p.9 #1 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
arbitrage wrote:
Certainly seems to have some weird quirks like the WB and EC not being customizable (what a waste). Also the EC button not functioning in M+AutoISO mode....really Canon are we back in 2010 again??
Jan Wegener said he will have a full review out next week also.
Perhaps FW updates will address this. For EC in manual with auto ISO, I wonder if you can assign it to the lens control ring and have it work. The hands-on I had, I didn't think to try this as I rarely use EC in manual because I usually prefer to avoid Auto ISO. Later in the video he mentioned it was a preproduction camera. But I guess if Canon is allowing him to post publicly, it must be pretty much final build/spec.
I agree with him that it's the best EVF experience I've ever had. Pretty much forgot it was an EVF most of the time especially in panning situations where I wasn't falling behind the subject the way I do with my previous-gen Canon mirrorless. I also agree that the ergonomics of the camera are really good. It's not overly small and in my average size hands it was very comfortable, but it also wasn't really heavy. Not sure what Canon has done with construction if it's still all magnesium alloy or if there are more plastics incorporated. It certainly didn't have the dense brick-like feeling of the 1DX series, which was OK with me.
p.9 #2 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
This camera looks great. Love the idea of the two stage AF-ON button although sounds like it still needs a little tweaking to the feel. The AF looks incredible. Canon always puts some special sauce into the 1 series that goes beyond the spec sheet. I get that impression from Jan's video.
p.9 #3 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
arbitrage wrote:
This camera looks great. Love the idea of the two stage AF-ON button although sounds like it still needs a little tweaking to the feel. The AF looks incredible. Canon always puts some special sauce into the 1 series that goes beyond the spec sheet. I get that impression from Jan's video.
I very strongly believe this camera is one you have to use to really get a feel for what it might or might not provide for your needs. Spec sheet stats only go so far and leave a lot unanswered. This actually reminds me a lot about my Leica ownership experience. On paper their cameras are under-specced and usually uncompetitive. But in-hand they feel great, are a real joy to use (particularly the M system) and their intentional minimalism keeps them out of the way, allowing me to concentrate on the subject/scene. As I've suggested before, one of the biggest positive impressions I had with the R1 was how it just simply worked with everything I tried and was mostly transparent in use. That kind of experience is really, really hard to put a dollar value on. Some won't care (because THE SPECS!!), but for others it's priceless. One question in my mind though is whether Canon can effectively convince enough photographers that the experience outweighs the specs. It works for Leica because they market their cameras around the user experience and it's kind of funny, but people with money tend to value that and care less about price. Canon is in the big pool with Nikon and Sony where a much higher percentage of the user base is more strongly cost/value driven by the spec sheet.
Yeah, more MP would be nice but I kind of don't care, perhaps out of ignorance. I want to have fun while using the equipment and not be fighting it. And I want great photos too, which when using a fun camera sets a positive mindset that helps with creativity.
Compared to my lowly R6II, I felt the keeper rate from the R1 with very fast moving vehicles was higher and AF was more consistent. Some of the vehicles had minimal text/ads on them and the R6II didn't like the low contrast bodywork, especially in backlit situations. The R1 in comparison was notably faster to acquire and recognize where the human was in the scene, such as a rider/driver's hemet, even in pouring rain and with a ton of mist kicked up by preceding vehicles. And it could hold focus on high speed subjects to absurdly close distances. In low light conditions like community ice rinks, shooting at ISO 12800 1/500 f/4, it did a very, very good job of again zeroing in on player heads/helmets nearly instantly, so that subject recognition/tracking was more useful in busier situations. With the R6II I might use subject detection/recognition 50% of the time and usually only when a player is in the clear. And at those light levels it would get the first frame but the second might be soft. With the R1 virtually every frame was correctly focused and it was more a matter of user error screwing things up.
I also thought the R1 files looked a little sharper than the R6II. Both are 24MP so wondering if something with the AA filter has been tweaked on the R1? Maybe to account for cross-focus sensitivity?
p.9 #4 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
How did you get a R1 to test?
I assume it was a pre production copy?
rscheffler wrote:
I very strongly believe this camera is one you have to use to really get a feel for what it might or might not provide for your needs. Spec sheet stats only go so far and leave a lot unanswered. This actually reminds me a lot about my Leica ownership experience. On paper their cameras are under-specced and usually uncompetitive. But in-hand they feel great, are a real joy to use (particularly the M system) and their intentional minimalism keeps them out of the way, allowing me to concentrate on the subject/scene. As I've suggested before, one of the biggest positive impressions I had with the R1 was how it just simply worked with everything I tried and was mostly transparent in use. That kind of experience is really, really hard to put a dollar value on. Some won't care (because THE SPECS!!), but for others it's priceless. One question in my mind though is whether Canon can effectively convince enough photographers that the experience outweighs the specs. It works for Leica because they market their cameras around the user experience and it's kind of funny, but people with money tend to value that and care less about price. Canon is in the big pool with Nikon and Sony where a much higher percentage of the user base is more strongly cost/value driven by the spec sheet.
