We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
820
1,026
For giggles, my prediction for the R1 specs are....

Same body as R3 ( AF-On smart controller buttons, dual CFe slots):
- Global shutter (no mechanical shutter). Rolling shutter artifacts significantly better than current electronic shutter
- Flash sync at any shutter speed
- 9+ megadot EFV with no blackout and fast refresh rates (at least 120fps). >0.5" in size
- 80mp sensor with IBIS (IBIS can be turned off)
- 30+ fps raw. 120fps with cropped sensor
- QPAF in very low light
- ~20mp on-the fly over sampled (no lossy compression/cRAW/S-RAW) at 30fps unlimited buffer. Best of both worlds.
- Predictive shutter press
- Pixel shift high resolution stills with in-camera file generation
- New Digic XI processor for much greater processing power generating less heat (system on chip). Dual processors to spread any heat physically
- 12k raw internal video. External recording via UBS-c
- Oversampled unlimited 8k cinema raw lite internal recording to CFe card capacity
- Oversampled 6K/60. Oversampled 4k/120 unlimited internal recording.
- No recording limit
- Clog2/3
- New battery with greater capacity
- Full sized HDMI 2.1 port (48G) or thunderbolt 4 USB-C or both.
- Mini XLR audio option
- Ethernet port
- Side flippy screen. Dual axis screen as a possibility but I don't think that it would be as weather/ abuse resistant as a side version

USD10k

That's definitely a $10,000 camera, I'll say that much!
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,947
5,089
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
It would need to be loss less though and cRaw is a lossy compression albeit pretty close to raw.
I would prefer a oversampling format rather than compression algorithm.
You mentioned sports. I mostly shot C-raw on the R-3 for sports this year. No loss of quality and hardly ever filled the buffer. The buffer could be a problem shooting Raw because it would fill at inopportune times (like the middle of a play). Download times were much faster which was important when trying to get photos processed quickly after a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
532
802
Orewa , New Zealand
How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor and remove the grip on the bottom of the camera? It's probably the most obvious ergonomic change they could make and would give an immediately useful range of features for photographers in terms of framing after the fact, or through in camera software. GoPro have led the way here, but I can see it catching on very quickly once camera companies realise they don't have to make the sensor a rectangle
Nice idea but it won't fit because the RF lens mount blocks part of the image circle, however a circular sensor is possible for aps-c or super 35
 
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,542
1,305
www.flickr.com
You mentioned sports. I mostly shot C-raw on the R-3 for sports this year. No loss of quality and hardly ever filled the buffer. The buffer could be a problem shooting Raw because it would fill at inopportune times (like the middle of a play). Download times were much faster which was important when trying to get photos processed quickly after a game.
There have been some comparisons online for raw vs cRaw on the R5 at least. The differences look to be in the shadows but there isn't much difference. The R1 should have the highest quality though and have a bigger buffer.

Are you shooting dual raw/cRaw to CFe and SD? There have been measurement for the R5 showing longer burst if recording just to CFe both for cRaw and raw. I assume that the R1 will be dual CFe so any bandwidth limitations of SD cards shouldn't be there.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,947
5,089
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
There have been some comparisons online for raw vs cRaw on the R5 at least. The differences look to be in the shadows but there isn't much difference. The R1 should have the highest quality though and have a bigger buffer.

Are you shooting dual raw/cRaw to CFe and SD? There have been measurement for the R5 showing longer burst if recording just to CFe both for cRaw and raw. I assume that the R1 will be dual CFe so any bandwidth limitations of SD cards shouldn't be there.
I shoot c-raw to the cf express card and jpg to the SD card as a backup.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
516
464
One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.

Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.

And perhaps the biggest flaw of the R3: The SD card slot. Please give ud dual CFexpress slots! SD cards are for amateur cameras and as an SD card is much smaller than a CFepress card, there are adapters from SD to CFexpress if you still want to use an SD card. Those adapter cost acout $12. So the argument for having an SD slot for cheaper cards is gone. Just use an adapter.
 
Upvote 0

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
202
71
Berlin
www.flickr.com
One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.
Hi to me - thats exactly my point.

I did this for R5 for more than one year. Convert the CR3.images to DNG and use the Canon RF profiles.
I use Windows, installed the most recent Adobe Camera Raw and then copied the RF profiles from
c:\Users\All Users\Adobe\CameraRaw\LensProfiles\1.0\Canon\
to
c:\Users\david\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\LensProfiles\1.0\Canon\
(my Username is of course david..)
And then I could use the profiles in LR5.7. Really.

