Canon EOS R1: Sensor Specs That Will Shock You!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2024
- UA-cam
Canon EOS R1: Sensor Details That Will Divide Photographers!
Smart preorder links become active after the embargo is lifted
🛒Smart Preorder link for the Canon R5 II at B&H: bhpho.to/3VRCzMK *
🛒Smart Preorder link for the Canon R5 II at Adorama: howl.me/clYhBBhhjx4 *
🛒Smart Preorder link for the Canon EOS R1 at B&H: bhpho.to/3UBPVKR *
🛒Smart Preorder link for the Canon EOS R1 at Adorama: howl.me/clslNUI7FV4 *
Deals of the week
🛒$2,899 for Canon R5 at B&H: bhpho.to/3PAWgVW *
🛒$2,899 for Canon R5 Kit at Adorama: howl.me/clCsfZnMIDf *
🛒$3,599 for Canon R5c at B&H: bhpho.to/42WRdEh *
🛒$3,599 for Canon R5c at Adorama: howl.me/clKyUuzKGgM *
🛒R3 $4,499 Price drop at B&H: bhpho.to/3PAWgVW *
🛒R3 $4,499 Price drop at Adorama: howl.me/clooHepppGr *
🛒R6 II $1,999 Price drop at B&H: bhpho.to/3Wonhj0 *
🛒R6 II $1,999 Price drop at Adorama: howl.me/cl9ZxarbpD1 *
🛒R7 $1,399 Price drop at B&H: bhpho.to/3Ew3Cnh *
🛒R7 $1,399 Price drop at Adorama: howl.me/cl912lLs8fJ *
🛒R8 $1,199 Price drop at B&H: bhpho.to/3QLT9ut *
🛒R8 $1,199 Price drop at Adorama: howl.me/cl910GZYnjw *
🛒R50 $549 Price drop at B&H: bhpho.to/3UKfvNM *
🛒R50 $549 Price drop at Adorama: howl.me/cl911xbGRs1 *
🛒Save $300 on the Sony a7S III at Adorama: howl.me/cl4c5KJzb0d *
🛒Save $200 on the Sony a7 IV: howl.me/cl4c65sZt4l *
🛒Save $400 on the Sony a7R V: howl.me/cl4c8bAqYIO *
🛒Save $500 on the Nikon Z8: howl.me/clkeNwzhi7O *
🛒Save $500 on the Nikon Z7 II: howl.me/cmcVR83pq8a *
🛒Save $500 on the Nikon D850: howl.me/cmcVR9jmhgW *
#canonr1
* Preorder link function after the embargo is lifted. Use of the affiliate links may result in a commission to this channel.
👍 R5 Contest Details 👍
Watch this video: • Canon EOS R5 Sweepstak...
👍Join this channel to get access to perks👍
/ @ordinaryfilmmaker
==============================================
👍 Affiliate Links 👍
==============================================
Some of the links in my video descriptions are affiliate links. At no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them . If you have a different purchase in mind, you can also use these storewide links below.
🛒 Adorama: howl.me/cjBbkmnJLZy
🛒 B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2QIwa7d
🛒 Amazon US: amzn.to/3gvYhiA
🛒 amzn.to/3jBms0R
In Canada
🛒 Patrick NG, Downtown Camera 1.866.223.1618
=============================
Patreon & PayPal:
=============================
Or directly via PayPal here: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
This is appreciated, but unnecessary, and no content will ever be behind a paywall.
=============================
👍 Need a 60 minute consultation 👍
=============================
Book a session through my online teaching site at www.verbling.com/teachers/simon
👍 Gear Used 👍
Canon EOS R5, Canon RF 50mm F1.2, SmallRig RC22B, Angelbird AtomX, Atomos Ninja V
👍 Software 👍
Final Cut Pro 10.6.3, Compressor, Canva.com, MotionVFX
FCPX Key covers: kbcovers.com/final-cut-pro-x-...
0:00 Leaked Image reveals
The views and opinions expressed in this program are not intended to serve as a substitute for consultation. Each viewer has their own use cases and needs requiring individual research and analysis of needs. - Фільми й анімація
I like how no one wants to admit that the R3 was the original R1.
Some of us knew all along
THIS
Yes I knew that all along, LOL
It's not only about MP's. And still, this is not official!
Well it sounds like the R1 will be bigger than the R3. I think pro’s wanted a 1Dx size camera but mirrorless.
So it’s a R3 MKii..?
A bit cynical are we? The R3 was a test platform for new technology (e.g Eye Tracking AF). I would expect the R3 to be a one and done camera. The R1 will be superior in every way.
I am also a professional wildlife photographer and guide in the Yellowstone region and while it is possible to get nice images at 24mp, most wildlife photographers here have switched to Sony or Nikon because of the A1 and Z9 which put 45 megapixels in durable flagship bodies. I am personally very disappointed by these specs. Most of us also do landscape photography which benefits from that increased detail for large prints. National Park regulations make it so you can’t get closer than 100 meters from wolves or bears, so often, a 600mm lens AND some cropping is needed to get a nice image of certain species. In other ecosystems you might be able to get closer to your subject, but here it is just not possible most of the time without breaking the law or impacting the animal’s behavior. It is of course possible to get good images at a lower resolution but there is no guarantee that special moment happens close enough to you that you fill the frame and you miss far more shots than are made up for by a faster burst. For me a minimum of over 30 megapixels is required to remain competitive as a wildlife photographer in this part of the world. Based on specs so far, I would be happy with an R5II for wildlife but I am strongly hoping canon puts these specs into an R3 style body that has a vertical grip and larger battery that can power both focus motors on the 600mm F4.
