The 1 Series Arrives for the RF Mount

[Del Paso]

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.

Now, that's an interesting conspiracy theory! Almost as good as "the R3 should have been the R1".
Did you find it all by yourself?

 

[degos]

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.

I don't think that argument stands scrutiny.

When the 1DX came out we were 'told' that the target market was happy with 18MP and a drop in pixel density from the 1D4. So why would that target market now be requesting 24MP if 18MP was enough?

Does it matter to a sports or news photographer if the raw image is 6000x4000 or 5184x3456 when the output will be a 1280x800 JPEG?

I think the modest resolution is technology-constrained, rather than market-driven. Perhaps they just can't get the AF to work with big arrays, or the heat would be unmanageable, or they can't hit the required MTBF with lots of pixels.

After all there's no 0 Series so if you need the 1 Series speed and AF then you either buy it or dump all your lenses. Gone are the days when Canon gave a choice of resolution in a rugged body; you now stay in the system or pay the premium to switch.

 

[becceric]

I don't think that argument stands scrutiny.

When the 1DX came out we were 'told' that the target market was happy with 18MP and a drop in pixel density from the 1D4. So why would that target market now be requesting 24MP if 18MP was enough?

Does it matter to a sports or news photographer if the raw image is 6000x4000 or 5184x3456 when the output will be a 1280x800 JPEG?

I think the modest resolution is technology-constrained, rather than market-driven. Perhaps they just can't get the AF to work with big arrays, or the heat would be unmanageable, or they can't hit the required MTBF with lots of pixels.

After all there's no 0 Series so if you need the 1 Series speed and AF then you either buy it or dump all your lenses. Gone are the days when Canon gave a choice of resolution in a rugged body; you now stay in the system or pay the premium to switch.

" I don't think that argument stands scrutiny.

When the 1DX came out we were 'told' that the target market was happy with 18MP and a drop in pixel density from the 1D4. So why would that target market now be requesting 24MP if 18MP was enough?"

It seems to me that you are implying that the intended market would not have changed at all MP-wise in 12 years. That doesn't bear scrutiny either.

 

[Omn]

People wishing for more pixels in R1 or expecting constant rise in megapixel count don't really understand many things and have their imagination running wild.

 

[koenkooi]

People wishing for more pixels in R1 or expecting constant rise in megapixel count don't really understand many things and have their imagination running wild.

That might be true, but Canon itself hasn't helped by having one of their marketing peeps say "Jack of all trades, master of all" during an interview.

 

[P-visie]

That might be true, but Canon itself hasn't helped by having one of their marketing peeps say "Jack of all trades, master of all" during an interview.

I don’t know where you get that that statement was made bya Canon employee. According to the rumor the ‘Jack of all trades, …’ statement was a quote from a source. That post was written in October 2021.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r1-is-coming-here-are-a-few-things-to-expect/

And was repeated on Petapixel: https://petapixel.com/2021/11/02/ca...ck-of-all-trades-master-of-everything-report/

 

[koenkooi]

I don’t know where you get that that statement was made bya Canon employee. According to the rumor the ‘Jack of all trades, …’ statement was a quote from a source. That post was written in October 2021.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r1-is-coming-here-are-a-few-things-to-expect/

And was repeated on Petapixel: https://petapixel.com/2021/11/02/ca...ck-of-all-trades-master-of-everything-report/

Ah, my bad!

 

[Quack]

I don't think that argument stands scrutiny.

When the 1DX came out we were 'told' that the target market was happy with 18MP and a drop in pixel density from the 1D4. So why would that target market now be requesting 24MP if 18MP was enough?

Does it matter to a sports or news photographer if the raw image is 6000x4000 or 5184x3456 when the output will be a 1280x800 JPEG?

I think the modest resolution is technology-constrained, rather than market-driven. Perhaps they just can't get the AF to work with big arrays, or the heat would be unmanageable, or they can't hit the required MTBF with lots of pixels.

After all there's no 0 Series so if you need the 1 Series speed and AF then you either buy it or dump all your lenses. Gone are the days when Canon gave a choice of resolution in a rugged body; you now stay in the system or pay the premium to switch.

If it was technologically restrained, then we wouldn't have an R5 mark II with the same AF system and reasonably close speed.

Since Canon clearly does market research, there should be little doubt that the target market was not interested enough is a higher MP camera. Your comments regarding 18 or 24 MPs make no sense. No one knows, or ever said, the target market requested 24 over 18 mp's. Maybe they would prefer 18, but certainly Canon would understand that 24 would be no different than 18 in any practical sense. The actual question to the target market would have been 24 or 45 mp's or something along that line. 24 mp's is obviously a popular count and is the number of many cameras in many brands. So an obvious choice over 18, especially as the R3 is 24 mp.

 

[Del Paso]

Ah, my bad!

Mine as well!

 

[NorskHest]

For me the R1 is a huge improvement over the R3 in many ways including the following:

1) Cross-type AF sensors on the entire area of the sensor.
2) Faster (1/400) second flash sync speed , which also translates into less rolling shutter artifacts.
3) At 40 fps one should have a buffer capable of shooting 1000 frames or more so a much larger buffer than the R3
4) A vast improved Eye Control AF System (should work with eyeglasses) and EVF (9.44 M dots x0.9 magnification).
5) Matching CFE Type B card slots. Not version 4, but that is okay.
6) Strap lug on the bottom of the camera; I really missed this feature on the R3.
7) Info button available on the vertical grip.

On the minus side the body is a bit heavier by 98 grams relative to the R3, but that is fine with me. For those of us with workflows that do not require more than 24 MP I could honestly see the R1 being a camera one uses until it stops functioning.

Not that it matters what I order or get but I will probably order both cameras as I have been offloading others. The comment you made about the R1 being a camera that one uses until it stops functioning is the key piece most seem to miss. I have owned 1dx’s and I love them because they just go and this camera which may lack on the spec side to some will be like a Toyota and just go till it dies which will take a long time. People forget that we are also paying for R&D and that cost gives us a tool that will last and endure.