forward to the day I can upgrade to mirrorless.

 

[sanj]

Thought I would chime in here that I notice a DISTINCT difference between the old 1Dx mk3 and the R1 introduction where photographers were a bit blase' about the 1Dx3 but are much more excited about the R1. The R1 is actually a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the 1Dx3 especially in focusing.

That said, I definitely notice A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE are truly excited by the R5 Mk2. That 8K video resolution and big image resolution boost over the R1 and the R5's on-screen waveform monitor means that this time around it doesn't actually make sense to buy an R1 when you get a heck of a lot more Bang-for-the-Buck from the R52 over the R1.

I already sense the R52 is a much bigger hit of a camera than the R1 and Canon will be selling at a 4:1 or even 6:1 ratio of R5's versus R1's sold. I cannot see a good reason to buy the R1 over an R5 when it seems to me the R52 is simply the BETTER CAMERA features-wise and price-wise! The R1 is NOT THAT MUCH of an improvement over the older 1Dx3! It's merely a better focusing camera with a different lens mount and if YOU are looking for a new camera, the R52 is simply too much of a better deal when compared to the R1!

Buy the R52! You get a Waveform monitor and higher resolution! It's the BETTER CAMERA FOR THE PRICE!

V

My uneducated guess would be 30:1 in favour of R52