Agree 100%. I am starting to believe that the low mpx apologists who tell you what you need are just the "influencers" who produce videos and have no clue what wildlife, and especially bird photographers want. My experience is that most have moved to 45+ mpx sensors and like tanklike bodies with big batteries. Canon doesn't even produce a camera like that. But they have FOUR 24mpx cameras offered now...
Most accurate comment here. I also use the 600 F4 and I so badly want the more powerful batteries in a future R5.
It's pretty clear that Canon doesn't care about the wildlife market...edit: more money is to be made in sports photographer. Wildlife photographers make nowhere near the same income as a good pro sports photographer. EVER. With that in mind, Canon will want to deliver a sports camera for sports photographers. Sports photographers don't want or need more than 30mp. They need SPEED and AF performance. 2 things the R1 will deliver. If you want to do wildlife, then the R5II will be the camera of choice. That's Canon's logic. Sony and Nikon work differently, and use different (imho, better) logic. They build a flagship camera that can do everything.
You can expect Canon to continue to lose customers.
@@davepastern You’re correct but what you missed is that the R5 with smaller batteries cannot fully make the most of the big white primes. So while the R5 is good and fine, canons competition offers cameras that would fit that niche for us.
@@zeiss1382 that's BS. Jan Wegener and Duade Paton both use long super tele primes without issue and with a R5.
Having looked through Joshua's work, it's pretty clear why 24mp is enough for him. He shoots only landscapes and relatively large subjects. For photographing small birds for example, 24mp is a major limitation bordering on a dealbreaker.
Please look up Jan Wegener's videos on the R3 or A9III for reference.
Yeah Jan is a good reference for sure.
Well stated. Joshua shoots expansive landscapes and large mammals from relatively close ranges. He's not shooting warblers from a kayak in bottomland swamps. Huge difference. Most birds aren't top predatory animals where you can drive up to them in an automobile within 50 feet. These are skittish creatures and distance and cropping are huge factors.
There are more accomplished wildlife photographers in the comments than that guy. And we would disagree with the 24MP being enough sentiment.
Wildlife photographers can’t have enough MP. If you can’t get close enough, especially with birds and small animals, it’s nice to have the ability to crop in a good bit when needed. Then again, there is really good upscaling software that’s always getting better. Likewise, higher ISO noise performance that may come with a higher MP sensor is not as big a problem as it once was because noice reduction software has gotten really good such as with DxO’s DeepPRIME XD among others.
I use Topaz Gigapixel for upscaling my full frame images if i want to print to A2 at 350dpi. For printing up to A3, the 24mp of my R3 is fine. I have the view that if you can't get close enough, then better luck next time. Tin man lee espouses the same logic when it comes to lighting in images, with many photographers, myself included, using AI masking to improve the lighting via software means.
So, if you want to enter wildlife photography competitions, you'll want to nail your exposure, composition and get the animal large enough in the frame to avoid cropping. If you're adjusting exposure selectively, you'll most likely get disqualified.
For birds, wildlife, and aviation, 24MP just won't cut it. I know. I've tried. I love the R3, but it just won't produce the kind of beautiful, detailed images that the R5 so easily does. The R3 AF is a lot of fun . . . but unless you're shooting subjects within very short range (portraits), or subjects where detail isn't so important (sports), the output is disappointing. This is why professional photographers use high-MP full frame and medium format cameras. My dream camera would be a 45MP R3 or R1. At 24MP, the camera is disqualified.
Joshua illustrates that this isn't the case, and does so very well. He spends his full time getting shots from Antartica to New Zealand. What wildlife photography do you shoot Bill? How has 24mp failed you in the field?
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker , there is a real difference between "good enough" and outstanding. Many photographers (like Joshua) do poster quality work. The industry calls them 20-footers. (Some call them 6-footers -- the point being that they look fine from a distance.) That's fine for their market. Nothing wrong with that. But it's a finite market. I expect somewhat better than that. A 24MP camera will not produce an image of a bird in flight that stands up to art-gallery distance scrutiny -- unless you're going for that low-res look as an affectation. (P.S. If your printer won't print hi-res images, it's a waste to have a higher res image sensor. You can't print great images with a less-than-great printer, either.)
You don't have to buy it. Stick to a R5 then.
You'll have the R5 Mark II, buddy.
Anyway, between 24 and 30MP there isn't a world of difference.
Except that up until a few years ago 16 and 20 mpx were the norm. Thousands of professional wildlife photographers have been getting amazing results using these cameras, and have the images hanging in galleries the world over to prove it, for years. Many still are. There's more to a camera than megapixels. If this camera won't suit your style of photography, by all means, wait for the R5 ii. That's why Canon makes many different models, but to categorically state that 24 megapixels won't work for anyone shooting wildlife is disproven by the facts. And, btw, most photographers out there insisting they "need" 45 or 60 megapixels aren't making massive prints that will be viewed at close quarters (how do you do that anyway? Don't you need to stand back far enough to see the whole print?) Most are posting on line or at best making small prints and maybe an occassional 20x30.
Thank you, Simon, for this frustrating info. As I predicted: it started at 30 MP, then 24, and soon it will be 12 MP. At this rate, I might as well prefer taking photos with an old Nokia 7650. Honestly, Canon, why not just release a model with a VGA sensor while you're at it? And of course, no one other than me knows how many pixels I need, which is 45 MP.
24MP is perfectly fine. I crop the files out of my R3’s all the time and the results are fantastic. Even when I have a deep crop. Actually hoping to scoop up a 3rd R3 to add to my fleet for this next high school sports season in the fall. The release of the R1 will but ensure I get an amazing price on another R3.
Literally sounds more like an R3 Mark II Than an R1 unless Canon eventually plans a R1X in the future
I have a Canon EOS R6II and I sometimes want more resolution not always to crop, but you definitely notice the higher MP count in bigger prints. I also think a flagship camera should offer a bit more than 24MP just because it costs so damn much. And the R1 will not stack up to the competition with 24MP unless it has some incredible advancements otherwise. To clarify I am not the target audience for an R1, the R5II is much more what I would get and probably will get.
