The 1 Series Arrives for the RF Mount
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Very true. My last 1-series camera was a 1Dx Mk2 and it was a beast.It will never stop functioning. You'll have to shoot it!
Upvote
0
Did any reviewers ask whether Canon plans to support Content Authenticity Initiative digital signatures in the R1 and R5II in the future? I didn't find anything, but Canon is a member of that group. I imagine it would be useful for photojournalists with the R1 at least.
contentauthenticity.org
Our members - Content Authenticity Initiative
Join the global movement for content authenticity and provenance. CAI membership is free and open to all.
contentauthenticity.org
Upvote
0
The R3 has this face register feature and it works in both stills and video.
Upvote
0
To put the correct perspective-
EOS R1 is not disappointing if you see it as a standalone 1 series Canon camera. 1 series enters into mirrorless market. Going by the history, 1 series was never about MPs. 1 series was about having all top-of-line features together in single camera -most advance tech, functionality, reliability, speed, ruggedness and many more things which you find in pieces in cameras below 1 series. Like when a tech feature is developed, it is first deployed in 1 series camera to get the hands on by market and most pro photographers.
Speed and accuracy is what matters most to the journalists and frequent sport shooters. They seldom have enough time to edit, crop, etc. I think controversy arises because of one viewpoint that R1 looks like an all upgrade to R3. And, I myself wonder why now R3 exists? If R3 fills gap between R5 and R1 then is there really a need to fill that gap? Imagine a scenario where we have R5 series and then directly EOS R1. Then may be the debate wouldn't take place.
EOS R1 is not disappointing if you see it as a standalone 1 series Canon camera. 1 series enters into mirrorless market. Going by the history, 1 series was never about MPs. 1 series was about having all top-of-line features together in single camera -most advance tech, functionality, reliability, speed, ruggedness and many more things which you find in pieces in cameras below 1 series. Like when a tech feature is developed, it is first deployed in 1 series camera to get the hands on by market and most pro photographers.
Speed and accuracy is what matters most to the journalists and frequent sport shooters. They seldom have enough time to edit, crop, etc. I think controversy arises because of one viewpoint that R1 looks like an all upgrade to R3. And, I myself wonder why now R3 exists? If R3 fills gap between R5 and R1 then is there really a need to fill that gap? Imagine a scenario where we have R5 series and then directly EOS R1. Then may be the debate wouldn't take place.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pretty funny watching the YouTube shills get all excited over the "new" face recognition focus priority feature. The Canon R3 has had that feature since March 2023 with Firmware v 1.4.0.
Upvote
0
This is a common and inaccurate retelling of history. Until the 1DX series, the 1D was all about balancing performance with good MP and the 1Ds was about outstanding amounts of MP.
2001: EOS 1D 4.48MP, highest in the range with 30% more than the D30.
2003: 1D2 8MP, joint highest in range matching the 20D. 1Ds 17MP!!
2005: 1D2N 8MP, lagging the 5D with 13MP. 1Ds still the champ with 17MP.
2007: 1D3 with 10MP, still lagging the 5D, but 1Ds3 with astonishing 21MP.
2009: 1D4 with 16MP, lagging 5D2 with 21MP. 1Ds3 joint highest with 5D2.
So the 1D performance series traditionally kept within 75% of the highest resolution camera in the range, despite their speed, and the 1Ds set or kept up with the highest resolution.
And how did Canon advertise the 1D? Here's some blurb from the 1D4 announcement:
the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV delivers speed, power and high-resolution images, creating the perfect camera for photographers who require reliability in fast-paced, high-pressure situations.
Note the part I've emboldened; nothing there about "just enough MP" or "sufficient resolution for newspaper photos".
The "1D was always low-res" retcon is inaccurate.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
2009: 105,864,000 cameras shipped
2023: 7,721,000 cameras shipped
History is well and good, but it seems the camera market might be just a teensy, weensy bit different today.
Upvote
0
The same controversy happened when the R3 was only 24 MP.
The controversy seems dumber now since the r5 II is what people wanted the R3 to be.
People got what they want but are angry what Canon named things.
Upvote
0
Some people just can't seem to grasp that in the current lineup, the 1-series is about capturing fast action and not about high MP. They're quick to point out that the 1Ds line did offer high resolution, but Canon apparently felt that carrying two 'flagship' lines with one aimed at action and one at 'studio' use wasn't sustainable...and they made the decision to merge the two lines into the 1D X when there were ~20 million ILCs being sold per year, far more than the ~6 million per year today. To me, that suggests people believing that Canon will come out with a high-MP R1s are out of touch with reality.
The other thing some people can't seem to get past is the idea that since Sony and Nikon have high-MP 'flagship' cameras, Canon needs to do the same. The reality is that the vast majority of ILCs in use today are made by Canon, so what is more likely going on is that Sony and Nikon are choosing to make something that Canon is not. That despite the fact that Sony has a 24 MP camera line clearly aimed at the fast action segment that they don't call their flagship (but even then, after Canon came out with the R3 Sony differentiated the a9 III with a global shutter, focusing the use case even more tightly on action at the expense of 2 stops of dynamic range, a metric Sony has blown their horn about for years).
