Quad Pixel Autofocus is ready for production [CR1]

[David - Sydney]

1. 45-60 MP – The R1 as a hybrid camera, sacrificing some speed in favor of a higher MP count to support 8K video. If they go this route, it suggests the R3 is the first camera in a series of lower MP, highest speed bodies. This would amount to a tacit acknowledgement that they made a mistake combining the 1D and 1Ds lines.
2. 80+ MP – The R1 as a high MP beast. Likely a substantial tradeoff in speed. Possibly they use a quad Bayer sensor like the newer iPhone Pros or the OM-1 (2x2 clusters of the same color mask) to allow RAW images at 1/4 the pixel count, but that means an IQ tradeoff when shooting full resolution so it seems unlikely to me for a 1-series camera. Personally, I doubt this will happen.

Personally, I suspect #1 was Canon's choice. It's the conservative choice, and that seems consistent with Canon's camera body strategy to date. Arguments that reference Sony and Nikon's higher MP flagships as a reason for Canon to follow suit fail to address why Canon should follow suit. Consider instead that Sony and Nikon are releasing higher MP flagship bodies because Canon is not. Competing head-to-head with the company that dominates the market not often the best strategy.

From the comments on this forum, it seems many users here would prefer the second or third options. For those who believe opinions expressed here have any significance, review the number of forum posts expressing desire/need for the release of an RF 50/1.4, and before 2018 an update to the EF 50/1.4...and then consider Canon's complete lack of 'response'.

For #2/#3, the key limitation is processing power/efficiency assuming a fast readout from the sensor. Sony (A1/A9iii)/Nikon (Z8/Z9) have demonstrated significant inroads over the last couple of years in this area. Canon has a possibility to respond and justify the expected higher priced R1.

The key issue I can see (and I am not a potential buyer of a R1) is whether the end image can be an oversampled 2x2 pixel cluster ie ~20mp "raw" image or not at significant speed.
Best of both worlds if a ~80mp sensor can have a fast enough output for action @ 20mp/30+fps with fulltime QPAF. Maybe even a line skipped option for very high speeds with reduced DR (effectively smaller pixels).

Of course, Canon doesn't have to and would still sell a bunch of them to current 1DXiii users irrespective.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Having owned both, I don't think the R3 is lacking in durability, reliability, speed, or control. It is on par or better than the 1DX3 in all those areas.

IMO, the R3’s AF could be more reliable, for the reason described. It also has issues with extreme defocus situations, at least in my experience.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For #2/#3, the key limitation is processing power/efficiency assuming a fast readout from the sensor. Sony (A1/A9iii)/Nikon (Z8/Z9) have demonstrated significant inroads over the last couple of years in this area. Canon has a possibility to respond and justify the expected higher priced R1.

The key issue I can see (and I am not a potential buyer of a R1) is whether the end image can be an oversampled 2x2 pixel cluster ie ~20mp "raw" image or not at significant speed.
Best of both worlds if a ~80mp sensor can have a fast enough output for action @ 20mp/30+fps with fulltime QPAF. Maybe even a line skipped option for very high speeds with reduced DR (effectively smaller pixels).

Of course, Canon doesn't have to and would still sell a bunch of them to current 1DXiii users irrespective.

Agreed. And we’re back to, "Major principles for the EOS-1 series from the beginning have been durability, reliability, speed and control." Resolution is not on the list.

The 1Ds bodies were fast in their day. But eliminating the reflex mirror removed a major speed restriction. I don’t see Canon making a 1-series body where lower models are substantially faster, and that means keeping the MP count modest.

 

[john1970]

I hope that the R1 continues along the lines of the 1Dx Mk3 where it has a limitless buffer when acquiring 14-bit RAW photos. Honestly, I would be perfectly content with mid-30s for the number of megapixels. In terms of speed I would expect them to match (or exceed) 40 fps which can be done with lesser Canon cameras.

