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

[Skyscraperfan]

One situation where light is actually "wasted" is the video aspect ratio of 16:9 on a full frame sensor. Canon should allow us to use the whole sensor for video if we really want. Not everybody makes videos just for 16:9 displays. Canon gives us the green area for video, while it could give us the red area or (if 16:9 is needed) the blue area. The green area does not reach the image circle with any of its corners. So video is always cropped.

 

[Antono Refa]

One situation where light is actually "wasted" is the video aspect ratio of 16:9 on a full frame sensor. Canon should allow us to use the whole sensor for video if we really want. Not everybody makes videos just for 16:9 displays. Canon gives us the green area for video, while it could give us the red area or (if 16:9 is needed) the blue area. The green area does not reach the image circle with any of its corners. So video is always cropped.
View attachment 205727

I don't shoot much video, so pardon if it's a silly question - how hard is it to crop the video in post processing?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I don't shoot much video, so pardon if it's a silly question - how hard is it to crop the video in post processing?

I only tried video post processing with some free software and very often it was impossible to choose an output that is not 16:9. I am sure though that professional editing software will allow you outpouts in any anspect ration though. Not all videos are meant for full screen viewing.
However it is impossible to uncrop a video. That's why I think that Canon (and others) should give us full frame video that really uses the whole diagonal.

 

[koenkooi]

I only tried video post processing with some free software and very often it was impossible to choose an output that is not 16:9. I am sure though that professional editing software will allow you outpouts in any anspect ration though. Not all videos are meant for full screen viewing.
However it is impossible to uncrop a video. That's why I think that Canon (and others) should give us full frame video that really uses the whole diagonal.

Various decoders will also refuse to decode non-standard aspect ratios, so supporting those is not a priority for consumer facing products.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.

 

[Loswr]

What was wrong with 4:3 for example?

Nothing, you probably even get the added cardiovascular benefit of additional movement when you want to change the channel on your tv.

 

[AlanF]

That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.

For your favourite subjects, I would have thought 16 height by 9 width or better still 160:9 would be more suitable than 4:3.

 

[entoman]

R5 was well spec’s and priced. R3 bit pricey but nice kit. I can see Canon shooting themselves on this one.

I think the R1 will follow Canon's traditional pricing policy for pro camera bodies, i.e. it will be more expensive than the nearest equivalent Nikon and Sony competitors, but not by a huge amount.

Here are the current GBP prices:

Sony A1..............£6499
Nikon D6............£6799
Canon 1DXiii.......£6999

Nikon Z9.............£5299
Canon R3............£5879

I'd deduce that the R1 will be about the same price as the 1Dxiii at approx £6999

Canon must sell huge numbers of 1Dxiii bodies (I don't know the exact figures), and I see no reason why the R1 won't follow suit, assuming that it is a significant jump above the R3 in terms of specification, performance and build quality.

Pros, most of who have a huge investment in Canon glass, aren't likely to jump ship for the sake of a modest increase in cost compared to a Z9 or A1.

 

[entoman]

That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.

I disagree that "the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff". A good videographer will use that space to provide context, showing the surrounding environment, or e.g. a relevant person approaching the main subject. Humans have binocular vision, and our natural field of view using both eyes is much wider than it is tall. The vast majority of computer monitors have a 16:9 ratio. Most advertising hoardings have a very wide apsect ratio. The same is true of normal widescreen cinema.

A ratio of 4:3 works very well for portraits on a wall...

Incidentally, the most impressive images of skyscrapers that I've seen, have been wide city panoramas.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

For your favourite subjects, I would have thought 16 height by 9 width or better still 160:9 would be more suitable than 4:3.

Actually I love the fact that vertical videos became a thing.

 

[SwissFrank]

I used to shoot the 1N, 1V, and 1Ds MkI II III. But now the R5 feels like all the camera I'll ever need.
45MP basically records 114 lp/mm and lenses just aren't sharp enough to really make use of it, so while I've always wanted more MP in the past, for the first time I don't. And I'm no longer active/crazy enough to need the top possible sturdiness.

(Math is sqrt(45,000,000*2/3)/24mm = 228 linear pixels per mm, or 114 line pairs per mm.)

 

[SwissFrank]

• Global shutter… or really fast rolling shutter.

