I currently have the R5MkII, love the camera, stopped by my local camera store yesterday, just to “look”, played a little bit with the R1, to make a long story short, they offered a deal on the R1 that I’m really having trouble not doing, Do I need it, NO, this will probably be my last camera I buy, as I’m getting old, I have a nice assortment of RF lenses, asking your opinion, what would you do?
Thanks
Thanks everyone for taking the time to comment, decided to stay with my R5MKII
I have often thought that new stuff would make me happy, and I have been right about 1% of the time. You currently have what is in my opinion the finest digital camera ever made. I would enjoy it and think no more of it.
Everyone is different but I really like my R1 and have owned a couple of R5's and still have one of them. The R5 gets very little use lately as I have really come to appreciate the R1. First the ergonomics are much better for me. I have large hands and fat fingers and the R5 is just too small to be comfortable in my hands. The R1 physically fits me much better and my fingers don't get crunched between the grip and certain lenses. It weighs noticeably less than a gripped R5 with two batteries. I have the R5 not the R5II but the viewfinder is much better. Large and bright with the least eye strain of any camera I've used. Given these things alone the R1 is just more enjoyable for me to shoot with.
Spec wise I think the fast read out speed of the R1 is very underestimated. The high flash sync is huge if you use flash outside or with large aperture lenses. No rolling shutter issues at all including with pre-capture shots that typically have very fast action to freeze. The battery drives super telephoto lenses noticeably faster and has no reduction in performance in the cold or when it isn't fully charged.
I feel the camera gets dismissed due to its lowly 24MP but for my final output (print or agency) I prefer the R1 files. They are sharper at the per pixel level, more malleable in photoshop and have far less noise to clean up.
I have an R1 and two R5 IIs. The files from the R5 are much better than the R1 when heavily cropped which is common in sports. I generally use the R1 on my 70-200 and the R5 II on my 400. If I could only take on body to a sports event it would be the R5 II. I like the R1 and if it had the same megapixel formula of the R5 II it would be the go to. A small crop of a larger image just isn't as pretty as it is with the R5 II. Likewise, there are times when the R5 II is easier to bring without the battery grip which is not an option on the R1. I like the R1 but it's not far superior to the R5 II.
osidesurfer wrote:
You mentioned getting older. Do you really want to increase your gear weight as you age?
From this point of view that's one of the worse features of the high end cameras past film EOS-1 - you can't remove the "battery grip" if you want to go tad lighter.
Keep the R5m2. I have two of them, and one R1. The R1 is a one-trick pony for me: owls in flight with the 400/2.8 (which is also a mostly-one-trick-pony for me). For just about everything else the R5m2 is better or equal, and unless I'm going to the forest looking for owls the R1 stays at home.
I haven't 'needed' a camera since my last Yashica FX-3 2000 died in perhaps 2009? I bought an EOS 500D+kit lens. 'Need' has absolutely nothing to do with my 25 or 30 camera purchases since then. I've had a truckload of Canon (film and digital) cameras. The hands-down, absolute best of the bunch was the EOS 1D Mark IV. I've only recently moved to the R/RF platform. The more I learn about it, the more I like it. I am pondering the purchase of an R8, which by the way, I do not need. Seems a refurbished or used R6II may be a better idea though.
If you want an R1, and you can afford the R1, buy the R1. Enjoy it. Money you are not spending is not significantly different than toilet paper.
I have an R3 and an R5II, but no R1. I like the cropability of the R5II files. But the R3 is better when the EF 500mm f4 IS II is mounted, especially with the 1.4 extender, and also seems better with the EF 300mm f2.8 IS II, especially with fast-moving objects (birds). Maybe the larger battery drives the R3 AF better. So I would assume the R1, with its R5II AF capabilities, would be even better than the R3 for demanding big lenses and demanding subjects.
One of the least reasonable reasons for making a purchase, unless it's a product you've desired for some time but couldn't afford, is "It was such a good deal, I just couldn't pass it up" and/or "It might come in handy someday".
Such purchases are merely self-rewards to re-experience the childhood joy of receiving birthday, and Christmas gifts, and they're often soon disregarded to make way for the next "fix".
The R1 is an amazing camera and great for high-speed action situations. If you don't do this kind of work, then it's not really going to deliver 'better' results than the R5II. If the 'shooting experience' is as or more important than the technical end results, then there isn't a better Canon camera, IMO. YOLO!
Dragonfire wrote:
If the R1 had the R5 sensor it would be in my hand and at 71 it would be the last camera I would ever need.
I'm still shoot my 1D IV.
1DIV is 16MP APS-H, which IIRC is about 27MP FF equivalent? R1 is 24MP. There is so much about the R1 beyond sensor resolution that is in an entirely different universe from the 1DIV, as good as that camera was in ~2010.
I'm curious what about even the R5/R5II is holding you back from getting one to replace the 1DIV?
I mean, I owned the 1DIV when it came out until the 1DX was released, and it was the best available from Canon at the time. But with respect to most performance parameters, it is vastly outperformed by the R5/R5II, let alone the R6II/R6III.
I had the R3 and R5 II, and thought about changing the R3 for a second R5II so for familiarity they would be the same, I love the crop ability of the R5II. However I kept the R3 (I think it is the best body Canon has ever made) because I love to photograph owls which are usually in low light and the R3 sensor is better.Also I like the bigger battery to drive my 400 f2.8 &600 f4, as well as the better performance in the cold weather which is much better than the R5II battery performance in the real cold weather. The auto focus in the R3 is still good but the R5II is better and I really like pre capture sometimes. So last week I got an opportunity to swap my R3 for an R1 and I did for the better viewfinder, pre capture and excellent Low light high ISO performance.
Just came back to Canon and picked up an R5II and R1. Main reason for getting the R1 was as much if not more for video than photo, particularly low light wildlife video. R1 seems to be the best if not close to the best low light sensor for both photo & video on the market.
During my 5 year stint with Sony I grew to love the FX3 for low light video and hoping the R1 can fill that void with great low light stills capabilities to boot.
@BobnJake
I'm a little late to the party but I can share my experiences. I switched from EF to RF about 3 years ago and went with the R1, 24-70 f2,8, 70-200 f2.8 and 100-500. I am amazed at what the R1 can do. What it can't do is have more megapixels. When shooting bif I needed to crop as the longest lens I had was the zoom and I couldn't seem to make the extenders work for me on that lens. So last year I picked up the R5II. Since then I've picked up several more lenses.
It is great for bif but its not the R1, I have found the R1 has much better AF and high iso capabilities. For bif, its the R5II. For everything else its the R1.
I'm 80 and don't consider myself old. No, I can't handle the big whites anymore but I've adapted. If you can comfortably swing it, buy it.
When Canon comes out with the R1II I'll be looking. Maybe then get rid of the R5 and R1.
I am considering a switch over to the R1 as well for its low light capabilities. Would love to hear some of your real life experiences with it in low light and your thoughts about how it performed. Looking for iso ranges from 8000-16000.