I remember when this channel was talking about 100 Megapixel R1 and 8k at 120 fps...
This channel is all about feeding the UA-cam monster...
The good old days….
I shoot 24 mp currently for birds. While ive been able to come away with some great shots, It's simply not enough resolution for my needs. Cropping degrades my photos rather quickly at 24mp. This has been just my observations i cant speak for anyone esle. Even with 600mm sometimes isnt even enough reach and often we cant zoom with our feet.
If you get a shot you are happy with by not cropping or shooting larger mamals, then yeah, it's enough resolution but not for warblers, small song birds, bif, etc..I don't know a single landscape or bird photographer who happily already shoots high res. that will go from 45-60mp down to 24mp and say it's the exact same or its "enough."
That kind of thinking bias is just trying to justify a low res purchase imo.
Its like saying 5 fps is enough for bird photography beccause its "enough" to capture a shot when the standard is now 12-30 fps for better results.
Ive saved my pennies almost 3 years for an upgrade from my current camera, and hesitate to drop the money because for some its not alot of of money, but for me $5,000 is a massive finanical investment. I finnaly have the funds and going to be patient until the final specs are released on the r1 and r5mk2, which we still dont fully know the final specs of.
Im not a gear whore, i care more about the final results in the field, however in my opinion this is underwhelming for a flagship. Canon is playing catch up with 3 yr old technology already out, and Sony and nikon will be releasing their mark 2 of their flagships probably within the next 12-18 months. Clearly the r1 is not my niche, but its definitely not "a master of everything" and is just "meh" for a flagship as they claim if this holds true.
With all that said, im not moving away from canon, as I'm heavily invested in RF glass, and happy overall, i just wish they would leapfrog the competition. Blow sony and nikon out of the water for 3 years with their flagship. That makes for good competition.
Will the r1 and r5mk2 really be way ahead of the their competition? Who knows at this point. I really hope so.
I guess we will see. Keep up the great work simon. 👍
You're doing the right thing... evaluating your business needs and waiting to see if the camera capabilities satisfy those needs. One more video coming out today Kevin ;)
Great job. Thanks for keeping us updated.
Our pleasure. R1 price coming out later too ;)
Thanks for the update. In my opinion 24 MP is more than enough for most purposes, especially sports where fast focus and long lenses dominate. Wildlife is similar with the addition of durability being a major consideration.
Master of everything with a 24 mpx sensor and no 8K in such a large body... Thanks Canon.
Someone please tell Canon that they are still running a race that others have already finished a long time ago and are already running the next one without Canon.
Canon is the new nikon😂
@@AzarathGirl123 The R1 next to the Z9 already looks like from a previous era.
Let me see if I can say this more clearly than I have in the past. Technically, the roughly 150hp in a Honda Civic is "enough". More than enough, actually. So why is Acura able to sell so many cars with 300hp? Saying "nobody needs that much resolution" is EXACTLY like saying "Nobody needs that much resolution". It's a different market.
Yes, 24mp is "enough" for a large print. We made large prints before there were digital cameras with resolution higher than that. But expectations change as capability increases. And anyone who believes that a 40x60 print shot at 24mp will look as sharp as a 40mp print that was shot at 45mp is delusional. I've said many times, I don't determine what is "enough". The people who buy my prints tell me that. I often deal with a wealthy clientele who have a lot of wall space to fill, and high expectations.
As for cropping? Look, there were a LOT of people who were holier-than-thou about post processing in the early days of digital. They would turn up their nose and say that if you know what you're doing, you use the shot the way it is "right out of the camera". These days most people understand that is simply ignorant. (There are fewer of them now, but they are still around if you look.) People act the EXACT same way about cropping - as if people who crop are just inferior photographers. If the bird I'm shooting goes behind an obstruction, and then emerges somewhere not in a straight line, the chances that I have it properly framed are pretty darn low. But if I crop? Yeah, I can create a well-composed final image. Why is that so offensive?
So you have an AI-enhanced AF tracking system that will anticipate where an obstructed subject will re-appear. That's a good thing. BUT... if the subject is obstructed, it becomes very hard to move the camera to track its movement when YOU can't see it. That's a simple enough concept for pretty much everyone to nod their head up and down, isn't it? So even though the AF might lock AF quickly wherever it emerges, that does nothing to help you PHYSICALLY track it. And that's where cropping comes in. Is it really that difficult to understand that (physically) tracking polar bears or gliding birds is vastly different than tracking kingfishers or a big cat chasing prey that is trying to escape?
Agree 100%
An amazing ISO performance and that dynamic range at higher ISO's is much more important to me than any high megapixel count. I don't think that the majority od people print massive prints or crop heavily.
Joshua said in his podcast that the most he prints out is 40x60 inch prints and 24 mp is more than enough for that.
@ordinaryfilmmaker
I also print at this size and I wouldn’t say 24mp is more than enough. It is enough, yes, but 45mp will simply produce a sharper image.
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker must be nice for Joshua. The wildlife photographers I know here near Banff/Canmore are all printing MUCH larger than that and as a result, their clients pay top dollar for it. I know for a fact they use higher MP cameras out of necessity. Some even delve into medium format to really nail the shot. Good for Joshua though, he's clearly found his niche!
Currently on a 1DX mark II. I love the big integrated vertical grip design and I want more resolution. Looks like it’s time to sell my stuff and get a Z9.
