p.5 #1 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
johnvanr wrote:
I don’t get the references on how the R1 isn’t a flagship, as if it’s somewhere written in stone that the “flagship” has to have the highest resolution. In the film days, all 35mm cameras had the same resolution. The flagship was the sturdy, more capable camera meant for pros. Even in the DSLR days, Canon had the 5Ds/r with 50mp while the 1DX was around 20mp.
Canon dug it's own grave by marketing this as a flagship vs calling this an sports/journal flagship or high speed low res flagship:
If you look at Sony and Nikon, their flagships have speed and resolution, and that's what everyone has been waiting for at Canon, for years. Had Canon admitted they can't offer a true flagship but can offer a high speed flagship (R1) and a separate high res flagship (R5r) then at least everyone would have known what's coming and would't have had to wait several years for this R1 disaster. They claimed the R3 wasn't a flagship, but now they are calling this R3mkII a flagship?? Bad marketing to be unwilling to admit they just can't do a high resolution high speed camera.
Sony has both a high speed body (A9III) and the A1 which is about to be replaced and make Canon look even more pathetic in the flagship space.
Looking at the R1 all by itself it's the best sports camera available at the moment. But, it's definitely not a true flagship at 24mp. Canon screwed the pooch on this as they could have avoided the huge let down by calling the R1 a sports flagship to distinguish it from a high speed and high resolution (true flagship) that everyone was expecting.
Anyone who can call a spade a spade without fanboism would call Canon R1 an epic fail as a "flagship". Moving forward, Canon marketing needs to admit their line is broken up and each discipline has a flagship vs a flagship at the top over all disciplines. This would soften the blow with false expectation. With this R1 fail, now Canon really needs to introduce a high res camera for any landscapers left hanging around. This would also soften the blow.
p.5 #2 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
lighthound wrote:
I think people are missing the BIG advancement the R1 has over all others on the market. And that's the Cross-type AF it has which will finally put an end to the AF hunting that has plagued all mirrorless cameras.
This R1 seems to be a workhorse tool aimed towards the working sports pros. Which is what the 1 series has always been made for. The competition's flagships must try to compete with Canon's second tier 5 series. Which based on a price standpoint alone, they are failing badly at.
p.5 #3 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
mawz wrote:
OM-1 and OM-1mII both have cross-type AF
The E-M1ii and all of the other Olympus bodies using the same sensor also have cross-type AF. It can certainly make a difference in very specific scenarios, but honestly I don't think it makes much difference in most real life use.
p.5 #4 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
AmbientMike wrote:
You have. But pardon me for not staying on topic and trashing a camera over some stupid spec.
Jesus. No one was trashing the camera. Your reading comprehension skills are awful if you think that's what was happening..w e were trying to figure out what the actual spec was since there were multiple pieces of information about a few things that contradicted each other.
Also, I haven't used the 20D, but I owned the 30D for 4 years, and it had the same sensor. The dynamic range was atrocious compared to a modern mirrorless full frame body. That doesn't mean you couldn't get good photos from it...but it isn't even in the conversation, and the fact that you somehow seem to think it does shows how woefully inexperienced with modern hardware you are. I can take a modern RAW file from something like the R5, or R8, or Z7 II or Z8 or Zf, and underexpose 3 stops for the highlights, and push the shadows 3-4 stops and get quite clean final results that look fantastic. Try that with a 20D and see the atrocious mess of black noise that you will have.
For example - this was a very high range scene taken with the Z7 II, and I took bracketed images and found that due to stream movement, HDR wasn't going to work...but I took this image (the underexposed image in the bracket), did a 3.5 stop straight push, then increased another stop in shadows (while pulling back down the highlights. And look how clean the shadows still are. Top part is the RAW file out of camera, bottom is final, 100% crops. Try that with a 20D. https://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/z72_dr.jpg
p.5 #5 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
whumber wrote:
The E-M1ii and all of the other Olympus bodies using the same sensor also have cross-type AF. It can certainly make a difference in very specific scenarios, but honestly I don't think it makes much difference in most real life use.
The OM-1 however has an equivalent of Canon's AF implementation, using 4 sub pixels per pixel site for cross-type AF at (almost) every pixel. It's an apples to apples comparison where the implementation on the E-M1.2, E-M1.3, EM5.3 and OM5 is decidedly different (both way less AF points and a traditional on-sensor PDAF)
p.5 #6 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
The R1 as a camera is outwith my price range, however I was impressed with the video and results Larry Chen was getting from it in some pretty harsh lighting.