 

[frankchn]

I hope that the R1 continues along the lines of the 1Dx Mk3 where it has a limitless buffer when acquiring 14-bit RAW photos. Honestly, I would be perfectly content with mid-30s for the number of megapixels. In terms of speed I would expect them to match (or exceed) 40 fps which can be done with lesser Canon cameras.

That shouldn't be a problem even with higher megapixel counts nowadays. Uncompressed 50 megapixel RAWs @ 14-bits/pixel = 87.5 MB. CFexpress 4.0 Type B cards can do ~3000 MB/s write, and with overhead let's call it 2500 MB/s sustained write speeds. That's ~29 fps at 50 megapixels.

I was surprised that Sony didn't put in CFe 4.0 into the A9III as the buffer depth on that at 120 fps isn't great and Sony using CFe Type A already means half the bandwidth compared to Canon/Nikon. They've also been earlier adopters of new tech compared to Canon/Nikon as well.

 

[frankchn]

The other question is if the R1 would include any 8K video recording capability. If it does and I suspect it will (flagship and all that), then you are looking at the R5's megapixel count at a minimum.

 

[DBounce]

Hasn’t the OM Solutions OM-1 had QPAF for years now?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was surprised that Sony didn't put in CFe 4.0 into the A9III

Me too as Sony sells overpriced Type A 4.0 cards.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Hasn’t the OM Solutions OM-1 had QPAF for years now?

Yes, and it is nowhere as good as Canon DPAF.

 

[simonella_virus]

Yes, and it is nowhere as good as Canon DPAF.

I’ve used the om1 for about a half year. I quite enjoyed it.

But what infuriated me was their implementation of subject detection vs human detection. Humans are technically not a selectable subject (wtf?)

And how a lot of times, in full-screen af mode, with subject detect on (say, a bird), it would love to focus on foreground or background, even though it clearly displayed a box around the subject. It was very frustrating.

My canon r8 and r7 still do this sometimes (focus on foreground/ background) but nowhere near as much. The AF is far more reliable with canon!

 

[koenkooi]

I’ve used the om1 for about a half year. I quite enjoyed it.

But what infuriated me was their implementation of subject detection vs human detection. Humans are technically not a selectable subject (wtf?)

And how a lot of times, in full-screen af mode, with subject detect on (say, a bird), it would love to focus on foreground or background, even though it clearly displayed a box around the subject. It was very frustrating.

My canon r8 and r7 still do this sometimes (focus on foreground/ background) but nowhere near as much. The AF is far more reliable with canon!

On Canon bodies detection (e.g. faces/eyes) is still decoupled from actual autofocus, as in driving the lens motors. The detection algo will select the area where AF should focus in, but the AF system is free to pick any point in that area to focus on. When it finds and eye, the area is usually small and shallow enough to do the right thing, but a heron in front of reeds is a classic situation where 'older' R bodies like to wander off the subject.

I keep hoping for Canon to add a better feedback loop and/or have a contrast (and hence image) based final step in the AF loop. I'd happily trade a few fps for precise and accurate AF. I can do with fewer than 40fps when using my R8

 

[Tony5787]

Yeah the R3’s autofocus system is the best I’ve used but there are definitely cases where it could be better/more stable with eye autofocus. It has this tendency to grab focus on the bird or the eye and then shift focus a few seconds later if I’m shooting low or there’s foreground blur that I’m trying to incorporate in the shot. Grass in general just seems to confuse it quite a bit so hopefully QPAF will help with that.

 

[sanj]

IMO, the R3’s AF could be more reliable, for the reason described. It also has issues with extreme defocus situations, at least in my experience.

I remember seeing a video from a Canon spokesperson regarding R1. He was saying that R1 would be more 'reliable' in extreme shooting conditions. E.g. cold weather, rain etc. The talk was more about ruggedness reliability than AF etc reliability. Of course, AF would become better with the progression of time...