As an R3 owner and freelance sports shooter, I can concur that 24mp works fine for me particularly for working in "the field" at soccer, cricket or motorcycle events. However, it would have been great to have the option of a higher res sensor with the ability to scale down the image size for different working scenarios. I found the R3 a big step up in performance from the 1dx mkiii and, after a lot of tinkering with the AF tracking settings, now have it working the way I need it to work. The R3 does have its flaws though, specifically if tracking a subject and a group of potential targets enter the frame the AF tracking more often than not jumps to another face/head in the scene. However, with customised rear buttons, its easy to quickly change to the traditional single pt AF and manually track your target. Hopefully the new AF system in the R1 can improve on the subject tracking accuracy in this sort of scenario.
I am a little bit, surprised that they didn't bump it up a little bit. But I'm also pleading ignorance here because I don't know the full sweetest specifications of this camera and what it can do. After all the Sony AI mark three has the same resolution, but as many fans
Hi Simon, this is very interesting for the R1, Thanks!!!
LOL that's a R3 with a software update
Are you aware of the significance of a one stop improvement in signal to noise ratio, performing better in High ISO? There's no way to deliver that in software. It requires updates to the sensor.
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker I agree with you Simon, it is notice-able. However, I think we can all agree that the improvements are beginning to step into the "diminishing returns" territory. As you've said in your own videos, you have to ask yourself the question, "is the current R3/R5 good enough for me?"
With the steep prices on these devices, I think it's becoming harder than ever to convince someone they actually need to upgrade. Hence the somewhat exaggerated (but also legitimately amusing) statements by @jeromelucas7278 here.
Pro sports photographer here. I currently shoot an Olympus OM-D E-M1X that’s a 20MP micro 4/3 sensor. I shoot indoors. I shoot in low light. I’ve never had a problem producing images I can comfortably print at 30x40 inches with no sweat. If you’re good at shooting sports, wildlife, etc., 24MP is more than adequate.
I have a z6 II and a z8. As you know, the z6 II is 24 mp and the z8 is close to 47 mp. The z6 II is perfectly fine for everything I do. I don't print humongous prints to need high resolution but there are times when my lens doesn't have enough reach and I have to crop in. I have the 180-600mm and sometimes it's not enough. I mainly bought the z8 for the focus tracking and to not have screen blackout in burst mode. There are other features that come with the z8 that make it worth having over the z6 II. I think people are obsessed with high resolution. If you use the right lens for the job then there's no need to crop. Sometimes you have to because you can't move closer. There may also be situations where you want to get a full body shot at a sports event and then later you want to crop in on their face. That's where the high resolution comes in.
I’m a full-time professional nature landscape and wildlife photographer. I agree that most photographers don’t need a high megapixel cameraI; however, I print 60“ (and larger) prints all the time. Even uncropped, 24mp simply doesn’t cut it for large prints. I currently shoot with an R5 and plan to upgrade to the R5 II - and hoping it’ll be greater than 45mp. Everyone’s use-case is different and the R1 doesn’t fit mine. I think Canon is mostly targeting the professional sports photographer with the R1, and I’m fine with that. But at 24mp, the prior claim that it’ll be the “master of everything” - is simply false.
I do professional portraits, outdoor, studio, people, pets, corporate, families… I use the Canon R6 and It’s always been excellent! It’s “only” 20mp, but so what? I almost never crop, I fill the frame 90% of the time.
Sure, with more mp you get more cropping margin, but if you’re needing to crop that heavily, maybe you need a longer lens.
I also do landscape photography in my free time with… the R6! Excellent IQ and sharpness.
All best
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint Carlos. Much appreciated.
There are many other types of photography where 20 mp is a hinderance , but its certainly not a majority.
I also own the Sony A1 and Canon R3. R3 24mp is enough for most if not crop the image. But when you try Sony A1 with AI denoise, I trust the high megapixel will be the future for the top model sport camera. and more easy to crop the image.
Good one Simon. Thanks and keep 'em coming. I use an R5 for wildlife and do a fair amount of cropping sometimes. Because of that I think the 45 MP helps but is not neccessary. Have a great weekend.
Yep, we can expect more to come so pay attention, my friend
So competitor to the new Sony sports camera (aka R3 successor and definitely NOT “master of everything”) - since “Very heavy cropping” in video capture is my use case i have to pass on this. Let’s see what the R5C2 brings
This news makes me even happier I'm using an A1. The flexibility those 50mp give me for my baseball, hockey, and airshow photos is great - and give me gorgeous landscapes too.
24 is disappointing.
well said...
I’m not the target buyer, but I’m disappointed for the people that are. This R1 is getting more underwhelming by the day. If it’s going to be that low resolution, at least put a global shutter in it. It now completely explains why Canon was so mad at Adorama for publishing specs that were BETTER than reality. Huge letdown across the board. Sony must be salivating with A1ii and A7Siv announcements right around the corner.
I keep waiting to be wow, instead all I've seen was compromises and excuses.
I am using Canon R5 for 3 years now and the benefit of resolution is something obvious, even if I post the photos on Facebook or Instagram. But, the comparison is with A1 from Sony and Z9 from Nikon, is simple like that. So, A1 is 50Mp and Z9 is 45Mp, so, this is the problem. If so, I am happy with a 4Mp camera, but this is something else. I am waiting for Canon 1000 Pro printer successor and then that 45Mp of my R5 will make sense.
As a commercial sports photographer 24MP is just fine. I’m currently shooting with two R3’s. I have already told my camera supplier I’ll take the first two R1’s. Why is 24MP enough. I don’t need to crop very much. My usual lenses are the EF 300mm f2.8L II, EF 600mm f4L III & EF
800mm f4.5L and 1.4xIII and 2xIII. My primary sport to shoot is surfing competitions. I just want incredible AF. I’ll keep my R3’s for the more dangerous shots like standing in wast high surf etc. I just wish Canon gave the R3 more love. Almost no updates in a year. For a body that cost $au8,500, 18 months ago, I would get more updates for a $200 mobile phone.
