The 1 Series Arrives for the RF Mount

[EOS 4 Life]

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...

Canon could theoretically fit a big enough sensor to compete with GFX is the forgo IBIS just like Pentax does.
That would require a new set of lenses and Canon can't keep up with RF and RF-S lenses as it is.
Also, Canon RF L full-frame lenses vignette like crazy.
I imagine bigger lenses would be even worse.
Although, I can make an argument for Canon wanting such lenses for a C700 65.
However, I would expect such lenses to be LPL.
I do not think LRF cinema lenses would make much sense.
LPL/EF cine lenses would make sense but those would not get photo versions.
Those lenses would also be crazy expensive.
Way more than Fuji GF.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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?

I use an R5 and an R3 currently.
I use CRAW on both due to the buffer limitations.
I would never use CRAW on an R1.
It would not even be a consideration.
I do not have any issues recovering highlights but lifting the shadows brings out a lot of noise.
It is very easy to deal with but it is time that I would not have to spend shooting in RAW.
Since I have learned to live with the R3, I know that I can live with the R5 II and I won't be getting an R1 anytime soon.
I know the R1 is 1000x better but the R3 is good enough for me.
That is all that really matters.

 

[john1970]

I use an R5 and an R3 currently.
I use CRAW on both due to the buffer limitations.
I would never use CRAW on an R1.
It would not even be a consideration.
I do not have any issues recovering highlights but lifting the shadows brings out a lot of noise.
It is very easy to deal with but it is time that I would not have to spend shooting in RAW.
Since I have learned to live with the R3, I know that I can live with the R5 II and I won't be getting an R1 anytime soon.
I know the R1 is 1000x better but the R3 is good enough for me.
That is all that really matters.

Thank you for the feedback. I agree that the R1 with 1000 frame buffer in RAW does not need to use CRAW. I often find myself lifting shadows so would like to stick with RAW when possible. I guess with a 93 frame buffer I can use the electronic shutter at 20 fps which even with pre-capture would give me a 4 sec buffer, which 90% of the time is good enough.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

Canon doesn’t care what you want them to do. They care what camera buyers in aggregate want them to do. Their domination of the market with nearly 50% share says their understanding of the market is vastly superior to yours.

Canon is succeeding due to their reputation that was earned 10+ years ago. Loyalists are either too heavily invested or too stubborn to look at the competition. Canon can offer better and we all know it. Why not offer the R1 with 45mp? This deficiency is intentional because they know buyers will pay for both the R1 and R5ii.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

^^This. The people who are the target audience, will buy the camera. I’d guess that 99% of the people complaining about it on the Internet we’re never going to buy it anyway.

40+mp and the ability for the rear screen to tilt and I would have preordered. The view finder resolution is insane by the way, this almost compensates for what it lacks.

 

[Quack]

Canon is succeeding due to their reputation that was earned 10+ years ago. Loyalists are either too heavily invested or too stubborn to look at the competition. Canon can offer better and we all know it. Why not offer the R1 with 45mp? This deficiency is intentional because they know buyers will pay for both the R1 and R5ii.

What a bunch of bull. Canon can do better? Seriously? You think they had all these other advances all set for the R1 and then said. "No, let's not give people our best. They won't care because of our reputation." But apparently by better you simply mean 45 mp. Why not just say that you wish they had used a 45 mp sensor because that is what you wanted? To answer your question of why not offer an R1 with 45 mp? Because the target market of sports shooters obviously indicated to Canon that they wanted more speed, more accurate and faster AF, and not more MP. The deficiency is intentional because their market research indicated that the target market wanted 24 mp. And, yes, Canon understands that it is better to not duplicate the specs in their pro level cameras because that means it is more likely that some people will buy both.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon is succeeding due to their reputation that was earned 10+ years ago. Loyalists are either too heavily invested or too stubborn to look at the competition.

Nikon was within a couple of percentage points of Canon’s market share and also had an excellent reputation 10+ years ago. So it seems there must be other reasons for Canon’s continued dominance.

For 1 thing, the Nikon 1 was a botched entry into mirrorless while Canon succeeded with the M line (which in 2018-2019 comprised over 15% of all ILCs being sold).

But feel free to ignore facts that don’t align with your opinion.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

What a bunch of bull. Canon can do better? Seriously? You think they had all these other advances all set for the R1 and then said. "No, let's not give people our best. They won't care because of our reputation." But apparently by better you simply mean 45 mp. Why not just say that you wish they had used a 45 mp sensor because that is what you wanted? To answer your question of why not offer an R1 with 45 mp? Because the target market of sports shooters obviously indicated to Canon that they wanted more speed, more accurate and faster AF, and not more MP. The deficiency is intentional because their market research indicated that the target market wanted 24 mp. And, yes, Canon understands that it is better to not duplicate the specs in their pro level cameras because that means it is more likely that some people will buy both.

