Re: Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
stanj wrote: 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.
I set the R5m2 to max auto iso 12800, for low light it really does fall apart and you can't set 16000 as a limit either. The R3 max auto-iso at 25600 is a reasonable file to work with and I'd expect the R1 to be slightly better for noise and shadows. Denoising changes the game of noise and pp.
After two months with the R5m2 side by side with R3 the 45mb has it's advantages but it's about focal length. On a football field with a 400mm the cropping power is an advantage, but a basketball court with a 70-200 less unlikely a need for the MP. The R5m2 and R1 both have AF advantages with acquiring subjects from a distant. The R5m2 AF is great but complex situations with lots of faces it's unpredictable and jittery, so maybe the R1 improves upon this but from a previous Jan YT video about his experience from birding, I commented to him with similar results he also saw with sports. I've found really good luck with setting case -2, +2 with football to be sticky, where the R3 would have been -2, +1, but always the fallback to single pt AF like the 1dx's. No beating the R1, R3 bodies for ergo, the R5m2 is just annoying with smaller buttons and idiotic front button placement.
The R1 will find it's audience but it's not to say one couldn't capture 95% of the same shots with a R6m2 realistically. If I'm thinking of spending $7k on the R1 and already have a R6m2, R3, or R5m2, money better spent is probably on a 100-300 imo.
Nov 05, 2024 at 01:01 PM
Previous versions of adamx12m's message #16678710 « Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications »
, 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.