Yeah, more MP would be nice but I kind of don't care, perhaps out of ignorance. I want to have fun while using the equipment and not be fighting it. And I want great photos too, which when using a fun camera sets a positive mindset that helps with creativity.
Compared to my lowly R6II, I felt the keeper rate from the R1 with very fast moving vehicles was higher and AF was more consistent. Some of the vehicles had minimal text/ads on them and the R6II didn't like the low contrast bodywork, especially in backlit situations. The R1 in comparison was notably faster to acquire and recognize where the human was in the scene, such as a rider/driver's hemet, even in pouring rain and with a ton of mist kicked up by preceding vehicles. And it could hold focus on high speed subjects to absurdly close distances. In low light conditions like community ice rinks, shooting at ISO 12800 1/500 f/4, it did a very, very good job of again zeroing in on player heads/helmets nearly instantly, so that subject recognition/tracking was more useful in busier situations. With the R6II I might use subject detection/recognition 50% of the time and usually only when a player is in the clear. And at those light levels it would get the first frame but the second might be soft. With the R1 virtually every frame was correctly focused and it was more a matter of user error screwing things up.
I also thought the R1 files looked a little sharper than the R6II. Both are 24MP so wondering if something with the AA filter has been tweaked on the R1? Maybe to account for cross-focus sensitivity?...Show more →
p.9 #5 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
I also thought the R1 files looked a little sharper than the R6II. Both are 24MP so wondering if something with the AA filter has been tweaked on the R1? Maybe to account for cross-focus sensitivity?
Same was/is said about the R3 vs other 24mp sensors (though R3 is the only stacked one so less direct comparison)- I'm sure in the more expensive bodies they can put in a more expensive AA filter or whatever it is to get that sharpness boosted a bit. I think this is also why when sensors roll down to lesser bodies they say 'its a version of XX sensor'. Now that I think back, people said the same about the R6 vs 1DXIII - 1DX was just a tad better even though it was the 'same' sensor.
p.9 #6 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
The only negative spec about the R1 seems to be the MP count. I've shot with a variety of cameras and believe 20-30 MP is the sweet spot considering noise, diffraction and file size. Its pretty easy to choke out my computer shooting the R5 at 20fps. Imagine trying to edit 45mp files at 40 FPS with pre-burst! I for one welcome the 24mp sensor.
p.9 #7 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
Pete73 wrote:
The only negative spec about the R1 seems to be the MP count. I've shot with a variety of cameras and believe 20-30 MP is the sweet spot considering noise, diffraction and file size. It's pretty easy to choke out my computer shooting the R5 at 20fps. Imagine trying to edit 45mp files at 40 FPS with pre-burst! I for one welcome the 24mp sensor.
I agree that on paper 24MP does not look good. In use, it really depends on one's needs. With this forum dominated by reach-limited bird/wildlife photographers, there's definitely an argument for higher pixel density.
For what I do, sports and events, 24MP is a good balance of resolution, file size, editing/processing ease and overall workflow but I wouldn't mind 30MP for a little more flexibility. Some other sports photographers I have spoken with about this and who have the R5II, do very much like its higher resolution and cropping flexibility. The opinion seems to generally be that they won't bother with the R1 because the R5II's AF is already a noticeable improvement (over the R5, and in their opinions, to some degree over the R3). But they're also all super-tele prime users (rather than zoom). Erring on the side of looser framing takes advantage of the extra resolution because of cropping rather than zooming. Another sports photo friend doesn't see the need to upgrade from the R3. His argument is that if he's already getting high 90% in-focus during a game, will the R1's higher performance make a real-world difference for him? I can definitely appreciate his point and I think it's one of the main challenges Canon has with marketing the R1. But none of them have used the R1. And that's why I think it'll be a 'user experience' matter more than anything else. All the high-end cameras on the market do a great job (and a reason I ended up with the R6II coming from the 1DXII, because it offered better AF) and the differentiation will be in how each camera produces the required results. Other than AF, I think the new pre-capture implementation in the R1 and R5II makes it another need/want feature over previous bodies like the R6II with its half-baked pre-capture and the R5, without the feature, IIRC. One of the things I fight with the R6II is its inherent mirrorless/EVF lag. I feel like I'm always a fraction of a second behind the actual action (it also has the previous generation half-baked pre-capture implementation). By the time I press the shutter release, the moment I wanted is often gone, which rarely happened with the 1DXII. After a couple years, I still haven't fully adjusted. With pre-capture you can wait a fraction of a second after the moment to decide whether or not you want it, and still get it. IMO it is in some respects a game changer. I felt like I was missing less with it on. And it is possible to regulate its use by how long you half-press the shutter release, if you're a BB AF user. But if you have AF on the shutter release and typically half-press well before anticipating the shot to give AF time to acquire and lock, then you'll be cranking out a lot of pre-capture frames with the current implementation that does not allow setting pre-capture duration.
p.9 #8 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
Yeah, more MP would be nice but I kind of don't care, perhaps out of ignorance. I want to have fun while using the equipment and not be fighting it. And I want great photos too, which when using a fun camera sets a positive mindset that helps with creativity.