If you look at Sony and Nikon, their flagships have speed and resolution, and that's what everyone has been waiting for at Canon, for years. Had Canon admitted they can't offer a true flagship but can offer a high speed flagship (R1) and a separate high res flagship (R5r) then at least everyone would have known what's coming and would't have had to wait several years for this R1 disaster. They claimed the R3 wasn't a flagship, but now they are calling this R3mkII a flagship?? Bad marketing to be unwilling to admit they just can't do a high resolution high speed camera.
Sony has both a high speed body (A9III) and the A1 which is about to be replaced and make Canon look even more pathetic in the flagship space.
Looking at the R1 all by itself it's the best sports camera available at the moment. But, it's definitely not a true flagship at 24mp. Canon screwed the pooch on this as they could have avoided the huge let down by calling the R1 a sports flagship to distinguish it from a high speed and high resolution (true flagship) that everyone was expecting.
Anyone who can call a spade a spade without fanboism would call Canon R1 an epic fail as a "flagship". Moving forward, Canon marketing needs to admit their line is broken up and each discipline has a flagship vs a flagship at the top over all disciplines. This would soften the blow with false expectation. With this R1 fail, now Canon really needs to introduce a high res camera for any landscapers left hanging around. This would also soften the blow....Show more →
Is there a "certified" definition of what flagship is? I sold my A1 after getting a "lowly" 24Mpx A9 III, simply because I quit using it. I'd take the class leading AF over Mpx any day.
p.5 #8 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
mawz wrote:
The OM-1 however has an equivalent of Canon's AF implementation, using 4 sub pixels per pixel site for cross-type AF at (almost) every pixel. It's an apples to apples comparison where the implementation on the E-M1.2, E-M1.3, EM5.3 and OM5 is decidedly different (both way less AF points and a traditional on-sensor PDAF)
Agreed, plus the complex PDAF masking pattern could cause some weird noise patterns when you really pushed exposure.
p.5 #9 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
mawz wrote:
OM-1 and OM-1mII both have cross-type AF
I went back and corrected my post to be more precise. I thought we were talking about FF sensor tech in this thread about the FF R1 which is what I was referring to.
p.5 #10 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
whumber wrote:
I'm referring to the extended Low ISO values. Unlike most other brands DR actually increases, albeit slightly, in the extended ISO values but the highlight colors can get a bit wacky which is what makes me think they're utilizing the non-linear response portion of the sensor.
I've not seen a DR measurement that shows this, nor read about this technique employed on a commercial sensor. If you're ever able to locate a reference I would like to read up on the specifics.
p.5 #11 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
docusync wrote:
Is there a "certified" definition of what flagship is? I sold my A1 after getting a "lowly" 24Mpx A9 III, simply because I quit using it. I'd take the class leading AF over Mpx any day.
I don't think a certified definition is necessary, it's high speed with high resolution. Everyone has their needs, but calling the R3mkII (aka R1) a flagship was the mistake here. I'm not saying it's not a great camera as I already mentioned it's the best sports body available today. But people waiting for the true flagship were not waiting for or expecting an R3mkII today. It was just bad marketing and bad communication from Canon during a time when they knew how many people had been waiting years for a high speed high res body. You and the sports shooters will be perfectly happy with the R3mkII, but they left the flagship crowd very disappointed.
p.5 #12 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
lighthound wrote:
I went back and corrected my post to be more precise. I thought we were talking about FF sensor tech in this thread about the FF R1 which is what I was referring to.
Since these OM-1 cameras use Sony sensors, they're relevant as Sony has a tendency to use the same basic sensor design in multiple sizes and scale up/down as needed. For example their 26MP APS-C sensor is the same core design as 61MP FF and the 102MP Mini-MF sensor. Sony could use the quad-pixel AF sensor in FF if they wanted to do a ~80MP FF stacked sensor.
For other maker's sensors, the size matter more as they don't necessarily do that.
Jul 17, 2024 at 02:48 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.5 #13 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
Jman13 wrote:
Jesus. No one was trashing the camera. Your reading comprehension skills are awful if you think that's what was happening..w e were trying to figure out what the actual spec was since there were multiple pieces of information about a few things that contradicted each other.