Everything looked great, until the 24MP dropped.
I believe the R3 was probably a way for Canon to provide pros a good platform from which they could gather feedback from what the R1 would be getting and could be turned into with more R&D.
This while giving Canon a timeframe to put those into the final model while still giving an option to those who needed a reliable mirrorless body for sports in the mean time.
😮 at this point I'd think 🤔 Canon is playing 3D chess to rumors chess 😅😂😂. NOBODY KNOWS what the specs are except Canon and the select few photographers testing the R1😇
Professional wildlife photographer here, and I agree, 24MP is a joke at this point. Canon likes to tell us what’s best for us because they can’t compete on the sensor tech apparently. Sure, drop your file sizes and speed improves, but both Nikon and Sony are doing speed AND megapixels. The world is moving on and Canon is stuck in the past. If I have the choice of more data AND speed, versus choosing one or the other, I’m going with the former. Critters are dangerous at times and fleeting moments happen often where you don’t have time to get closer. Cropping is essential with wildlife. Had the budget set aside for an R1 but there’s not a chance I’ll be dropping down to 24MP.
With Current software you can enlarge photos to almost any size, so 24MP is no big deal breaker! Think about clean high ISO! and high dynamic range!!!
In an era where "zoom in and enhance" is rapidly becoming a reality (instead of bad writing in a CSI: Miami plot)... I tend to agree with you. We're rapidly hitting a point where "clean files" is everything for editing.
24 megapixels is definitely "enough" - but I think the question a lot of people will ask is whether it's "GOOD enough" for a long-awaited Canon flagship camera in 2024 when other brands are offering a lot more resolution in their flagship bodies. The R1 will be a very expensive body and for most professional sports/news photographers it will be a no-brainer to get one. A lot of wildlife photographers - me included - will take some convincing though. I photograph small birds often and make prints - sometimes up to 24 inches - and resolution was the only reason I held off on the R3. I will probably still get an R1 - the rest of those specs look excellent - but I'll also need an R5ii for some situations when I know I will crop very heavily. I just hope some of these R1 features make it into the R5ii.
Simon . . . please tell us the latest on the Sony a1ii.
Wow Simon if that is true , I’d have to really consider pros/cons before I give up my R3.
24 MP is pretty disappointing. Sure anyone can make an argument that 24 MP is more than enough and indeed even 20MP of the 1DXmk3 was more than enough for a lot of professionals. However, considering what the competition is offering, no one should be placed in a position where they have to justify the shortcomings of a flagship. This camera was hyped to be the 'master of all' camera. What's the point when the 'all' has an * with subtext saying 'under specific circumstances.
As a Canon shooter myself, I and frankly lots of the general audience look at a flagship like the best a brand can offer all piled into one.
This is not about considering the competition, this is about the value chain: delivering value. I included an excerpt from Joshua for a reason. He is a world class Wildlife and nature photographer and gets very good results.
I don't see the R1 as a flagship camera: the master of everything, jack of all trades. It is a purpose built sports/fast action camera. The R5 is more of a jack of all trades.
Oh. ‘Not a “flagship camera” ‘ any more? What?!!!
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker "It is a purpose built sports/fast action camera". I see. Well it that case as someone else pointed out the R1 is now looking like an R3 mk2. And speaking as a wildlife photographer I would gladly prefer higher MPs with comparatively worse noise performance. We have denoising software that works wonders.
If you don't see the R1 as a flagship, then I guess I'll wait for the R5mk2.
Good. I won’t buy the R1 which will be more expensive than the R5II which has 45 mp I want. Buying R5II will save me money. For animals and sports, I guess 24 mp might be adequate. For birds, especially hummingbirds and other small song birds, I want the flexibility of more mp to crop as they are shy for me to get close. I am talking wild birds, not birds that go to your feeders. R1 is for professional which is a small niche group of individuals. R5II is for me who are prosumers. Why R1 and R3 both have the same mp? Could it be R3 II? 24 mp is shockingly low. Their bread and butter model is not R1 anyway. If it is really R1, then R3 will be gone forever. This explains why the R1 development announcement didn’t mention the sensor resolution which is embarrassing to the majority of us who are not professionals. If R5II is less than 45mp, I will switch to Sony.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint Kenneth. Think of the R3 as the lite version of the R1. The R1 is the best of the best in every way while the R3 has compromised capabilities.
Honestly the majority of pros also shoot on the 5 series and this has been true at least since the 5D II was introduced in 2005. Personally it’s hard to see how the 1 series will be much of an upgrade. There was already not much difference between the R3 and the R6 mark II. Here is hoping there is more to look forward to with the R5 mark II
People need to come to terms with what people really need. If you want a fast 24 MP camera and shoot Canon, the R3 is an excellent option and at a lower price. And has excellent AF, even if the R1’s is slightly better.
For wildlife shooters, the R5 is a better option because you need to crop and likely cheaper.
Very good point. What do you think about shooting wildlife with a camera like they R7?
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker My point is that there’s tons of options for that. We’ve plateaued in terms of FPS, megapixels and AF improvements for most users.
There’s tons of good options, especially at 24 MP and 45 MP.
I agree, but most pro wildlife shooters use 400 or 600mm rf primes that require the bigger battery of the R3 or R1 to power the second focus motor, so an R5II needs to be in an R3 form factor to meet the wants of most pro wildlife photographers.
@@sylerp.r.9725 Yeah, they buy a battery grip. Wild life shooters aren’t going back to 24 MP when there’s fast high resolution cameras. They’ll use a Z8/Z9, and R5 II or an A1. Obviously that’s not true in every case, but it’s hard to imagine TONS of wildlife shooters flocking to this when they could use the R5 II or just get the R3 at a reduced cost.