They've had years to develop the R1 since the R3 was released. Sorry, the R1 is a disappointment. Many, many others agree.

 

[neuroanatomist]

40+mp and the ability for the rear screen to tilt and I would have preordered. The view finder resolution is insane by the way, this almost compensates for what it lacks.

Sure, sure. A $9500 lens is well out of your price range, but a you’d have bought a $6200 camera in a heartbeat.

From a thread on the RF 100-300/2.8:

exactly what I've been waiting for, another lens I can't afford.

If the R1 had 45 MP and a tilt screen, your excuse would be that the tilt screen was only 2 million dots, not 4 million like the R3. Or that it didn’t come in a Hello Kitty print.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They've had years to develop the R1 since the R3 was released. Sorry, the R1 is a disappointment. Many, many others agree.

No doubt. Many people are unhappy with the 2024 Ferrari performance. Yet they drive Toyotas and Fords.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

Nikon was within a couple of percentage points of Canon’s market share and also had an excellent reputation 10+ years ago. So it seems there must be other reasons for Canon’s continued dominance.

For 1 thing, the Nikon 1 was a botched entry into mirrorless while Canon succeeded with the M line (which in 2018-2019 comprised over 15% of all ILCs being sold).

But feel free to ignore facts that don’t align with your opinion.

Funny that you only point to Nikon, which is now making great mirrorless cameras. What about Sony who now owns a significant market share, yeah, a company that used to make cassette players? Market dominance doesn't happen overnight and Canon won't be at the top forever. Fact, Canon will be surpassed.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

No doubt. Many people are unhappy with the 2024 Ferrari performance. Yet they drive Toyotas and Fords.

Lol

 

[Flip'n flippy]

No doubt. Many people are unhappy with the 2024 Ferrari performance. Yet they drive Toyotas and Fords.

Ferrari? That's a bit of a stretch for comparison to the competition.

 

[meywd]

Funny that you only point to Nikon, which is now making great mirrorless cameras. What about Sony who now owns a significant market share, yeah, a company that used to make cassette players? Market dominance doesn't happen overnight and Canon won't be at the top forever. Fact, Canon will be surpassed.

So Sony never made video cameras?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Funny that you only point to Nikon, which is now making great mirrorless cameras. What about Sony who now owns a significant market share, yeah, a company that used to make cassette players? Market dominance doesn't happen overnight and Canon won't be at the top forever. Fact, Canon will be surpassed.

Nikon lost their market share to Sony. Canon lost nothing. Canon dominates the ILC market, including the mirrorless segment (where they hold a 41% share compared to Sony at 32% and Nikon at 13%). Sony used to lead mirrorless. Canon surpassed them.

Your opinion is not a fact. Get over it.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

Sure, sure. A $9500 lens is well out of your price range, but a you’d have bought a $6200 camera in a heartbeat.

From a thread on the RF 100-300/2.8:


If the R1 had 45 MP and a tilt screen, your excuse would be that the tilt screen was only 2 million dots, not 4 million like the R3. Or that it didn’t come in a Hello Kitty print.

That lens doesn't cover 16-400mm so it will take more than one lens. Wide-angle zoom, normal zoom, several fast primes and the investment adds up. $6200 for a camera that excels at everything is well worth it.

If the R1 was released with only a 1-megapixel sensor, and a shutter button you would vehemently defend Canon. Get over it.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

Who is 'we'? Do you believe you speak for all, most, or some photographers? Or just yourself? Do you believe you understand the camera market better the company that has led that market for >20 years?

If the R1 doesn't appeal to you, don't buy it. Simple. But the fact that it doesn't appeal to you personally does not mean Canon doesn't understand the market. They just don't care about your personal needs...nor should they.

Defending Canon appears to be your job, don't work too much overtime.

 

[Del Paso]

Funny that you only point to Nikon, which is now making great mirrorless cameras. What about Sony who now owns a significant market share, yeah, a company that used to make cassette players? Market dominance doesn't happen overnight and Canon won't be at the top forever. Fact, Canon will be surpassed.

Ridiculous argument.
Didn't Sony acquire Minolta/Konica?
Didn't they hire many Nikon optical engineers?
Poor little cassette player maker became overnight a great camera and optical company? Hahaha!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Defending Canon appears to be your job, don't work too much overtime.

I’m sorry that facts offend you so. Not the way I’d choose to go through life.

 

[SpecInspector]

I feel like the R1 is a marketing trick to make people buy yet another camera. Come back and like this post when Canon releases the 36MegaPixel R1mk2 next year.