SNJOps wrote:
The 120fps mode is 14bit RAW which genuinely shocked me when they announced it, I too thought that it would be a jpeg only mode when it was 1st rumoured and even during the presentation until it was explained and they showed images taken during that mode will play as a video clip in camera then you can select the frame you want and that becomes your raw file. I also saw Manny Ortiz take a shot with a strobe at 1/80000 - just incredible specs.
Quite a few are disappointed by the 24mp sensor but those are clearly not the target market for this body similar to those who criticised the R3 for its resolution. I suspect once Canon’s global shutter is ready it will make its way into an
R3 MK II, high resolution global sensors that match the IQ and DR of their stacked counterparts is still a probably a few years away.
I think you’re right, the a9 III maxing out at ISO 25,600 in its native range seems like the global shutter has definitely impacted low light capability. I feel like solid low light capability outweighs most of the other benefits of the global shutter at this point. Unless Canon is a generation ahead with their global shutter sensors, IMO they’d be smart to stick with a stacked sensor for the R1 and offer industry-leading low light performance at a resolution of ~45-50MP. We’ve already seen that Canon can give us RAW shooting at 120fps+ with the stacked sensor in the R3 (albeit with exposure and AF locked) so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility for the R1 to match the a9 III’s continuous shooting with a stacked sensor while maintaining AF and exposure.
alundeb wrote:
On the technology side, there are challenges with pixel vignetting as well as needing a fast readout for viewfinder and autofocus to be acceptable in 2025. These challenges can only be overcome with a BSI stacked sensor. But we will see after the R1. Whenever that will be
I really think we shouldn't hang on to one company's solution (i.e. Sony's BSI, stacked, etc. sensors). Companies have shown that there's more than one way to skin a cat to get the desired results.
For example, the real gains for AF are going to come not from sensors, but both increases in processing power and the algorithms to run the autofocus. Same for image quality (on a per-pixel basis) - gains can come from better signal processing, which Canon is already doing in low-light situations, and far better than Sony's heavy-handed "raw but not actually" default lossy compression. I wonder when they're going to get rid of that and default to lossless compression... anyway.
We'll see what the future holds. There's probably more to be gained both for pure image fidelity capture and in camera system acquisition performance just from incorporating current semiconductor and machine learning advancements, given that cameras generally aren't the leading edge of either, and we can probably get more out of the current optical lens theories as well.
johnctharp wrote:
I really think we shouldn't hang on to one company's solution (i.e. Sony's BSI, stacked, etc. sensors). Companies have shown that there's more than one way to skin a cat to get the desired results.
For example, the real gains for AF are going to come not from sensors, but both increases in processing power and the algorithms to run the autofocus. Same for image quality (on a per-pixel basis) - gains can come from better signal processing, which Canon is already doing in low-light situations, and far better than Sony's heavy-handed "raw but not actually" default lossy compression. I wonder when they're going to get rid of that and default to lossless compression... anyway.
We'll see what the future holds. There's probably more to be gained both for pure image fidelity capture and in camera system acquisition performance just from incorporating current semiconductor and machine learning advancements, given that cameras generally aren't the leading edge of either, and we can probably get more out of the current optical lens theories as well....Show more →
I'm not saying that it cannot be done, but that it will require Canon's best technology, like BSI stacked sensor that is currently reserved for the R3. So it is either a while into the future, or will be a more expensive line than R5.
I think you’re right, the a9 III maxing out at ISO 25,600 in its native range seems like the global shutter has definitely impacted low light capability. I feel like solid low light capability outweighs most of the other benefits of the global shutter at this point. Unless Canon is a generation ahead with their global shutter sensors, IMO they’d be smart to stick with a stacked sensor for the R1 and offer industry-leading low light performance at a resolution of ~45-50MP. We’ve already seen that Canon can give us RAW shooting at 120fps+ with the stacked sensor in the R3 (albeit with exposure and AF locked) so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility for the R1 to match the a9 III’s continuous shooting with a stacked sensor while maintaining AF and exposure. ...Show more →
Exactly!
Give me a R3 sensor at 45-50 Mpix and I will be super happy. No need of a GS at 24 Mpix.
Sony wants to trick people to thinks that you need an GS for high frame rate with AF... but R5c and do 36 Mpix RAW video at 60fps with eye tracking AF based on a 3+ years old CPU and sensor not even stacked. CPU, RAM, bandwidth and ultimately heat are the issue.
RED V-Raptor can do FF 8k 120fps RAW video with AF and is not a global shutter neither.
Sony Venice 2 8k sensor is not GS and it has a super fast readout 3ms...
The introduction of global shutter in a new market does not mean it is the future for all cameras. There will be a competition, will GS tech be able to solve all of its downsides before rolling shutter is fast enough for GS to be irrelevant? Most people think traditional shutter is already fast enough in the latest stacked sensors.
Remember the Foveon sensor? It solved the problem with aliasing in Bayer sensors, but has some downsides. Today everybody still prefers aliasing over Foveon.
It's hilarious to see Sony's masterful marketing at work.
