The Canon EOS R1 is coming, here are a few things to expect

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
357
250
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Great, does that mean we don't need to listen to you droning on anymore about how sh!t Canon are?

Now you can live over on NikonRumors and tell them about how great Canon used to be and how the Z9 would be perfect if it didn't have a flip out screen because as pros you can't stop yourselves breaking them off all the time, after all pro cameras don't have movable screens.....
If Canon can compete, we'll be fair if the R1 can equal the IQ of the Z9
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
If Canon can compete, we'll be fair if the R1 can equal the IQ of the Z9
Nobody, including Canon or Nikon, care what you think, or what you decide to buy. Even though you purport to buy for an agency the actual numbers of bodies you have talked about are nothing more than a bean counters rounding error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,122
1,502
You both forgot to tell him to not let the door hit him on his way out :D
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,727
4,664
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Just had the Nikon rep come in with the Z9 and everyone at our agency was just blown away by the IQ, focus, DR and ergonomics.

Our goal was to get 15fps at double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII. The Z9 is going to do exceptional in the pro-market.

For the first time in 15 years, our agency has put the budget to Nikon again.
I would like to get your assessment after six months or so of using the Nikons. They sound like excellent cameras and it will be interesting to know if they perform as expected.

I’m still adjusting to the R3, but so far I have no regrets about the performance. The eye control is not magic but I’m finding it quite useful for sports if you keep your expectations reasonable and understand that it needs to work in conjunction with the rest of the focusing system.

I know the R3 resolution was a nonstarter for you, but it isn’t a problem for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
357
250
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
I would like to get your assessment after six months or so of using the Nikons. They sound like excellent cameras and it will be interesting to know if they perform as expected.

I’m still adjusting to the R3, but so far I have no regrets about the performance. The eye control is not magic but I’m finding it quite useful for sports if you keep your expectations reasonable and understand that it needs to work in conjunction with the rest of the focusing system.

I know the R3 resolution was a nonstarter for you, but it isn’t a problem for me.
For us, it's really being forward-thinking and knowing that our competition is also ordering Z9's. All things being equal if one agency is submitting higher resolution images with clearly better IQ, they get and keep more business.

Some might dismiss our seven figure purchasing budget as being insignificant to the overall market but it's very important to us.

We put aside six figures to start with the Z9's. If the R1 exceeds the IQ of the Z9 then we have lots of budget as we transition away from the 1DXMKii's and III's.

The R3 could very well suit some. Competition between agencies is so fierce now we had to adopt the Z9, if you've seen the images compared the R3 and 1DXMKIII there is a marked difference.

Good luck with your R3, it's a comprehensive platform that should give you years of good service and great support from CPS.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
729
393
For the first time in 15 years, our agency has put the budget to Nikon again.
I don't feel it makes sense to make a strategic decision based on one camera body. I'd personally go Nikon on grounds of the system as a whole, or a gut feeling of the direction the vendor was going to take the system. Canon was lagging with mirrorless and IBIS and DR for quite a while and in that era I could understand saying, OK, Canon just doesn't care to be the leader, so for that reason we're going Nikon. But the R system has been out now several years, we finally have IBIS, we have excellent DR in the latest bodies. Can WAS content to be behind for quite a few years but IS NOW acting like it wants to stay at least abreast of the competition if not lead. I could understand going Nikon 1, 2, 3, or 4 years ago. But I don't really understand it now. But whatever, it's your money.

Curious though, you say the AF is great. What is it doing that say the R5 is incapable of?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,595
14,383
I don't feel it makes sense to make a strategic decision based on one camera body. I'd personally go Nikon on grounds of the system as a whole, or a gut feeling of the direction the vendor was going to take the system. Canon was lagging with mirrorless and IBIS and DR for quite a while and in that era I could understand saying, OK, Canon just doesn't care to be the leader, so for that reason we're going Nikon. But the R system has been out now several years, we finally have IBIS, we have excellent DR in the latest bodies. Can WAS content to be behind for quite a few years but IS NOW acting like it wants to stay at least abreast of the competition if not lead. I could understand going Nikon 1, 2, 3, or 4 years ago. But I don't really understand it now. But whatever, it's your money.