But after one year this sucks, and I bought a one year subscription for a discount (often for about 90€ per year, instead of per month. yeah yeah, my LR5 was much cheaper back than and I used that for years)

And i converted my LR11 database with all these DNG and edits later via an SQL statement to CR3, so the edits are now for the CR3 I can directly use, and could delete the DNG files.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,379
2,502
The Netherlands
[..]Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.[..]
There are no corrections done to RAW files in the camera, those are all done by your preferred RAW converter (LR, ACR, DxO PL, DPP4). The forcing is only an issue in DPP4, literally every other RAW converter will not apply any corrections if you don't want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
583
740
USA
You realise that that "much higher cost" is pennies at the wafer stage? And yes, I fully understand the chip industry.
That's not really how they see it though. The wafer itself may seem cheap, but with all the prep, lithography, deposition, wasted sensors due to the imperfect nature of the deposition steps, etc....they have a (relatively) high cost of getting a good sensor off a chip. So if a wafer that used to produce 100 chips can now only produce 60, they need to make 40% more wafers for the same total number of chips....its a big cost bump that they aren't just going to eat.

Articles in the past have said an APSc sensor may cost $250. And a FF sensor $500-1000. I'm sure a BSI stacked one could be more. Add 40% to those prices, its a big bump.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,875
7,939
That's not really how they see it though. The wafer itself may seem cheap, but with all the prep, lithography, deposition, wasted sensors due to the imperfect nature of the deposition steps, etc....they have a (relatively) high cost of getting a good sensor off a chip. So if a wafer that used to produce 100 chips can now only produce 60, they need to make 40% more wafers for the same total number of chips....its a big cost bump that they aren't just going to eat.

Articles in the past have said an APSc sensor may cost $250. And a FF sensor $500-1000. I'm sure a BSI stacked one could be more. Add 40% to those prices, its a big bump.
One can always hope that facts and cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet because their idea is just the bestest thing ever and they wants it, Precious.

A vain hope, obviously....
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
99
140
an APSc sensor may cost $250.
Quoting tray prices isn't helpful here since they are relatively unrelated to wafer yield. If they wanted to do it they easily could, and we've seen that many times in the past. It's a premium device with premium components and features. The M1 Ultra is twice the size of the regular M1 but somehow Apple make it work.
 
Upvote 0

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
99
140
One can always hope that facts and cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet because their idea is just the bestest ever and they wants it.
No, that's like hoping cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet at the idea of progress they don't like the sound of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,482
1,010
One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.

Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.

And perhaps the biggest flaw of the R3: The SD card slot. Please give ud dual CFexpress slots! SD cards are for amateur cameras and as an SD card is much smaller than a CFepress card, there are adapters from SD to CFexpress if you still want to use an SD card. Those adapter cost acout $12. So the argument for having an SD slot for cheaper cards is gone. Just use an adapter.
It's interesting how opinions can differ on subscription models. For me its the best thing ever Adobe did ie: the subscription model. Photoshop used to be so expensive as a one off and quite expensive to upgrade. I get very annoyed with the purchase model that Luminar use. They just keep bringing out new programs and abandon older versions. I find Adobe have been consistent and surprisingly have improved Photoshop and LIghtroom (I had felt incentive was low for them to do that). The consistency of Photoshop has allowed me to learn it over a long period of time and I get great value out of my monthly subscription. It's the cheapest part of my photography and one I get great enjoyment out of long after I've taken the shots. I'm always learning something new. Adobe are very quick bringing out the updates to handle new raw file formats. I assume Canon can't stand still with CR2, they are always trying to improve. The flaw you mention on the R3 (which I also find on the R5 ) is the SD Slot. They should have bit the bullet and went all CF Express in both cameras. SD just can't keep up. I clicked your Skyscraper database. Very good I thought. I never ran across it before. I love tall buildings and modern architecture (well some of it anyway). Your database will be in use by me for any city I will visit. Thanks for that.
As for the R1 - It's a camera I've waited long for. I think it needs now to be high MP to compete with the best out there. I have a 1DXIII which is a great camera but 20MP was way too small, it should have been at least 30MP. The R3 size format is a good one. I'm sure the R1 will be similar in size. It makes sense to me it will be a 50+ MP camera, I sure it will be high frame rate , 8K (which I've no use for). It took me a long time to bite the bullet but I bought the R5 and its a really good camera. Near perfect in my mind - focus tracking could be better but impressive compared to other cameras. We've lived through a great era of progress in cameras, I fear its reaching the end, it's reached a limit of near perfection. I've enjoyed the ride.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I do believe that wafers have become significantly more expensive recently. Nvidia just released an announcement complaining about that themselves, saying Moore's law is dead and that GPU prices will no longer drop.

