I confirm. But this is, I suppose, a strong indication that the new TS lenses will have an RF designation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Quad Pixel Autofocus is ready for production [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
1 guy's answer:
A - For people who are already super happy with the R3, 24 MP is indeed sufficient
B - For many people who held off buying the R3 (or returned it, as I did), it is not
C - Many anticipate that this os one reason why the R1 will have higher resolution, as it would make total sense to rationally-brained people
D - Canon has never followed that logic with the 1 series cameras, and I don't expect them to suddenly start following Sony/Nikon's product strategies just because they make sense.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
So many great images, also on this forum, were made with 24MP cameras. Unless you need very heavy cropping, I don't know why 24 MP shouldn't get you satisfied.
My current cameras have 30 MP, but less definition than the newer 24 MP sensors. And I do lots of cropping, though never extreme. My reason to buy the R5 II is my hope of getting eye-control AF, not the 45 (or more?) MP.
For BIF, especially tiny birds, far away, more MP would be a better choice. To put it short: it depends on your subjects and enlargements.
Upvote
0
After merging the two 1-series lines into one, Canon kept the 1D X series bodies at relatively low MP counts (18, 20, 20 for the three iterations). As I see it, Canon had three range options for the MP count of the R1 (past tense, because the MP count of the R1 is likely set):
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'.
- 24-36 MP – The R1 as a successor to the 1D X II/III to bring those users to mirrorless. If this is the goal, I'd guess something on the order of 30 MP, a 50% (numerical) bump over the 1D X II/III, higher than the R3, significant but not a massive change. This seems consistent with the original aim of the 1D X series, a combination of blazing speed and good resolution in a robust body. If they go this route, it suggests the R3 will not see a MkII but rather was a stopgap launched to accommodate those who wanted an integrated grip MILC before Canon was ready to call something a 1-series. Further, with a relatively low MP R1, I suspect they'd launch an R5s or something similar, relatively slow but with a very high MP count.
- 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.
- 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.
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'.
Upvote
0
Probably a good call. The evidence suggests that DPAF (and even more so QPAF) works better in low light with larger pixels and that makes perfect sense. I wouldn't be so quick to rule out a quad Bayer approach, though. A 24/96 or 30/120 MP feature would actually offer both high speed and high resolution. If the software to recover color info from the quad Bayer array is well developed, the IQ hit wouldn't be that great, particularly when you consider that only the very best lenses (think 85 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8) will really take advantage of that kind of resolution. Alternatively, the dual resolution feature could be introduced in an R5 II or maybe even more logically in an R3 II, since the R3 has been kind of an experimental platform all the way back to film days.
Upvote
0
Since I’m not in the market for a gripped body, I would prefer the R5s option.
The extra MPs will be very much appreciated when focus stacking, cropping and denoising.
The extra MPs will be very much appreciated when focus stacking, cropping and denoising.
Upvote
0
How does software recover color information that isn't there? Interpolation is not recovery. In that context, while the OM-1 does offer an '80 MP high res shot mode', the top-line spec is a 20 MP sensor. Similarly, the iPhone defaults to a 12 MP image from its 48 MP quad Bayer sensor, you only get the individual pixel readouts when shooting in ProRAW or when at 2x zoom (which uses the central 1/4 of the main camera sensor)...but with an iPhone there's already a ton of processing including NR applied even before a DNG is created, so I'd argue any effect of the extra color interpolation is lost anyway).
But...that's a good point I hadn't considered. Actually, I think it's a reasonably likely option for Canon to follow OM in this – an R1 with a top-line spec of 30 MP that uses a quad Bayer sensor and has a 120 MP high res mode. That would actually align with QPAF very well. Also, there's a precedent for the output with dual-pixel RAW. That would probably mean the 4x MP output would require processing with DPP, but it would be available for those who want it. That option seems to tick almost all the boxes...
I wonder if Canon could also cleverly generate an 'oversampled 8K' video from the individual pixels (someone with more technical knowledge of video processing than I have would know better if that's feasible). If so, that would tick the last box that is probably the biggest challenge to a 1-series without 8K video (not that I think 8K is necessary...but again that's an area where Canon knows the market better than anyone here).
I can see it in a 5-series, not in an R3 II. But still, I doubt they'd release a quad-Bayer sensor with a top-line spec counting the individual pixels.
Upvote
0
I do crop, mostly moderate but when reach is limited I either crop heavily (leaving only 5mp from original 30MP) or shoot in crop mode (or both). The 200-800mm will eventually help with reach and reduce the need for cropping, but I'll patiently wait for a price drop or a refurb version (not before 2025/ prob. 2026) because it absolutely won't be a lens which I use daily/ often and therefore I'll take a price cautious approach. I´m not even sure if I'd take on all my travels. Probably just more likely for dedicated shootings like wild-life, birding and such...but never just to tag along.
For the great R6mkii deal I was a little late, but it didn't bother me at all. I figured it was GAS
Great deals come and go, I couldn't make up my mind this time, maybe I'll do so next time.
Upvote
0
If you look at the recent progress in noise reduction, there is a huge difference between simple interpolation and AI reconstruction.