Agreed. On the current R5 though the battery grip still doesn’t allow function of the second focus motor and the buttons are laid out differently on the grip, so a battery grip is limited in its functionality for the needed purpose.
Hey Simon, ever consider using something like an R8 for your studio camera? We bought 4 R50’s just for B camera angles for our wedding business to supplement our C70, R5, and R6. It might help your workflow for shooting stuff outside the studio.
Not really. As I am getting the R5 II to cover for the channel, I'll just leave the MK1 in the studio. No need to calibrate a new camera and know what to expect from it ;)
@@OrdinaryFilmmakerhey Simon can you tell how does the older ef 180 mm macro lens works in rf system like with r5?
IMHO as a wildlife shooter, 24mps is not enough unless you have a lot of reach from the lens, and the "Big Whites" are so darn heavy. For me, I shot a 20mps sensor (OM-1) on my last safari and it was fine as long as i was at 800-1000mm FFE, but with the R5 and the RF 100-500 I was glad to have 45mps.
I use a 600f4 and no, 24MP is not enough for professional wildlife photography. Might be enough if you’re photographing Buffalo or elephants.. lol
Canon's love of 24 mpx is so 2016...let's pay $3500 more for a rebranded R3. I can't buy this notion that large mpx files are more detrimental to workflow than having to store and cull nearly identical images resulting from 240fps shooting. Almost seems like it's influencers receiving product that are on the low mpx bandwagon...
You haven't addressed the stated capabilities of the camera. Does much better signal to nose ratio and high ISO low light capabilities matter to you?
@@OrdinaryFilmmakerwhy is it that instead of accepting the wants of many, you continually push the idea that 24 mpx is enough?. No disrespect to Joshua but he's far from the first name that comes to mind (never heard of him before your video) in the world of bird photographers where detail is king. Many bird photographers want more than 24mpx, and they also want a premium build, a larger battery that moves big primes better, and autofocus that isn't second tier. Does Canon offer that?. No. R5 has reduced frame rates because of battery capacity, second tier autofocus and the body is an egg in comparison to the 1-series. All we get is apologists who say, "you don't need that". This is the FOURTH 24mpx mirrorless ff camera that Canon has made. How about some more options??
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker I can eliminate noise through 50 different programs. Who cares about noise anymore? And I shoot dawn and dusk.
The Canon R1 is the R3 mk II
24MP? Hard pass!!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I shoot mainly wildlife and nature with a smattering of head/shoulder shots for organizations. Most of my time for the organizations is for non-profits and I donate my time and photos to them as a way of supporting an organization I like. I do manage to sell a few prints from time to time and have had several published but I do not consider myself a working pro. Fact is, I retired from one job and really am not looking to start another. Photography is pleasure to me, work is... well... work. With that said, I currently shoot a Canon EOS R7 (somewhere around 80mp FF equiv).. I switched to that from a Nikon D500 setup (including backup camera). Your friend is probably right about "need" but "want" is a different story. With a higher MP body I have the option to crop in if needed and I have the option to print really large prints if someone wants to pay the price for them. With 24mp, I can say most of my work would be covered, but I would lose the flexibility of cropping in on a small bird or flower. "Zoom with your feet" is not always an option for nature photographers. We are frequently photographing on public land where restrictions about going off trail are enforced and we are frequently photographing in ecologically sensitive areas where getting closer can damage the ecosystem or endanger the photographer (i.e. falling off a cliff). Therefore having the option is a good thing at least for me.
Simon, love both my R3 and R5, they complement each other very well. The resolution of the R5 with my wildlife and wedding stuff and the R3 is great in low light for gloomy interiors and the the UK weather(!) and prints from it look great and the noise is more like film grain, and at times I love the “gritty” look to my images. Regarding the R1, it doesn’t look to me at least a worthy upgrade to what I work with and I’m looking at deals on another R3 and hey, it’s a brilliant camera, kind regards Adrian from a showery United Kindom.
We have to wait so freakin long for the R1 to come out 😒, I sure hope that R5ii comes with improved autofocus tracking and 8k 60fps
My viewpoint is much different. For wildlife I DO NEED heavy cropping. If R1 has 0.8ms readout time and much better S/N and DR than a9III, it will be great sports camera. But not for wildlife. if R5II has much faster readout time than R5 and 30fps 14-bit raws and 8K60p RAW and good-looking 4k120p and good looking fullHD240p, that would be all I need as a wildlife shooter and it would made the R1 irrelevant to me. Of course 60fps with C-AF even in jpegs or Heifs or preferably 12-bit compressed raws, or even 40-50fps anyhow, would be welcome.
I agree, the only people saying 24mp is enough for wildlife aren't shooting anything higher than 24 mp lol, i shoot 24mp with the RP and its simply not enoigh for cropping, I've yet to hear someone with an r5 or z8, z9, a1 say they would go back to 24mps for birds.
24mp...i can't say whether its enough or not, i'm no pro. I do shoot wildlife, specifically birding whenever i can on my R7 with its 32mp APS-C with a Sigma 150-600c. Otherwise, i'm just a dad shooting my kids at karate, Wonderland, their birthdays, at swinming lessons, my cousin's wedding, etc. And its been more than fantastic for this purpose. Thats why the R1 and even the R5ii doesn't really excite me much other than to scratch my curiosity and ponder what coupd trickle down to maybe a possible R7ii, or whatever other possible budget friendly full frame. Theres still an R2 and R9.
But the disapointement, i can feel from a different perspective...its a flagship. Adequate doesnt usually associate itself with the best you've got.
I occasionally do air shows. Actually, I am attending one coming Memorial Day. Air show has a lot of fast actions. The fast and accurate focusing of R1 certainly helps but sometimes the planes are so far away that needs heavy cropping to give a nice composition. 24MP would be a big disadvantage.
