Canon didn't say the name R1, but they confirmed that the R3 is NOT a flagship camera in an interview with Canon’s David Parry, so since R3 is not the Canon flagship there must be a real flagship camera coming. Since the R3 is already 30fps so most people will think the higher end camera will be higher MP than the R3.
Also, most pro photographers I know will take a 50MP camera over a 24MP camera if it only cost $500 more...
Think about if we both shooting same sport and both have 400mm f2.8 on you use the 24MP R3 and I use 50MP A1, there is a important thing going on really far away and we can't run into the field, I can use APSC mode make the 400mm to be like a 600mm and still have about the same resolution photo.
TeamSpeed wrote:
More resolution only comes into play in 3 different types of situations. Many folks may never hit these.
- You need to print or deliver goods to a customer for large output (> 20" on the long end)
- You need to crop and then print or deliver goods to a customer for large-ish output (> 14" on the long end)
- You shoot at high ISOs
Anything beyond this, and it is marketing hype. These things above would be related to more of the professional shooter in most cases (ie. they are being paid in one form or another for goods), and those shooters would likely have multiple bodies. Nothing says they won't also have an R5.
As a pro sports shooter, I would have loved the R3 being a 30Mpx, as that has been a sweet spot for my needs, but 24 vs 30 isn't too terribly far off. I would encounter issues just a few shots a game where I would crop pretty deeply, but most of the time 24 would be sufficient.
However, I am just going to wait until I see what else Canon is bringing to the table. I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)
I would suspect those buying the R3 would already know if the resolution works for them or not. If they jump right in and buy it, and then realize later that 24Mpx isn't enough, I would have to question the purchase to begin with. I know specifically what resolutions I need and when, and I think any photographer that has moved through the Canon FF model line also do. The R6 was a hard decision for me, but the R5 wasn't worth the investment for me specifically so I went with the R6 to accompany my 5D4. I shoot both during paid events, and use whichever makes sense for the moment at hand.
Finally, I missed where Canon exposed their hand that they know the resolution is too low and that is why they announced an upcoming R1? Could you point me to ANY Canon sponsored material where they mentioned they are coming out with the R1?
Canon didn't say the name R1, but they confirmed that the R3 is NOT a flagship camera in an interview with Canon’s David Parry, so since R3 is not the Canon flagship there must be a real flagship camera coming. Since the R3 is already 30fps so most people will think the higher end camera will be higher MP than the R3.
Also, most pro photographers I know will take a 50MP camera over a 24MP camera if it only cost $500 more...
TeamSpeed wrote:
More resolution only comes into play in 3 different types of situations. Many folks may never hit these.
- You need to print or deliver goods to a customer for large output (> 20" on the long end)
- You need to crop and then print or deliver goods to a customer for large-ish output (> 14" on the long end)
- You shoot at high ISOs
Anything beyond this, and it is marketing hype. These things above would be related to more of the professional shooter in most cases (ie. they are being paid in one form or another for goods), and those shooters would likely have multiple bodies. Nothing says they won't also have an R5.
As a pro sports shooter, I would have loved the R3 being a 30Mpx, as that has been a sweet spot for my needs, but 24 vs 30 isn't too terribly far off. I would encounter issues just a few shots a game where I would crop pretty deeply, but most of the time 24 would be sufficient.
However, I am just going to wait until I see what else Canon is bringing to the table. I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)
I would suspect those buying the R3 would already know if the resolution works for them or not. If they jump right in and buy it, and then realize later that 24Mpx isn't enough, I would have to question the purchase to begin with. I know specifically what resolutions I need and when, and I think any photographer that has moved through the Canon FF model line also do. The R6 was a hard decision for me, but the R5 wasn't worth the investment for me specifically so I went with the R6 to accompany my 5D4. I shoot both during paid events, and use whichever makes sense for the moment at hand.
Finally, I missed where Canon exposed their hand that they know the resolution is too low and that is why they announced an upcoming R1? Could you point me to ANY Canon sponsored material where they mentioned they are coming out with the R1?
Canon didn't say the name R1, but they confirmed that the R3 is NOT a flagship camera in an interview with Canon’s David Parry, so since R3 is not the Canon flagship there must be a real flagship camera coming. Since the R3 is already 30fps so most people will think the higher end camera will be higher MP than the R3.
TeamSpeed wrote:
More resolution only comes into play in 3 different types of situations. Many folks may never hit these.
- You need to print or deliver goods to a customer for large output (> 20" on the long end)
- You need to crop and then print or deliver goods to a customer for large-ish output (> 14" on the long end)
- You shoot at high ISOs
Anything beyond this, and it is marketing hype. These things above would be related to more of the professional shooter in most cases (ie. they are being paid in one form or another for goods), and those shooters would likely have multiple bodies. Nothing says they won't also have an R5.
As a pro sports shooter, I would have loved the R3 being a 30Mpx, as that has been a sweet spot for my needs, but 24 vs 30 isn't too terribly far off. I would encounter issues just a few shots a game where I would crop pretty deeply, but most of the time 24 would be sufficient.
However, I am just going to wait until I see what else Canon is bringing to the table. I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)
I would suspect those buying the R3 would already know if the resolution works for them or not. If they jump right in and buy it, and then realize later that 24Mpx isn't enough, I would have to question the purchase to begin with. I know specifically what resolutions I need and when, and I think any photographer that has moved through the Canon FF model line also do. The R6 was a hard decision for me, but the R5 wasn't worth the investment for me specifically so I went with the R6 to accompany my 5D4. I shoot both during paid events, and use whichever makes sense for the moment at hand.
Finally, I missed where Canon exposed their hand that they know the resolution is too low and that is why they announced an upcoming R1? Could you point me to ANY Canon sponsored material where they mentioned they are coming out with the R1?
Jan 10, 2022 at 01:03 PM
Previous versions of EdwardDye's message #15824514 « Canon R1 or R3 »
I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)