Also, I haven't used the 20D, but I owned the 30D for 4 years, and it had the same sensor. The dynamic range was atrocious compared to a modern mirrorless full frame body. That doesn't mean you couldn't get good photos from it...but it isn't even in the conversation, and the fact that you somehow seem to think it does shows how woefully inexperienced with modern hardware you are. I can take a modern RAW file from something like the R5, or R8, or Z7 II or Z8 or Zf, and underexpose 3 stops for the highlights, and push the shadows 3-4 stops and get quite clean final results that look fantastic. Try that with a 20D and see the atrocious mess of black noise that you will have.
For example - this was a very high range scene taken with the Z7 II, and I took bracketed images and found that due to stream movement, HDR wasn't going to work...but I took this image (the underexposed image in the bracket), did a 3.5 stop straight push, then increased another stop in shadows (while pulling back down the highlights. And look how clean the shadows still are. Top part is the RAW file out of camera, bottom is final, 100% crops. Try that with a 20D. https://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/z72_dr.jpg
About all this proves is you either didn't read, or did not comprehend, my posts
I think I made it pretty clear I'm doing something a little bit different that may be affecting DR a lot. Which you did not even ask about. News flash: FF has better DR, glad you figured that out
p.5 #14 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
snapsy wrote:
I've not seen a DR measurement that shows this, nor read about this technique employed on a commercial sensor. If you're ever able to locate a reference I would like to read up on the specifics.
This is the original work by a1ex from Magic Lantern on the topic.
p.5 #15 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
artsupreme wrote:
I don't think a certified definition is necessary, it's high speed with high resolution. Everyone has their needs, but calling the R3mkII (aka R1) a flagship was the mistake here. I'm not saying it's not a great camera as I already mentioned it's the best sports body available today. But people waiting for the true flagship were not waiting for or expecting an R3mkII today. It was just bad marketing and bad communication from Canon during a time when they knew how many people had been waiting years for a high speed high res body. You and the sports shooters will be perfectly happy with the R3mkII, but they left the flagship crowd very disappointed....Show more →
Canon deserves some scrutiny based on the features of its flagship camera when compared to those of other major full-frame mirrorless camera manufacturers. Many of us hoped that Canon would release an R3-sized body with a 45MP+ sensor, and we thought the R1 would be that camera.
This seemed to be reinforced when Canon released the R3 with only a 24MP sensor and stated it wasn't the flagship. To me and many others, It appeared like Canon was deviating from the tradition of the 1 series cameras being lower MP tanks.
While Canon never explicitly stated that the R1 would be a high-resolution monster capable of shooting at high FPS. Our collective expectations led to that speculation, and while Canon never confirmed it, they also never denied it.
As a result, we were left with a camera that, in the tradition of Canon 1 series cameras, is truly specced like a flagship but only when compared to other 1 series cameras.
With the R5II, Canon created a 45MP stack sensor Camera that can shoot 8K, 30FP while still having excellent AF. They really should put that into what I and many other Canon shooters call a PRO body.
p.5 #16 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
snapsy wrote:
Considering the Z8's lower pricing (vs its original MSRP) is the result of it being on the market for a while, ie being ahead of Canon by a generation, I think it's fair to compare its pricing vs R5 II.
Sure, what to matters to a buyer is what they can buy the cameras for right now.
But according to both B&H and Nikon USA, $3499 is a sale price, with the camera being offered for $500 off it's $3999 list price.
Could this sale price be made permanent? Sure I guess, but comparing the current promotional price of a product on sale to the list price of something brand new is not an apples to apples thing.
Nikon was smart to time its Z8 sales pricing around the time of Canon's announcement, to elicit exactly these responses, I imagine.
p.5 #17 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
ingekj wrote:
Canon rumors did not get any rumor right lol. How is the R1 better than the R5 II? More expensive, 10 more fps, dynamic range better? Weird to release their first 45mp stacked sensor in the R5 II before the flagship.
There is the possibility that Canon sees their profit margins are better suited to the R5M2, especially when they are crossing over into traditionally cinema only features, than the return on the R1. There was also speculation the R3 was supposed to be the R1.
That work is for the dual gain readout, which I'm familiar with. I was speaking to the extended ISO DR extension you mentioned that you thought was on a Panasonic.