If Canon wants to continue to lose market share, then 24mp is fine. I have been a loyal Canon shooter since 2008, because they always push boundaries… the 5D Mark II, the R5… The R5 came out four years ago. If the R1 doesn’t meet expectations with more than 30mp, I might be moving to a different ecosystem. We’ve waited and waited and if this is just a slightly upgraded R3, it’s going to push a lot of people away from Canon.
I'm a professional sports photographer and have been shooting my Canon 1Dx Mk III cameras since January of 2020 and I or my clients have ever had a problem with the the 20 meg resolution. Accurate fast autofocus and good dynamic range is everthing I need.
Great, then the R3 would be perfect for you. Not sure why canon needs the R1 and R3. How many fast action cameras do they need?
I have an R1 in pre order. It the 24mp is confirmed by Canon (making it a R3II), I will cancel my order and buy the flagship Sony. The time has finally come to make that decision.
24MP is plenty. Side by side I have a hard time telling the difference in perceived resolution between my R5 and R3 raw files. This doesn’t upset me at all.
I'm most of the time shooting wildlife with my Konica Minolta Dynax 5D, six Megapixels but still with the right lens great results.
Having the right lens makes the world of difference. No matter how good the camera, without pairing to the right lens, might as well stay home.
One of the best full frame CCD's ever made. I had a 7D which bricked. I miss it dearly
These specs with the 24MP sensor are good if priced at $5000, not something like $7-8k. I myself of course shoot with R6 II for my job and it is more than enough, and R1 is not a camera I would possibly need at this phase of my career, but I wish the megapixels were 45. Let’s wait for the R5 II and hope it does not come with 24MP as well!
No matter how you look at it, 24mp is old tech. Better to just keep what you have and use that money for accessories. Especially all the pros.
If the R5 II comes with 24 Mp I will buy the first version of R5 quickly before they go out of stock.
The problem is what will happen in the future, what upgrade will be available.
Canon ought to know that sometimes, it’s the environment limiting us from getting closer to the object, despite we already have the big white prime lens…. So 24MP by todays’ standard for a R1 flagship is a disgrace. I would just keep my R3 and see what happens to the R5ii then. Hope this 24MP is not true and I still hope Canon give us better sensor….
Does anyone still have any doubts abot the R3 being the "original" R1? I was 98% sure until now. If this info is true, I'm 100% sure.
It's undoubtedly going to be a great camera, but saying 24mp is "absolutely enough" is not realistic - sure, some people prefer it and that's ok, but you cannot make it an absolute for everyone. It's like me saying 15fps is "absolutely enough" because I don't shoot sport events. If it's enough for me, it doesn't mean it's enough for everyone.
I'm curious to see the sensor readout speed, that's where the R1 needs to shine.
This camera is designed for sports photographers. Just like buying a car. A van offers a lot of utility, but isn't very fast. It's still a compromise because it can't carry as much as a truck. Same with cameras. purpose built cameras will narrow who they are designed for, but deliver better results in that group.
Nikon went a different route, which had me thinking Canon might follow, but they are sticking to developing a camera with the R3 as a base.
I too am curious about the sensor readout.
I made this same comment a while ago and was told I did not know what I was talking about. I’m now 100% sure also.
@@thegrumpycanadian274 there's no doubt anymore
@@urosjovanovic3142 Well sure it is, this doesn't change anything.
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker I absolutely agree, and I would also say that even among photographers who shoot fast action there are the ones that need high mp sensors , and the ones that don't. It's tricky to frame a photo correctly when you're shooting a small bird that's flying around frantically. Being able to crop a photo is necessary in tha scenario.
I looked up the podcast. The name of the guy is Holko, not Holku. He said he EXPECTS the dynamic range of R1 to be one stop better and that he would test it, he did not say he knows for a fact that it is one stop better.
I spoke to him outside of the podcast.
When Josh says 24 MP is enough unless heavy cropping or large prints, my experience says 24 is not enough for the more common situation of doing moderate cropping combined with moderate large printing.
I guess it depends of what quality you are happy with.
If you are happy with lower quality then 24 Mp might be enough but if you have higher expectations and want the best you need better resolution.
R1 is more like r3 mark 2 but canon want users to pay premium for it?
So, i am also posting here, what i have collected and published on Canonrumors in the last 24 hours about the R1 and the differences to the R3 from what we can see in the leaked photos:
the coating is the same as on the one R1 picture we got from Canon, so this is the R1 (what a surprise)
The Viewfinder is huge, so i am pretty sure we will get close to 10MP resolution AND the 2. generation of Eye-Control
the multishoe has a lockable cap as far as i and others have spotted
the R1 is far bigger than the R3, just look how small the 85mm f1.2 gets on it
A metal bar for straps at the bottom (not seen at the R3, but aviable at many vertical grips and all the 1D-Series cameras)
battery percentage on the top LCD is also new, not seen on the R3 Top Screen or any other, but aviably on the normal flippy screen
The top button layout is the same as on the R3, plus a WB-Button
On the top are also two new symbols near the M-Fn button and the LCD-light button in a blueish colour: according to Tony Northrup the gas-station-like Symbol is the FTP-Symbol which indicates a dedicated button for wireless transmission. The other one shows a crop-symbol which might be a sign for a integrated teleconverter
the ON-OFF switch on the side, is for controling the vertical grip functions and was used on previous 1D-series Cameras, but is not built into the R3
the card slot seems just a little bigger than on the R3, and has a new locking mechanism
the bottom shows an HDMI logo, so it features full HDMI
a diopter control is also built into the viewfinder. I expected it, but just have it in here
Also the mode-switch is the same as on the R3 and R5
SN shows a 31, so this is number 31 to be produced
The registration-ID says DS126925, according to most of the people, it is not the same as on of the 3 (-22, -28, -04) we have seen in the rumored registrations
overall is the camera bigger, but especially thicker than the R3, that also improves the ergnomics (it is possible to measure the dimensions, with the dimensions of the 85mm f1.2, but i won't do that 😉)
the battery voltage is something over 10V - while the 1DX III and R3's LP-E19 Battery runs with 10.8V, the R1 runs with something like 13 or 15 point something Volts as far as i have spotted out of the pictures. So does this lead to a new battery? It would be no surprise to me.