They have successfully made a worse IQ sensor than it's predecessor AND they are going to milk their users an ADDITIONAL $1,500 USD ($2,066 CAD) for it!
This is just too precious.
You're going from some potential shutter artifacts to none. And in a camera that is accessible to consumers, that's also oriented toward fast action.
Turning that around - the 'trick' is that you are going from EFFECTIVELY NO motion artifacts in the current stacked sensors to ACTUALLY NO artifacts - a dubious value - at the cost of higher noise, lower DR, lower ISO range, and more expensive.
Need actual production samples to get out there to confirm, but this is what people are worried about with the first release images and testing.
I;ve said it before, probably in this thread, that BSI sensors got the same treatment - they were the only answer when released. But a release or two later the performance of FSI sensors were nearly identical. Stacked over non-stacked could prove to be a bigger technology shift than GS over stacked. Just have to wait and see.
I'm just hoping that Canon just gets on with it and releases the R5II and R1 soon....It may be a lot of marketing hype, but currently both Sony and Nikon have cameras using the latest tech that are garnering a lot of attention in the market...and Nikon has a set of unique and innovative lenses in the long end that Canon is not competitive with..and Sony is only just now starting to address with their new 300mm.
cohenfive wrote:
I'm just hoping that Canon just gets on with it and releases the R5II and R1 soon....It may be a lot of marketing hype, but currently both Sony and Nikon have cameras using the latest tech that are garnering a lot of attention in the market...and Nikon has a set of unique and innovative lenses in the long end that Canon is not competitive with..and Sony is only just now starting to address with their new 300mm.
The head of Canon is finally stepping down, also allot of the board members are stepping down so I have read. Let's just hope it gets a replacement that will bring back innovation. I read this while researching their stock recently.
Only problem is when he mentioned he was stepping down soon. He said he would pick the replacement.
action99 wrote:
Sony wants to trick people to thinks that you need an GS for high frame rate with AF... but R5c and do 36 Mpix RAW video at 60fps with eye tracking AF based on a 3+ years old CPU and sensor not even stacked. CPU, RAM, bandwidth and ultimately heat are the issue.
I think Sony is selling the GS as more than just a high frame rate tool -- zero light banding, zero rolling shutter (stills and video), and limitless flash sync speeds are IMO far bigger selling points that are unique to a global sensor. In fact I'd say the 120fps is more of a gimmick for stills considering the speed (or lack thereof) that the buffer clears when shooting at that speed. I doubt anyone will be spraying and praying at 120fps.
gkinard1952 wrote:
The head of Canon is finally stepping down, also allot of the board members are stepping down so I have read. Let's just hope it gets a replacement that will bring back innovation. I read this while researching their stock recently.
Only problem is when he mentioned he was stepping down soon. He said he would pick the replacement.
Do you have a link, or are you just posting hearsay?
lighthound wrote:
It's hilarious to see Sony's masterful marketing at work.
They have successfully made a worse IQ sensor than it's predecessor AND they are going to milk their users an ADDITIONAL $1,500 USD ($2,066 CAD) for it!
This is just too precious.
That link does not show what the author is claiming it shows. Let's wait until we actually have a side by side test before making assessments.
I usually do my research threw my broker Schwab, but they don't have much info on Canon so I had to go out and do some digging when I heard they were fixing to announce the new fab machine.
But, I am sure you and Judge Judy knew this already..
"Quite a few are disappointed by the 24mp sensor but those are clearly not the target market for this body similar to those who criticised the R3 for its resolution. I suspect once Canon’s global shutter is ready it will make its way into an
R3 MK II, high resolution global sensors that match the IQ and DR of their stacked counterparts is still a probably a few years away.
I think you’re right, the a9 III maxing out at ISO 25,600 in its native range seems like the global shutter has definitely impacted low light capability. I feel like solid low light capability outweighs most of the other benefits of the global shutter at this point. Unless Canon is a generation ahead with their global shutter sensors, IMO they’d be smart to stick with a stacked sensor for the R1 and offer industry-leading low light performance at a resolution of ~45-50MP. We’ve already seen that Canon can give us RAW shooting at 120fps+ with the stacked sensor in the R3 (albeit with exposure and AF locked) so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility for the R1 to match the a9 III’s continuous shooting with a stacked sensor while maintaining AF and exposure. "
Well I will be interested to see the output and wildlife photos the new Sony has to offer. Looking forward to members here
posting.. Cannot wait.
I am trying to decide what mirrorless camera, either Canon or switch. Depends on the new R5II , price of the R1. Been holding off buying Canon products for years now. But, I want to try a mirrorless next year.
jedibrain wrote:
I'm hoping that the leaks on the R1 start ramping up. Canon may wish to get people buzzing and steal a bit of the A9III press.
I think not. It seems to be turning into a bit of a train wreck for Sony. It’s a bit unfair, since they made a genuine engineering trade-off of noise performance for the global shutter. I’m sure they’ll sell a lot for the Olympics. But in the meantime, every day it goes on makes it easier for Canon to say “here’s your R1 with quad pixel AF, 45Mpx, great low light performance and dynamic range, and 4ms shutter” (or whatever it will be) early next year.