• Built in NDs. Canon, if you remove that mechanical shutter I hope you replace it with internal NDs. No mirrorless body has this and it is way overdue.

They announced a patent a couple years ago for a sensor that would have two separate charge buckets per pixel, that could be switched between instantly across the sensor. The patent outlined that it would provide both these options, plus nearly double dynamic range.


To produce global shutter with this, you simply switch the sensor into bucket B, then read out bucket A.


To produce "built-in ND" you expose bucket A for say 999 microseconds, then bucket B for 1 microsecond, and repeat. That ratio would cut the brightness of bucket B by about 10 stops (2^10~=999/1). The speed cutting between the two would need to be fast enough that the resulting series of still images still would produce continuous motion blur. The speed I mention would be 1ms per exposure, so would be able to make motion blur totally continuous on a 10k pixel wide image (66MP) if an object took 10 seconds to cross the photo (10,000 ms would mean it moves one pixel per ms at that speed). Of course in practice even perfectly focused objects will not be just one pixel wide, and most motion blur doesn't cross the entire photo, so would probably create beautiful blurs at say 1/60th second of a tennis player in daylight, and so on.


To produce HDR, you do the same as "built-in ND" but then use bucket A for the shadows, and bucket B for the highlights. This could produce probably over 20 stops dynamic range. You'd be able to properly expose a daytime interior while the scene outside the windows is also properly exposed. Or, you could shoot a nighttime interior and still be able to read the makers' marks on the lightbulbs.

 

[SwissFrank]

I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels.

There's not really any such development, at least, a recent development. Back around 2000, the Canon/Kodak digitals with 1.5MP needed more, and I was glad the EOS-1Ds MkII and MkIII went up to 16MP then 21MP, but that was 2006 or so and Canon's latest pro M3 is still about the same MP, 15 years later.

 

[SwissFrank]

As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things.

Lesson: Don’t assume that you are representative of the market.

I don't think you're being fair. DBounce wasn't assuming he was the only type of customer.

 

[tonblom]

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.

CF Express is a NVME drive in a caddy. You can do this, but how would you get rid of the heat: https://www.diyphotography.net/you-...alf-by-using-an-m-2-nvme-ssd-in-this-adapter/

 

[BurningPlatform]

One situation where light is actually "wasted" is the video aspect ratio of 16:9 on a full frame sensor. Canon should allow us to use the whole sensor for video if we really want. Not everybody makes videos just for 16:9 displays. Canon gives us the green area for video, while it could give us the red area or (if 16:9 is needed) the blue area. The green area does not reach the image circle with any of its corners. So video is always cropped.
View attachment 205727

Actually your blue retangle stretches past the current sensor edges. If you had that for video now, 3:2 stills would be cropped. However, as there are already cameras with "open gate" video (Panasonic GH6, Fujifilm X-H2S), maybe this is coming to Canon as well. Could be nice with anamorphic lenses, even if you target 16:9 displays.

 

[unfocused]

I don't think you're being fair. DBounce wasn't assuming he was the only type of customer.

He did not equivocate, but stated clearly:

As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see? …

It takes quite a bit of hubris to think that simply because you own a product you are the "target audience." I could buy a Corvette or a mini-van, but in neither case would I assume that I am the "target audience."

I simply pointed out that his wish list was not reflective of all other R3 owners.

 

[danfaz]

I don't think you're being fair. DBounce wasn't assuming he was the only type of customer.

Well, he specifically said in bold type that he was the target audience because he owns an R3.

 

[DBounce]

He did not equivocate, but stated clearly:


It takes quite a bit of hubris to think that simply because you own a product you are the "target audience." I could buy a Corvette or a mini-van, but in neither case would I assume that I am the "target audience."

I simply pointed out that his wish list was not reflective of all other R3 owners.

I didn’t feel the need to spell out the obvious… I am one of many. I see likes on my wish list. So clearly others feel as I do.

Canon has already stated the R3 will be master of video and stills. Do you have a problem with this? If so there are plenty of other cameras that are “stills” focused. Have you heard of Pentax?

 

[DBounce]

Well, he specifically said in bold type that he was the target audience because he owns an R3.

Think about it… you honestly believe that I think canon is developing this camera specifically for me? I simply mean I am within the target demographic.