Canon dominates the market. They haven't achieved and maintained that position by being stupid. They know the sales figures for the industry much better than we do. Having been in senior positions in large companies and knowing how competitive intelligence works, as we sit here debating overall market share numbers that are dribbled out by research firms with a lag of 6-12 months, the camera manufacturers are most likely looking at a breakdown of units sold by each brand and model on a monthly basis and broken down by geography that is essentially current.
If the demand for a high-MP camera is sufficiently strong (and it may well be), then Canon will respond. That probably means an R5s-type camera in the 70-100 MP range. Despite the small, vociferous group clamoring for such a camera on internet forums and predicting imminent doom for Canon unless such a camera is launched yesterday, if Canon does launch a high-MP camera they will not release that camera until a time of their choosing. Meanwhile, people will continue to babble on internet forums and claim that Canon is so late bringing out the camera they personally want. Just like people babbled about how Canon was so 'late to mirrorless' they were doomed. As the recent (but still lagging) data on the 2023 mirrorless market clearly show (with Canon at 41%, Sony at 32% and Nikon at 13%), being 'late to mirrorless' was just another in a long line of Canon-is-Doomed™ fallacies.
Upvote
0
Even if Canon turn out an R5s with 100MP, critics will argue with DLA, stating that no one needs more than Sony's 60MP.
And point out that 100MP make only sense in a MF camera.
Trolls are so inventive...
Upvote
0
I wouldn’t call it glorious by any means. Quite the disappointment all told. The AF is the only thing that impresses and everything else is a let-down.
Lower specs in some basic areas than the R3 (screen, higher frame rate), embarrassing and underwhelming pixel count (24mp), horrible flippy screen design.
The pre-order numbers are super low from what I’m reading, lower than any 1 series camera and it’s not surprising. Canon really messed up.
Upvote
0
The R1 has a a frame rate of 40 fps while the R3 does 30 fps. Both are frankly extremely fast cameras geared towards low-light sports photography hence the relatively lower pixel count of 24 MP. The 195 fps on the R3 was with AE/AF locked and only lasted for less than a second; personally I never had a use for it. The lower screen resolution is a bit odd, but since I shoot via EVF that is not an issue for me, but could be for others.
I also would have liked a few additional pixels (low 28-30 MP), but given that I do most of my photography at sunrise and sunset and my largest output is typically 8x10 I am content with 24 MP. If I need more MP there is the R5 Mk2 at a lower price point.
Upvote
0
@Del Paso Thank you for the advice. I always just try to be honest with the facts that I read from the official spec sheet and from manufacturer's website. I always try to be fair and balanced.Do not waste your time arguing with posters who turn everything into negative and refuse to see reality.
They are here to criticize and will never listen to facts.
Yesterday, I went through the specs of the R5 Mk2 and am still considering it as a backup camera to a R1. However, I am having second thoughts and might cancel my preorder. My concern is the limited RAW buffer of 93 shots. Assuming I set the frame rate to 20 fps, which is fine for a backup I would be looking at only a 4 sec buffer with pre-capture enabled. Would have liked to seen Canon give us a deeper buffer with twice the depth of ~200 shots.
Lastly, I could also use CRAW compressed RAW (lossy compression), which appears to be similar to Nikon High Efficiency and High Efficiency* compressed RAW (lossy compression), that provide a more reasonable buffer of 170 shots.
Has anyone here used CRAW? Are there any disadvantages at higher ISO (>6400) such as noise when boosting shadows? Are is there any loss in the ability to retrieve highlights?
Thank you again.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You're very welcome, sir.
As to Craw, I'm using a similar "lossless" compression with my Leica digital, after much testing and comparing.To be honest, I was unable to see more than a tiny difference between compressed and uncompressed. And I'm not even sure I didn't "force" myself to see such a difference... Must be the same with Canon.
Unfortunately, since I have been using only low MP EOS cameras, like the 5 DIV or R, I didn't even think of testing CRAW. As I'm not into sports, I rarely shoot bursts, and have never filled the buffer.
But many forum members have done so, and use CRAW. They will certainly tell you about their experience!
Upvote
0
I use CRAW almost exclusively and there is only one case where I could spot a difference with regular RAW: extreme low light shooting and lifting shadows in post. Think ISO25600 and 1/100s:
In that case I could see a difference in how DxO would denoise it and pushing the shadows a few stops afterwards. Outside of that, I couldn't spot any differences and I routinely use 200% to inspect my macro pictures. Bird photographers like Jan Wegener have remarked the same, and I haven't found anyone present actual pictures that show differently.
The buffer on my R7 and R8 is even smaller, so I'm happy that CRAW gives me the same quality at half the size. Unless I setup a camera trap at night, then I change to RAW. The R5II opens up the possibility of using flash with ES for that, so I might switch to CRAW for that as well. I've had slugs and snails crawl over the detector, that burned up 5k actuations on my R5 shutter in a single night, so I've switched to ES for this
As with most photography things: give it an honest try yourself, you might find out that the deep shadows at ISO12800 degrade too much for your liking. Or you might find that you can live with the difference, especially with the way Canon (mis)handles a full buffer.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