This is exactly why I chose to shoot with the R3 90% of the time over the R5, the camera just worked and I never had to worry about things like rolling shutter or it locking up on me. I do wish that things like the buffer depth and overall speed were a bit better but 40fps is still pretty insane. I’m curious about the in-camera upscaling too and how it performs versus something like Gigapixel AI. I wouldn’t use it as it exists currently being limited to JPEG but if the quality is better than third-party software and they add support for RAW upscaling that would be pretty incredible.
p.9 #9 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
I agree that on paper 24MP does not look good. In use, it really depends on one's needs. With this forum dominated by reach-limited bird/wildlife photographers, there's definitely an argument for higher pixel density.
For what I do, sports and events, 24MP is a good balance of resolution, file size, editing/processing ease and overall workflow but I wouldn't mind 30MP for a little more flexibility. Some other sports photographers I have spoken with about this and who have the R5II, do very much like its higher resolution and cropping flexibility. The opinion seems to generally be that they won't bother with the R1 because the R5II's AF is already a noticeable improvement (over the R5, and in their opinions, to some degree over the R3). But they're also all super-tele prime users (rather than zoom). Erring on the side of looser framing takes advantage of the extra resolution because of cropping rather than zooming. Another sports photo friend doesn't see the need to upgrade from the R3. His argument is that if he's already getting high 90% in-focus during a game, will the R1's higher performance make a real-world difference for him? I can definitely appreciate his point and I think it's one of the main challenges Canon has with marketing the R1. But none of them have used the R1. And that's why I think it'll be a 'user experience' matter more than anything else. All the high-end cameras on the market do a great job (and a reason I ended up with the R6II coming from the 1DXII, because it offered better AF) and the differentiation will be in how each camera produces the required results. Other than AF, I think the new pre-capture implementation in the R1 and R5II makes it another need/want feature over previous bodies like the R3 with its half-baked pre-capture and the R5, without the feature, IIRC. One of the things I fight with the R6II is its inherent mirrorless/EVF lag. I feel like I'm always a fraction of a second behind the actual action (it also has the previous generation half-baked pre-capture implementation). By the time I press the shutter release, the moment I wanted is often gone, which rarely happened with the 1DXII. After a couple years, I still haven't fully adjusted. With pre-capture you can wait a fraction of a second after the moment to decide whether or not you want it, and still get it. IMO it is in some respects a game changer. I felt like I was missing less with it on. And it is possible to regulate its use by how long you half-press the shutter release, if you're a BB AF user. But if you have AF on the shutter release and typically half-press well before anticipating the shot to give AF time to acquire and lock, then you'll be cranking out a lot of pre-capture frames with the current implementation that does not allow setting pre-capture duration....Show more →
How would you say the hit rate between the r6ii and r1 is? I've been shooting with the r6ii for a while(I love it), and I was wondering if there was a major difference between the tracking of players. Sometimes the r6ii AF could be jumpy if there are multiple faces, so I would love to hear your thoughts
p.9 #12 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
In other words it is not a birding camera. Unless you are sitting at a feeder or just happen to get a bird flying bye, or foraging close. About 30 seconds of 24mp is not enough for birding, then on with the review. If you are a birder you want the MP, if you are a sports shooter 24 is enough. Doesn't matter how great the rest of it is, it is not even a discussion. What this is, is who do we give the camera to for review so a few suckers in the birding community will buy it.
I would venture to bet the R5 II will be hands down the best overall birding camera. Why? MP! With the R1 when cropping you will get a mushy mess of no detail.
p.9 #14 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
stanj wrote:
Owls are birds and my R3 is better for owls than my R5m2, so I'm pretty sure that the R1 will be even better. One trick pony, yes, but still.
, yes true.. I would venture to say if it were 45MP you would see detail you never knew existed before. Curious since you shoot owls. Can you not tell the difference in detail? Between 24 and 45 MP. Or is the AF the only thing that matters.
p.9 #15 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
stanj wrote:
Owls are birds and my R3 is better for owls than my R5m2, so I'm pretty sure that the R1 will be even better. One trick pony, yes, but still.
p.9 #16 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
If your goal is shooting tight portraits of birds on sticks then yes you’re correct. If you like to include environment and your main concern isn’t just filling the frame with the bird then resolution honestly doesn’t matter that much. I’ve owned the R3 and R5 since they both were released and after getting the R3 I barely ever used the R5 and basically all I shoot are birds.
