Read noise is always there in modern sensors, they haven't managed to get rid of it yet, and probably never will.
Upvote
0
PhotonsToPhotos Results for the EOS R1
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
I will give you the Z 9 but the a1 does not do anything that the R5 II can't do.
The R5 II is in fact a lot better than the a1 when it comes to video.
Upvote
0
Sure, but their DR is even less.
The R3 is as fast as the a9 II with more DR.
Upvote
0
We should give credit where credit is due. The A9iii has zero rolling shutter compared with 2.7ms for the R1, at the expense of 0.3-0.4 stops of DR. That is not to deny that the R1 looks to be about the best there is in many important properties.
Upvote
0
I shoot my R1 the same as my R3. Electronic shutter, float the ISO and control shutter speed and aperture myself.
I seriously doubt in the 100s of 1000s of images I've shot with 2x R3 bodies that many of the images were at 200 or 100 ISO.
That's not what these cameras are designed for.
I seriously doubt in the 100s of 1000s of images I've shot with 2x R3 bodies that many of the images were at 200 or 100 ISO.
That's not what these cameras are designed for.
Upvote
0
Also, this. If it does turn out the base ISO is 200 and there’s an in-camera pull for ISO 100 (like HTP), I’ll restrict the Auto ISO range to 200 and up.
Upvote
0
I think the comparison should really be against cameras released in the same time period, since technology does move on. Against the 1DX3, the A9II is about 1/3 stop behind in max DR, and is 1/3 stop ahead to slightly less than 1 stop behind in DR depending on where you are in the ISO range.
Upvote
0
Yeah I agree for the core photo taking specs — in fact the R5II can do 30 fps lossless raw but the A1II can only do 20 fps in that mode.
However, I think the A1II has other advantages (likely better buffer, matched fast cards, built-in Ethernet jack, best EVF available in the line-up, etc) that are traditionally in “flagship” cameras.
All that said, the R5II is fantastic value compared to the A1II.
Upvote
0
Unfortunately they all overheat, even the R1: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/r1-overheating.44126
Upvote
0
No evidence was provided of overheating, just a misunderstanding of how the internal temperature gauge works. Until the Camera’s gauge turns red and it physically shuts off with a message of “your camera has overheated” the camera has not overheated. Not saying the R1 won’t overheat, but nobody in these threads have provided any evidence that it has actually overheated.
**I’ve had my R5II get BLISTERING hot where I actually put the camera down and decided to stop using it. The card door was uncomfortable to hold. I was at 8 bars and shooting stills in ES at 30fps bursts for about an hour in 99-101-degree heat. The camera never overheated.**
Upvote
0
Somehow I'm not entirely surprised by this finding. It would have been nice if performance was better than the R3 across the board, but after finding out that the R5 mark II noise performance was slightly WORSE than that of the R5 (caused by a tradeoff from increased readout speed), I was wondering if the same would be true for the R1 - which also had increased readout speed over the R3. I was wondering as much when we heard that R5 II news in November.
With the R1 showing to be more and more of a niche high speed camera in terms of where it sits compared to its other cameras and the competition, I feel that it also makes more and more sense for Canon to make a high end camera aimed towards those other areas (higher megapixels and higher dynamic range, at the cost of some burst rate / readout speed). That would be ideal for portrait, landscape and wildlife photographers that may want the high-end body, viewfinder and battery of the R1, but prefer the higher megapixels of the R5 (or even higher). With how niche the R1 is, it makes more sense for Canon to also target that other 'niche' in another body.
With the R1 showing to be more and more of a niche high speed camera in terms of where it sits compared to its other cameras and the competition, I feel that it also makes more and more sense for Canon to make a high end camera aimed towards those other areas (higher megapixels and higher dynamic range, at the cost of some burst rate / readout speed). That would be ideal for portrait, landscape and wildlife photographers that may want the high-end body, viewfinder and battery of the R1, but prefer the higher megapixels of the R5 (or even higher). With how niche the R1 is, it makes more sense for Canon to also target that other 'niche' in another body.
Upvote
0
You may be right, and the new temperature gauge may be causing a psychological issue for those of us using it, but I have had my r5m2 shut down on me two times now while shooting video in not overly hot conditions. Granted, this was shooting 4k60 video, but it was for 20-minute increments during a cross-country race. I wound up getting a fan grip (a present from my wife for our anniversary) but have yet to use it. I will be in FL for a few days later this week and next and am taking it and the R1 with me to see how they hold up in warmer weather. I plan to put the R5m2 through a video test in the sun with the fan grip to see how it impacts the overheating issue.
