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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,533
7,279
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.
Sure, or they could just make their software free. But that's not going to happen.

For example (using round numbers), a standalone perpetual license for CS6 cost $500. A PS CC subscription costs $100/year. So if they let you keep the current version after 2-3 years, they're making $200-300 instead of $500 for that perpetual license. An extra $50 at the end isn't going to make up for the lost revenue.

Incidentally, if you lease a car and pay the residual buyout at the end, you'll often end up paying more than if you'd bought the car at the start. Leasing is not a cheaper way to buy a car you plan to keep for many years, it's a cheaper way if you want a new car frequently. That analogy holds well for the software subscription model – you are basically driving PS CS2 into the ground, so buying makes a lot more sense for you. The subscription model is better for people who want/need the latest version frequently, e.g. those of us who buy new cameras somewhat often and need updated software to support the RAW files.

Having said that, what is best for the customer is not really the driver here. Subscription models mean stable revenue streams, and investors like stable revenue streams. Adobe's stock price was stable for many years prior to 2012 when they changed from perpetual licenses to subscriptions. From 2012 on, their stock has steadily increased (until just recently, of course), at a rate that far outpaced the indices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

[email protected]

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
848
851
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
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.

That used to be true. The RAWs appear to be cooked to varying degrees by the major makers. Sometimes very obviously (as with the Sony "star eater" issue). It is generally accepted nowadays that there will be some noise processing, some sharpening and a lot of dynamic range fiddling. The RAW file is now considered by the manufacturers to be a file with the level of correction that improves quality up to the point where some users may disagree.

It is especially prevalent with the smaller sensor cameras, like MTF, and especially on noise.

When canon brags about a new processor, it does so specifically when referring to ISO or noise. The R3 page on Canon's site, for instance, lists as a major benefit: "DIGIC X Image Processor with an ISO range of 100-102400..." Those two are actually linked in the marketing. This has been going on for a while.

My impression is that Canon's level of RAW is pretty good versus others'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,782
717
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.
A bit OT from the thread, but I dropped Adobe like a hot rock years back when they went to the rental model.

I'm currently using Capture One, and love it...the color control, IMHO can't be touched.
But the catalog and library functions are a bit primitive and wonky.
You might look into On1 RAW...they are MUCH more LR like and have some really great tools.

Capture One

On1 RAW

You might give them a look...I left after LR 5 myself....

HTH,
cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jan 10, 2020
37
26
100mp sensor, 30-40fps electronic shutter, no mechanical with a sensor guard like Z9. All great but the price will be the deciding factor. Canon has lost a huge proportion of the pro market this last 5 years to Sony. Freelance and staffers alike. They are cheaper with access to 3rd party glass. Canon can go all out on specs but it will be pointless if costs £10k as very few will buy it.
8k video is a waste hardly anything displays it so your not selling it for weddings for another 5-10 years. There is a cinema line focus that for 8k right now.
Photography is a reducing market
The amount people can and will pay is reducing
Competition is undercutting

Canon needs to take a bit of a loss lead and regain market share. The pro end is the high earner and the one which will keep going. Eventually low end you will lose to mobile phones.

£12k & £17k lenses are gorgeous to look at but not many buy new.

R5 was well spec’s and priced. R3 bit pricey but nice kit. I can see Canon shooting themselves on this one.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Aug 7, 2018
458
406
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.
That is really intrusive. If photography was my main income and I had important photos on my computer, I might not want it to connect to the internet at all. Some people prefer doing offline work on computers that actually do not have any internet connection at all. I even did all I could to prevent Windows from sending "telemetry" to Microsoft. It is MY internet connection and no software should use it without my consent.

For example (using round numbers), a standalone perpetual license for CS6 cost $500. A PS CC subscription costs $100/year. So if they let you keep the current version after 2-3 years, they're making $200-300 instead of $500 for that perpetual license. An extra $50 at the end isn't going to make up for the lost revenue.
It is not so much about the price. The buy out price after three years could be $200 or whatever it takes for Adobe to generate the same revenue. The problem is that we do not even have a choice. Imagine no houses would be for sale any more, just fpr rent. That would mean that no matter how much you would be willing to pay, you would not have the chance to own house. Sadly that happens with apartments in some cities. The fact that the standalone license is gone clearly shows that subscriptions generate more revenue for Adobe and of course that means more costs for photographers.