Upscaling software also continues to get better and better, I’d like to see comparisons between low light shots from the R5 II and the R1 upscaled to 45MP.
gkinard1952 wrote:
In other words it is not a birding camera. Unless you are sitting at a feeder or just happen to get a bird flying bye, or foraging close. About 30 seconds of 24mp is not enough for birding, then on with the review. If you are a birder you want the MP, if you are a sports shooter 24 is enough. Doesn't matter how great the rest of it is, it is not even a discussion. What this is, is who do we give the camera to for review so a few suckers in the birding community will buy it.
I would venture to bet the R5 II will be hands down the best overall birding camera. Why? MP! With the R1 when cropping you will get a mushy mess of no detail.
p.9 #17 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
Tony5787 wrote:
If your goal is shooting tight portraits of birds on sticks then yes you’re correct. If you like to include environment and your main concern isn’t just filling the frame with the bird then resolution honestly doesn’t matter that much. I’ve owned the R3 and R5 since they both were released and after getting the R3 I barely ever used the R5 and basically all I shoot are birds.
Upscaling software also continues to get better and better, I’d like to see comparisons between low light shots from the R5 II and the R1 upscaled to 45MP.
Fair enough, I tried the R1 at the local store when Canon was there giving it the push. I would not have one, but I am interested in detail more than anything. I want a record of the bird with as much info as I can extract. I am clearly in the minority here I guess.
p.9 #18 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
^ It can do anything where speed/responsiveness is a high priority. Whether or not 24MP is enough is going to be a subjective matter.
rscheffler wrote:
... like the R3 with its half-baked pre-capture ...
vbnut wrote:
I own an EOS R3 with (I think) the latest firmware, and I wasn't aware it had any kind of pre-capture. Am I missing something?
No, I think you're right and I got it confused with the 195fps burst option. R6II does have a half-baked version of pre-capture that puts all the images in a container file that currently can only be opened with Canon software, or individual files extracted in-camera. It also locks up the camera until all the files are offloaded to the memory card. The implementation in the R5II and R1 is much better.
gkinard1952 wrote:
In other words it is not a birding camera.
stanj wrote:
Owls are birds and my R3 is better for owls than my R5m2, so I'm pretty sure that the R1 will be even better. One trick pony, yes, but still.
gkinard1952 wrote: , yes true.. I would venture to say if it were 45MP you would see detail you never knew existed before. Curious since you shoot owls. Can you not tell the difference in detail? Between 24 and 45 MP. Or is the AF the only thing that matters.
When I transitioned from DSLRs to mirrorless, I borrowed the R3, R5 and R6 from CPS to evaluate. I thought I would strongly prefer the resolution advantage of the R5 over the other two, but for that to be the case, my finding was that it needed to be low ISO and high shutter speed to sufficiently freeze subject motion and avoid 'micro blur' caused by various factors including camera movement not aligned with subject movement. Given that the sports I cover often are not in ideal full-sun weather, or are indoor, and that to get the high shutter speeds will mean higher ISOs, once at those higher ISOs, I didn't think the R5 had all that much, if any discernible resolution advantage over 24MP. I'm sure it does in ideal locked down situations, but not while trying to keep a fast and erratically moving athlete consistently framed when the light conditions might not allow use of sufficiently high enough shutter speeds.
p.9 #19 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
gkinard1952 wrote: , yes true.. I would venture to say if it were 45MP you would see detail you never knew existed before. Curious since you shoot owls. Can you not tell the difference in detail? Between 24 and 45 MP. Or is the AF the only thing that matters.
Of course I can see the difference in detail. Perched shots in good light I always use the R5 (now mk2), but I like flight shots and those happen at ISO 25k or higher, f2.8, 1/500 or ideally faster, but sometimes slower. The R5m2 falls apart well before that, the R3 definitely towers above it in every regard, and I can't imagine the R1 being worse. I would love to have an R1 with 45MP and everything else being the same, but that's not what anyone's offering.
p.9 #20 · Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
stanj wrote:
Owls are birds and my R3 is better for owls than my R5m2, so I'm pretty sure that the R1 will be even better. One trick pony, yes, but still.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
…..better in what way 🤔?
AF. Noise.
I love detail, but I prefer an in-focus, lower noise 24MP photo over a blurry, complete noisy mess 45MP one. This camera is a one trick pony for me: owls in flight. For everything else so far, there's the R5 family.
, yes true.. I would venture to say if it were 45MP you would see detail you never knew existed before. Curious since you shoot owls. Can you not tell the difference in detail? Between 24 and 45 MP. Or is the AF the only thing that matters.