Upvote
0
Talking about temperature, it affects signal to noise in the circuitry of the camera. This is important at low iso where the S/N in the circuits can limit the DR. Every 6 deg C increase in temperature roughly doubles the noise, which could result in the loss of a stop of DR. I wonder what temperature the DR measurements are made at in the photonstophotos measurements and whether there is copy variation? As an experimental scientist, I always do multiple measurements to get means and standard deviations/errors - without those statistical data, the significance of measurements is not clear.
Upvote
0
Yeah, I find that disappointing.
The 1DX III never overheated under any circumstances.
To be fair, the video specs were a bit conservative,
Upvote
0
I have been a professional photographer since 1976 and continue to work commercially. I started out in PJ and sports and after four years became a commercial photographer. I have owned nearly every top-of-the line Canon since 1980.
Believe me when I say, the discussion of the minute nuances of DR and the “real” ISO, etc. is not as huge a deal. The cameras are superb by any measure. One of my early assignments was to shoot the pros rock band, Happy the Man, in a concert club in DC. It was available darkness. I dared to push my color chrome film to 800, shooting wide open at 1.4 with my 50. It was always a battle to keep the ASA as low as possible otherwise you ended up with golf ball grain. I would have killed to have the current R1, or R3, or even the R5 (original - I still use). These are phenomenal tools of the trade that have made our jobs easier, and yes, capture images we could not capture before.
Believe me when I say, the discussion of the minute nuances of DR and the “real” ISO, etc. is not as huge a deal. The cameras are superb by any measure. One of my early assignments was to shoot the pros rock band, Happy the Man, in a concert club in DC. It was available darkness. I dared to push my color chrome film to 800, shooting wide open at 1.4 with my 50. It was always a battle to keep the ASA as low as possible otherwise you ended up with golf ball grain. I would have killed to have the current R1, or R3, or even the R5 (original - I still use). These are phenomenal tools of the trade that have made our jobs easier, and yes, capture images we could not capture before.
Upvote
0
I’ve yet to have my R1 overheat… though it does get hot. My Sony A9III stays cooler than the considerably larger R1. I do agree Canon need to work more on heat management. I believe this is in large part attributed to the CF Express type B cards, that tend to get hot. Type A cards do not seem to get anywhere near as hot.
After much real world shooting with both, I think the A9III is the superior camera. The Sony is the faster of the two. The redesigned body is a pleasure to use (something I never thought I’d say regarding a Sony). Real world IBIS performance is better than the Canon. The Sony’s AF system is head and shoulders above the Canon. As a hybrid shooter, video is a large part of my use. The fully articulating screen is a big win on the Sony. The Monitor+ app is fantastic… stable, full featured and easy to use. Canon has no equivalent.
In all honesty, my R1 feels like a minor refresh from my R3; In hand you can barely perceive any difference. I do wish Canon had done more to differentiate the two. I feel for most shooters the R1 is an upgrade that could be safely skipped.
Upvote
0
Let me quote Canon's manual again:
"...The white [Overheating warning] icon indicates that the image quality of still photos will decline. Stop shooting for a while and allow the camera to cool down."
"...The red [Overheating warning] icon indicates that shooting will soon be terminated automatically. Shooting will not be possible again until the camera cools down internally, so stop shooting temporarily or turn off the camera and let it cool down a while."
Any time you see the heat gauge (1 white bar e.g.) the camera is starting to overheat. Period. Again, this is from the Canon's user manual. Their words, not mine.
Upvote
0
My experience with those two cameras is slightly different.
I tried some BIF recently with the A93 + Sony 300GM + 2x and Canon R1 + 100-300L + 2x. I found that the AF on the R1 is somewhat better at initial acquisition especially if the bird is small in frame. The actual tracking when the bird has been picked up is similar between the two cameras.
Buffer sizes are similar between the two cameras as well (~195 frames @ 30 fps on the R1 vs ~210 frames @ 30 fps on the A93) though I prefer the Sony behavior of evenly slowing down when the buffer is full rather than the Canon behavior of taking a couple seconds pause before shooting again. Having the 60/120 fps burst on the A93 is nice for specific situations, but I am not sure is necessary.
The articulating screen on the Sony is nice, but I think the overall build and feel on the R1 is better. The R1 EVF is better because (1) ECAF and (2) resolution doesn't drop when AF happens, unlike on the A9III.
I shoot a lot of theater, and the global shutter sensor on the A9III is also useful in specific situations with PWM-dimmed theatrical LED lighting, but I think most people here don't run into this.
I don't shoot video at all, so I can't comment on any of those features.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