With relation to the "circular sensors", a complicating factor there is the fact that you can't get the same efficiency of circular sensors out of an area of wafer as you can get with rectangles - because there's wasted area in between the circles. All in all there are several reasons why it'd make sensors significantly more expensive compared to their current ones. Sure, it's probably doable (for those kind of prices, anyways), but it's not a simple / cheap thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,875
7,939
No, that's like hoping cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet at the idea of progress they don't like the sound of.
If only you could make a cogent argument. But when you fail at basic math, that's a tall order.

How about a 35mmx35mm sensor
Yes, how about a sensor larger than the image circle of most full frame lenses? That was a wonderfully cogent argument for progress. :ROFLMAO:
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,379
2,502
The Netherlands
Quoting tray prices isn't helpful here since they are relatively unrelated to wafer yield. If they wanted to do it they easily could, and we've seen that many times in the past. It's a premium device with premium components and features. The M1 Ultra is twice the size of the regular M1 but somehow Apple make it work.
And it's €1200 or so more expensive for the customer. But it is nice to do DeepPrime + Optics on an R5 image in 6 seconds :)
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
516
464
It's interesting how opinions can differ on subscription models. For me its the best thing ever Adobe did ie: the subscription model. Photoshop used to be so expensive as a one off and quite expensive to upgrade. I get very annoyed with the purchase model that Luminar use. They just keep bringing out new programs and abandon older versions. I find Adobe have been consistent and surprisingly have improved Photoshop and LIghtroom (I had felt incentive was low for them to do that).
My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end sour subscription, you lose access to the software after having spend hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so. The same odel that is used for leasing a car. You lease a car for some time and in the end you can buy the car for a small sum. Then it is your car forever.

Adobe may come with a lot of useful updates, but firstly I do not like updates anyway unless I really need them and secondly the incentive for Adobe would be much higher if they always had to come with new features to make you keep your subscription. At the current model you have to keep your subscription even without any update. Otherwise you lose access to the software.

The only reason I want a Lightroom update is the support for new cameras and for that the monthly price seems quite excessive. I still use Photoshop CS2 for photo editing. That is a software that came out in 2005 and it still does everything I need. The only thing I miss is the straighten tool with four lines instead of one. Straightening a photo with Photoshop CS2 is a lot of work. Maybe there is a third party plugin that might be able to do that.

Thanks that you like my skyscraper website. It ist pretty basic, but sadly Emporis, the most comprehensive building database, went offline last week after all data that was entered by the vommunity over years was sold to an investor from the US, who prefers to monetize it and hide it from the public. So it needs skyscraper websites like mine to keep some data public. Actually the reason I created it was excatly the idea not to miss any skyscrapers on future journeys. That's why I made it possible to download all skyscrapers of a city or country into Google Earth on your smartphone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,379
2,502
The Netherlands
My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end your subscription, you lose access to the software after having spent hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so.[..]
For Lightroom specifically, the situation is a bit worse: you have to login to Adobe servers every 2 weeks, or your software will stop working. It's not funny to discover that on day 2 of your vacation with no internet in your room. Thankfully, a few minutes with my phone in hotspot mode and roaming fixed it in that case, but I can imagine situations where you have zero internet, but loads of pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
If by sports leader you mean the highest FPS with the bust buffer, it is unlikely it will be the sports leader. Maybe Canon is changing how it places its cameras in the hierarchy. We will have to wait and see.

Remember when we used to refer to the 1 series as the "sports/wildlife" leader instead of the "sports leader?" Back then, sports people weren't offended that all those extraneous megapixels (12!) that the wildlife people desired. It's a sign of the times in Canon world. Not so much among the other makers.

The wildlife people looking for hi-res (admittedly not all of them) get to wait until Canon opts to come out with something that competes with the A1 or Z1. Many seem to think that will be the R1, but I doubt it. It sounds a bit to me like wishy rumors, based on knowing that Canon has a hole in its line-up, and assuming the next new body will fill it. Canon seldom fills its line-up holes in an order that forum dwellers find rational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0