I agree that Canon would not use the quad Bayer number for the top line spec, but if they can get resolution enhancement as effective as we see on the latest iPhone, then they certainly would hype the feature. Required processing in DPP would be a bust, though, because DPP is a real dog for any kind of volume processing. The processing either needs to be done in-camera (a la Apple) or Canon would need to work with (at least) Adobe to allow the processing to be done in the photo editor. Since JPEGs would have to be processed in-camera for them to be immediately available (an absolute requirement for pros), then my sense is that all processing would be in-camera with a significant battery life hit for the high-res mode (think RTX 4070 in your camera
)4k, and high-speed 4k at that, is an absolute requirement. Canon will not abandon DCI support in a 1 series and high-speed, high-IQ video is most easily achieved with integer scaling. That leaves DCI related 6k, 7k, 8k, and 9k horizontal resolutions that result in minimum 25.2MP, 34.3MP, 44.8 MP, or 56.7 MP as logical choices. The last two are directly 8k capable, but the evidence so far shows that larger pixels result in faster AF response (particularly in low light) and this will be true of QPAF also. On that basis, I am thinking a nominal 26MP is the sweet spot, and yes, maybe they can extract 8k out of the quad array since we are still talking an integer ratio. Fun speculation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think for Canon to choose (1), it would have to be really blazing fast (60 fps RAW @ 30 MP with full AE/AF). Even then, that thunder got stolen by the A9III's global shutter, even if you take a DR hit. If Canon chose this, I suspect it would be branded an R3 Mark II instead of an R1. Alternatively, Canon would have named the R3 the R1 instead, since the R3 is in all respects a worthy successor to the 1DX3.
I still think (2) is the most likely because, to me, the flagship Canon camera should be as at home capturing landscapes and architecture with good resolution and dynamic range with the upcoming TS-R as it is on a football or baseball field. Other manufacturers have shown that this is possible.
I still think something happened to cause them to name the current R3 the R3 instead of R1. Maybe they caught wind of the A1 and Z9's specifications (same fps but twice megapixels), who knows.
There are circumstantial evidence here as well with the release dates if you look back to previous camera launches. The EOS line was launched with the EOS 650 in 1987, and 2 years later, the EOS-1 flagship appeared. The EOS digital line was launched with the D30, and 1 year later the original 1D appeared, and a year after that, the 1Ds appeared. The RF line was launched with the R in 2019, and 2 years later, the R3 "flagship" appeared, which lines up with how Canon launches their flagship camera after introducing a new line of camera products.
Whichever option Canon chooses with the R1, I suspect the R3 is a stop-gap body and a dead-end for the "3" model line.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yeah they do coordinate their launches with the summer Olympics, but still it is curious that 5 years into a new generation of cameras with all the pro lenses (including all the superteles) now available (except for some wide primes and specialty stuff) do we still not have a flagship body, whatever form it takes.
I know Canon marches to the beat of its own drum, but given its history with how they handled the roll out of the original EOS line and the EOS DSLR line, they are 3 years late with a flagship body, unless you assume that the R3 is supposed to be a flagship, then they are right on time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Maybe it is different in Japan since they tend to stay at one company for a long time, but in a big tech company I worked for previously, we would hear specific rumors about competitor products months before anything really makes it onto any public rumor sites.
Upvote
0
Canon's drum is the loudest, though. When you're pounding a big bass drum, you don't need to worry much if the little snare drums are not matching your tempo, because you're enforcing the tempo for the orchestra.
The original EOS line was transformative – autofocus lenses and a new mount lacking backward compatibility. Digital SLRs were a paradigm shift for the industry. The switch to mirrorless is a modest evolution, a DSLR without the mirror. Yes, there's a new mount but everyone's old lenses work via a simple adapter that even adds various functionality. So things keep going right on schedule. No need to put out the R1 ahead of schedule. That's why in 2020, they released a flagship camera as a DLSR.
The most likely target audience for the R1 are owners of the 1D X II, and secondarily owners of the 1D X III and owners of both who already switched to an R3.
I was referring to a change in the name as a result of that as being unlikely. Competitive intelligence works both ways. Canon knew what Sony and Nikon were planning long before the R3 launched, and Sony and Nikon knew what Canon was developing as the R3.
It's pretty simple, IMO. If I point my R3 at louvered closet doors, or for a more relevant example at the horizontal rail at the inner edge of the horse racing track, it simply will not lock focus. When Canon said the technology was not ready for them to call it a 1-series camera, it's an obvious problem for a flagship camera to be unable to focus on a high-contrast feature in a specific orientation.
Upvote
0
I think in that specific situation sure but there are these edge cases for all AF systems. In that case it is easily solvable by rotating the camera just slightly as well. The totality of the AF system in the R3 especially with ECAF is significantly better than what is in the 1DX3 in my experience.
Upvote
0
Quotes from Canon:
"Major principles for the EOS-1 series from the beginning have been durability, reliability, speed and control."
"While the RF system is a major evolution of the EF system, we believe that in order to bestow an RF camera with the “1” model designation, we must achieve an even greater level of performance, and we continue to work towards reaching those high standards."
Upvote
0
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.
The second quote can be read as "our $6k camera is half the resolution of the other $6k flagship cameras on the market, so we can't in good conscience bestow it with the flagship '1' model designation"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