Curious though, you say the AF is great. What is it doing that say the R5 is incapable of?
The preliminary reviews from reliable FM members is that the Z9 AF is similar to the R5 but not quite as good at recognising birds eye AF. That is, of course, high praise but it means their flagship doesn't outperform Canon's lower range. I'm not a pro and I don't need my camera to be built like a tank - the weight of the Z9 at 600g more than the R5 means I would never ever consider it even it were significantly better. Canon's shaving weight of the 1DX series on going to the R1 makes it just within my weight limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
357
250
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
I don't feel it makes sense to make a strategic decision based on one camera body. I'd personally go Nikon on grounds of the system as a whole, or a gut feeling of the direction the vendor was going to take the system. Canon was lagging with mirrorless and IBIS and DR for quite a while and in that era I could understand saying, OK, Canon just doesn't care to be the leader, so for that reason we're going Nikon. But the R system has been out now several years, we finally have IBIS, we have excellent DR in the latest bodies. Can WAS content to be behind for quite a few years but IS NOW acting like it wants to stay at least abreast of the competition if not lead. I could understand going Nikon 1, 2, 3, or 4 years ago. But I don't really understand it now. But whatever, it's your money.

Curious though, you say the AF is great. What is it doing that say the R5 is incapable of?
It's tracking during the demo's was truly exceptional as was exposure, noise, color rendition and the resolution was "far" superior. The general IQ advantage was so apparent even a non-pixel peeper could see the enhanced resolution over the R3 and 1DXMKIII. Getting into the weeds in post and crops everyone in the room was impressed. After we did some pixel peeping on human hair and skin and there is no doubt with our senior editors, chief photographers and my management group that we would put 6 figures to a few (2) test kits. Nikon agreed to replicate our Canon kits as close as possible. If they prove as effective after we tweak workflow, then we'll start replacing more 1DXMKIII and 1DXMKII kits with a 7 figure budget in 2022 to first 1/4 2023.

If the R1 comes out in 2023, we'll take a look. When I first started we had a mixed shop Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad in our studios.

We no longer have Hasselblad but use Fuji 100 and 100s for in studio.

With an 8 figure budget for second half of 22" into 2nd half of 23"

We can move to the platform that serves us best in the U.S. LATAM ASIA, EU AND the MENA.

Everyone was really impressed with the Z9
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,727
4,664
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
The preliminary reviews from reliable FM members is that the Z9 AF is similar to the R5 but not quite as good at recognising birds eye AF. That is, of course, high praise but it means their flagship doesn't outperform Canon's lower range. I'm not a pro and I don't need my camera to be built like a tank - the weight of the Z9 at 600g more than the R5 means I would never ever consider it even it were significantly better. Canon's shaving weight of the 1DX series on going to the R1 makes it just within my weight limits.
The problem with the R5 for sports is the buffer. It's simply too small and doesn't clear fast enough for fast sports action. I love it for birds and it is quite sufficient for birds in flight, but for fast moving sports action, waiting for the buffer to clear means missing critical shots. I assume that's one of the main reasons Canon went with 24mp for the R3. But, if you really need 45mp and a sports-oriented body, I can totally understand why @GoldWing might prefer the Nikon (If it has an adequate buffer that clears fast enough).
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,595
14,383
The problem with the R5 for sports is the buffer. It's simply too small and doesn't clear fast enough for fast sports action. I love it for birds and it is quite sufficient for birds in flight, but for fast moving sports action, waiting for the buffer to clear means missing critical shots. I assume that's one of the main reasons Canon went with 24mp for the R3. But, if you really need 45mp and a sports-oriented body, I can totally understand why @GoldWing might prefer the Nikon (If it has an adequate buffer that clears fast enough).
A genuine question for you, why go for the Nikon Z9 over the Sony A1? My knowledge of sports photography is limited, to say the the least.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,727
4,664
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
A genuine question for you, why go for the Nikon Z9 over the Sony A1? My knowledge of sports photography is limited, to say the the least.
Are you asking me or @GoldWing? I'm a Canon person and I am perfectly happy with the resolution of the R3. I would never consider Sony. I was simply explaining why, if you need a sports oriented body and 45MP, which Goldwing says he does, then Nikon is a logical choice. You'd have to ask him why they didn't consider Sony.
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
357
250
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Are you asking me or @GoldWing? I'm a Canon person and I am perfectly happy with the resolution of the R3. I would never consider Sony. I was simply explaining why, if you need a sports oriented body and 45MP, which Goldwing says he does, then Nikon is a logical choice. You'd have to ask him why they didn't consider Sony.
We tried to adopt SONY a few times and got a bad taste for support and continuity of product lines. The rugged bodies we need were never part of what SONY put out compared to Canon. CPS also played a good role. We're just not interested but thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
What I will say is that Z9 with the new Nikkor Z 400 f2.8 with built in TC looks to be a very compelling kit for many!