 

[jjesp]

Really? What was the point in going mirrorless then if not for the fantastic AF system?

What has mirrorless to do with AF? I thought the point was that you see what you get in the EVF. If you expose wrong, you notice it right away. And yes you also see wrong focusing. That is why manual lenses are fine to use with EVF.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

What has mirrorless to do with AF? I thought the point was that you see what you get in the EVF. If you expose wrong, you notice it right away. And yes you also see wrong focusing. That is why manual lenses are fine to use with EVF.

DSLR's use a hardware based AF system. There's some limited implementation of the same dual pixel sensor based AF that is matured on the mirrorless cameras on the last gen DSLR's (such as the 1DXIII and 5Dmk4). This is usually activated via the live view mode. I noticed on my old 5Dmk3 that the live view
AF was a lot more accurate (although slow) than the primary AF system.

Where as the Mirrorless cameras took this software based AF system to a whole different level. Now with facial recognition, Eye detect and super fast servo tracking, the R5/R6ii and R3's AF is in a wholly different league. Now the whole frame is an active AF point and the servo tracking is now simply astonishing.

The EVF's in most of Canon's linage are only 2mp is resolution and it no where near is deatiled enough to see fine focus. The 3.5mp EVF in the R6ii is noticbably better, but still quite poor. I have to trust wholly in my R6ii/R8's amazing AF to nail the focus on my EF 35mm f1.4 IIL, EF 85mm F1.2 II L and EF 135mm F2.0 L lenses. The R5 and R3 have the Canon flagship 5.6mp EVF and they are noticably better. There are rumours that Canon will be fitting a 8mp EVF into the R1 and R5mkII....whihc again will be a substantial upgrade.

In short, the newer Canon mirrorless cameras have state of the art AF systems and current best in class EVF's. It's the EVF's that really need to improve to really take over from the previous state of the art optical view finders.

 

[simonella_virus]

On Canon bodies detection (e.g. faces/eyes) is still decoupled from actual autofocus, as in driving the lens motors. The detection algo will select the area where AF should focus in, but the AF system is free to pick any point in that area to focus on. When it finds and eye, the area is usually small and shallow enough to do the right thing, but a heron in front of reeds is a classic situation where 'older' R bodies like to wander off the subject.

I keep hoping for Canon to add a better feedback loop and/or have a contrast (and hence image) based final step in the AF loop. I'd happily trade a few fps for precise and accurate AF. I can do with fewer than 40fps when using my R8

This is true but i find the hit rate higher for canon. On one of my last canoe trips i used full screen AF for all of my shots (photography wasn’t the priority) and i got excellent results.

 

[Bahrd]

DSLR's use a hardware based AF system.

If I split hairs (like Canon does pixels in two or four), I would argue that all phase-detection AF systems in mirrorless cameras are hardware based as well (i.e. they require dedicated electronics/optics at the physical sensor level).

But I wouldn't...

 

[Del Paso]

If I split hairs (like Canon does pixels in two or four), I would argue that all phase-detection AF systems in mirrorless cameras are hardware based as well (i.e. they require dedicated electronics/optics at the physical sensor level).

But I wouldn't...

Splitting hairs is funnily an international expression. It exists in English, French, Italian, German and certainly many other languages. The French variant speaks of cutting hairs in four.

 

[danfaz]

Hasn’t the OM Solutions OM-1 had QPAF for years now?

And? I know I'm being a smarty pants, but what is the point here? Apparently they have, but I haven't seen any rave reviews about OM's awesome AF capabilities.

 

[danfaz]

My canon r8 and r7 still do this sometimes (focus on foreground/ background) but nowhere near as much. The AF is far more reliable with canon!

I noticed this with an R7 I bought recently. Although the AF is supposed to be more advanced than the R5's, I was frustrated with its AF. It would also randomly bounce off of the subject/eye in focus, then back on. Just wouldn't stay locked on. My R5 almost never misses, and stays locked on.
I ended up returning the R7.