I used Lightroom since version 1.0, which I purchased for 200 Euros back then. Later Lightroom versions were much cheaper. More in the region of 80 Euros. Now it is 141.94 Euros per year. That clearly is a price explosion. They use the trick that prices seem lower, if you only pay a small amount per month, but I hope I will live for many decades more and over these decades a Lightroom subscription would cost thousands of Euros, even if the never raise the price, which is quite unlikely. For Photoshop it is even worse. It costs 284.03 Euros per year now. That's more than a full version every two years, that you could use forever. How can that be a good deal for any photographer. If that really was a good deal for the photographers, Adobe could continue offereing the standalone version and photographers would still buy the subscription.

My great fear is that this model will come to hardware one day. You might no longer get the chance to buy a camera. You can only rent it for a certain amount per month. You might says that the advantage is that you then will always have the latest camera, but it will never ne your camera. And if you damage it, you might even have still to pay for the repair. That renteing model was already in place for some professional film equipment for many years. You could not by a Panavision camera, even if you were rich. That might be okay for film makers, but I still want to own the stuff I spend my money on.

I also do not have a Netflix subscription for example. The 11.99 Euros per month add up to 7,194 Euros over 50 years not including price increases. That's enough for a very nice journey.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,533
7,279
Aug 7, 2018
458
406
I would never buy such a car that lets my ass freeze unless I pay a monthly ransom. And I say that as a German, who usually likes the quality of German cars.

Does that mean that you do not own the heated seats any more? If you hack the heating to work without a subscription, would that be theft? That is quite crazy, as those cars are already overpriced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
72
114
Per the CNN article "The benefit would be a lower upfront price for the car and, potentially, the ability only pay for the feature when it might be needed, like in the winter."

Keep dreaming, hardware is already installed regardless if one wants the feature so the only thing is another paywall to lock operation of hardware you already paid extra for.

I certainly hope this subscription nonsense does not end up extending to cameras as that will become the death knell of photography for all but the wealthy and professional users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Pixel

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
262
164
You all scoffed at me when I said it would be 2024 before the next flagship is released.
I still haven't given up on the EOS-1R moniker just yet.
 
Aug 7, 2018
458
406
Canon used to come up with a new flagship at the beginning a few months before Olympic Summer Games, because those are the greatest sports event on earth and a challenge for all cameras. I would not expect Canon to change that schedule. If they released the next flagship one year earlier this time, they would either do the same next time or have five years between two flagships, which would be a lot. This time there even is less hurry than ever, because they already have the R3 that already beats the official current flagship, the 1D X Mark III in most disciplines. The R3 will be more than enough for the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Especially with its new 195 fps burst.

Maybe Canon also wants time to react to whatever the Sony A1 Mark II has to offer.
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,782
717
Per the CNN article "The benefit would be a lower upfront price for the car and, potentially, the ability only pay for the feature when it might be needed, like in the winter."

Keep dreaming, hardware is already installed regardless if one wants the feature so the only thing is another paywall to lock operation of hardware you already paid extra for.

I certainly hope this subscription nonsense does not end up extending to cameras as that will become the death knell of photography for all but the wealthy and professional users.
Well, I guess that will have the meaning of "shade tree mechanic" change from maintenance to hacking.<P>
I'd definitely want to severe the communications line from car to manufacturer (they have no need of constant telemetry)...and if I buy the hardware I'll run it as I please.

The camera would be tougher, but someone out there would hack it open, much like that Magic Lantern project did...
 

bernie_king

EOS 90D
Jun 30, 2014
132
162
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.
I personally like the subscription model. It used to be that when a new camera came out (didn't matter that they were CR2 files, etc...) you had to upgrade your Photoshop to the newest version or Camera RAW wouldn't be compatible. Those upgrades were hundreds of dollars, not to mention you would have to upgrade Lightroom as well (more money). On top of that, Photoshop was several hundred dollars to start. Now, for $120/year I have the latest and greatest software and never have to worry when I buy a new camera. At the time I calcluated I would save money unless I kept my cameras more than 4 years (which I never do). Even then, new features really enhance the abilities of Photoshop/Lightroom and many times newer versions of plugins (Topaz, etc...) want the newer versions of Photoshop.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
524
783
Orewa , New Zealand
Canon used to come up with a new flagship at the beginning a few months before Olympic Summer Games, because those are the greatest sports event on earth and a challenge for all cameras. I would not expect Canon to change that schedule. If they released the next flagship one year earlier this time, they would either do the same next time or have five years between two flagships, which would be a lot. This time there even is less hurry than ever, because they already have the R3 that already beats the official current flagship, the 1D X Mark III in most disciplines. The R3 will be more than enough for the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Especially with its new 195 fps burst.