On a broader note, I don’t understand brand allegiance in a professional environment. Get whatever has the features you need to do the job you have. No reason why one company should provide that for ever, or one company provide all you need for every situation.

The problem I have with some commenters is they repeatedly put a company down because they don’t make what they personally want. Who cares? Move on to the company that does, be happy and get your job done…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,273
977
Davidson, NC
What I will say is that Z9 with the new Nikkor Z 400 f2.8 with built in TC looks to be a very compelling kit for many!

On a broader note, I don’t understand brand allegiance in a professional environment. Get whatever has the features you need to do the job you have. No reason why one company should provide that for ever, or one company provide all you need for every situation.

The problem I have with some commenters is they repeatedly put a company down because they don’t make what they personally want. Who cares? Move on to the company that does, be happy and get your job done…
For a lot of professional situations, I would expect that the professional services available would be a main reason to stick with Canon even if another brand has some gear a little better suited to the task.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
Hysterical to even say this when to this day Canon continues to sell the $6500 1DX Mark III brand new to countless people including major organizations.

I've had my 1dx mark II for almost six years now and yet I'll still be selling it for a significant amount once my R3 arrives. But sure. Keep trolling.

I'm not sure there have been "countless people" buying any types of ILCs since around 2012...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
Hahahaha… name me 3 major organizations that have bought 1Dx III bodies after the announcement of the R3.

So easy to call me a troll bro, if you read my posts you know I am using 1dx series myself.

Then you ought to know it is the 1D X series, not the 1Dx series... Dx is a Nikon thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
I bet this was a design decision to get the cost down. Most high speed shooters are doing sports, and have deadlines within MINUTES of the end of an event. Jeff Cable, the guy of R3 test fame at the olympics, had to have all his photos sorted, processed and transferred within 15minutes of an event. No time for RAW processing anyway.

Brian

The higher profile the event, the shorter the deadlines. Not even Jeff Cable shoots the Olympics 50 weeks per year. Just because some of his assignments are that tight doesn't mean all of them are.

I know more than a few sports/action photogs that are shooting raw for at least some of their assignments. Ten years ago none of them were, because the camera buffers couldn't keep up. Even with short turnarounds, if one has an existing "recipe" for a particular facility's lights that offers more color correction or other processing that can't be applied in camera to JPEGs, they can shoot raw and then batch apply the same "recipe" to every keeper fairly quickly before pushing the images to the wires. This works very well in facilities with less than ideal lighting. NFL, NBA, NHL, major colleges, etc. arenas almost all have pretty good lights that are full spectrum and flicker free. But medium sized colleges and most high schools do not. Those are the facilities where raw is most valuable, and those events are the ones that tend to have more forgiving deadlines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user