Maybe Canon also wants time to react to whatever the Sony A1 Mark II has to offer.

Especially with its new 195 fps burst.
I believe this burst rate has no tracking and fixed focus so not terribly useful for sports
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
524
783
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
I agree, the flagship R1 is more likely to have between 24 and 50mp I think to suit the sports journalist market.

I suggest that it would have the following:
  • 24-50mp BSI stacked sensor
  • 40-50fps or even more
  • twin CFexpress slots
  • twin Digic X processors or a new processor
  • quad pixel autofocus
  • new upgraded version of the LP-E19 battery but backwards compatible with existing R3 and 1DXiii bodies
I hope it has:
  • modern software like smartphones
  • android apps
  • built in security features
But I'm not holding my breath on Canon doing these as Japanese companies don't seem too great on software ;)
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,195
1,437
UK
I think Canon being almost two years behind (3 by the time this canera is supposedly available) is forcing their hand to put out a super high mpx sensor. They would have done better just putting a better sensor in the R3 which is perfect ergonomically but lacking in a modern day sensor size and releasing it sooner. Then they could work on a bigger sensor for the MK II. They are way behind with a flagship model already and I'm guessing that drove them to the idea of being mpx king. Personally, I think 50-60 mpx is the sweet spot. Guess we still have to wait another half a year to find out.
I don't think Canon will feel obliged to put a "super hi-res" sensor in the R1. Much depends on how you see the role of the R1 - what is its intended purpose and market?

My guess is that it will be aimed at a mostly pro or semi pro photographers who will habitually use the camera in extreme conditions i.e. atrocious weather, subject to heavy knocks etc. It will have to be capable of 8K. It will have to be extremely tough. It will probably have a significantly improved version of the eye-controlled AF found in the R3. A high priority will be given to thermal dissipation that doesn't require the use of a noisy fan, and doesn't suck humid air or dust into the camera's internals. It will need to have very fast readout and may have a global shutter, dispensing with a mechanical shutter.

It will have to have a stacked BSI sensor, but I don't expect it to exceed 45MP (although it may have some kind of pixel-shift or AI-based means of achieving 100MP+). Most importantly, IMO, it will need to offer a choice of RAW resolutions, because lower res RAW options would allow a great deal more images in the buffer, and would make faster transmission of images possible.
 

DVaNu

CR Pro
Jan 23, 2019
6
8
I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.
I agree with your idea. Sandisk recently came out with the Pro-Blade SSD ecosystem, aimed at video / photographers and content creators. I’ve read some interesting reviews in regard to this new system, suggesting that camera manufacturers could and should integrate slots in their camera bodies to accommodate the Pro-Blade mags (M2 form factor) as an option. Especially for flagship models suck as the R3 or rhe future R1, which have integrated battery grips, this memory form factor makes sense and could be easily integrated. But I guess that this SSD system is too new to even be considered. Regardless of that I think that buyers should be given rhe choice, as Sony does (or did?) on one of their models, to choose between different memory card systems on their camera.
 

Bonich

EOS 90D
Apr 29, 2019
116
117
Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing
Did you ever use any RF lens?
- The minor issue: Many lens hoods are not circular, they do not support the whole image circle all around but only in the sensor's edges.
- The relevant issue: Wide angle lenses like i.e. 15-35 2.8 do have a rectangular rear opening to cut off all light not heading to the rectangular standard sensor to support max contrast.
- The critical issue: The RF mount does not support round sensors due to the electrical connectors being in the way telelens' light at the edge where you have the long edges of our 24x36 sensor. Please take a look to the rear of an RF teleconverter!

You may love to live in fantasia land, I prefer to keep one foot in contact with reality: Round sensors are no RF feature. But you can crop a circle in post processing ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users