Hi Simon, with everything we learned so far about the R5ii and R1, I'm wondering more and more whether the R3 will be discontinued .. unless it comes next year with a global shutter.
This latest update of the R1 getting 'only' 24 mpickles means the R1 and R3 have the very same hunting grounds. Unless of course the pricetag sets them beyond $2000 apart and the R1 would get multiple resolutions ..
About those 24mp, I do get it would be enough for pro's who can use any of the heavy and price lenses beyond 10k$ and who are skilled to perfectly point the camera to the moving subject.
However for example for birding on a slightly lower level, we want more mp's in order to avoid the wings being clipped by the framing when zooming in (if we can afford that) or to crop a lot because we can't afford the pricy glass ..
Hi ... I have shot the R3 with a 500mm and 600mm from the get go...
I still love it ... super images with accurate fast autofocus and good dynamic range, wonderful ergonomics and a battery that will take 4000 shots and it does not over heat !
Small birds are never easy... sitting quiet and waiting with get results .... a Robin at 20 metres is still a Robin regardless of the mega pixel count you try to put on it.
Best regards to you all .
20 from my R6 & 24 from my R8 is plenty. Never had a single client complain about resolution. Video in clog 3 looks amazing as well. All my video clients are PLEASED
If they are so good, why do we need another 24mpx camera from Canon? And the privilege of paying $5K more for it? Shouldn't we be getting substantially better specs for that extra $5K
@christophercarlimages9003 well obviously canon wants to sell cameras, that's why they keep producing them. People keep buying them 🤷🏿♂️ if you want more rez then go with R5 m1/m2 it's tailored towards sports and birders
Finally! News that feels more factual than mythical.😅 Solid share Simon. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it! Joshua shared behind the scenes that the info is 100% correct. We can finally toss out the E8M 8888 specs.
24MP is a good sweet spot and makes totally sense that the latest sensor tech doesn’t come in highest resolution and it’s just disappointing because of the expectation what the eos r1 might be after canon waste time with some needless cameras such as r100 or r8 (IMHO). And it’s the first release more for a dedicated experienced professional that need this as a tool. My hope is that this camera is again a dream camera that I probably never buy 😇
I shoot wildlife and the Nikon Z9 has spoiled me in being able to flip to Dx mode and still get a 20 MP image. I love my 24 MP Nikon Zf for its amazing low light sensitivity. I could use 24 MP for wildlife. It would just mean going back to teleconverters and higher ISO's instead of using DX mode. Better high ISO performance of 24 MP might make up for that, but for close backgrounds it would be a sacrifice for depth of field.
Tell me 1 reason why this should be better than the r3 mark ii
The second card won’t be an SD card. It will have Dual CFexpress cards. This is a big deal for many working professionals.
And if you say that the R3 Mk 2 will have this, it won’t. I have been watching Canon market segmentation for nearly 20 years and this is the type of thing they save for the 1 series.
24M Pickles is enough as said for fast action, to get the frame rate and let's be honest, true professionals use lenses the size of the Hubble Telescope that can almost see into the future. So they have no need to crop too much. The R5 Mk ii - is the one i'm waiting for.
WeThe differences between pros and the rest of us is they don't look at $10,000 lenses as too expensive, but essential tools to get the job done.
I've spoken to several sports photographers that swear by the 100-300, working noise free in the rain at 1/2000 shutter.
Have you looked at the cameras "true professionals" use? Medium-format high MP and high MP full frame cameras are the norm. Why? Because 24MP doesn't produce the kind of beauty a higher MP sensor can provide. 24MP is sufficient if you want to settle. Can you hang it on the wall? Probably. Would I? Not unless I was going for a low-res look. You can tell the difference.
@@billmartin1010 Not come across any wild life or sports photographers using medium format.
@@billmartin1010 exactly. Canon needs put more MP if they want to be in the battle field.
@@paestopagoelinternet330 So how are they going to produce high frame rates for 100 MP + in a RAW format- without any buffering. A chip does not exist to process that much data at those speed, unless you know different and I look forward to you enlightening me.
The the photo fair "Photopia" in Hamburg will start on October 10 this year and Canon always had a huge presence there and shows off its latest gear. So I am very confident that I can get the R1 in my hands then.
24 megapixels are perfect for my needs. The smaller the pixels get, the worse the dynamic range gets. I often shoot at low light in locations where tripods are not allowed. Those are surprisingly many. New York City does not even allow tripods in Bryant Park, which is a public park in the heart of the city. In Times Square tripods are not allowed either and not in any ob the observation decks of the city. So in the blue hour you use ISO 4000 and more and then imagine noise really matters. With my current camera ISO 4000 is the maximum that I can "repair" with modern denoising software. If the R1 really gives me one stop less noise, that means I could confidently use ISO 8000 or even more.
When I shoot my R5 and R6 side by side when I edit I can not tell. 24 would be fine. I need a better focus system. It has to lock on a subject and stay on they.
One concern I’ve had for a while is that Canon would release the R5 II just before the R1, holding back quad-pixel AF for the R1 and making R5 shooters wait another 4-5 years for that tech. I really hope that isn’t what happens.
I shoot a pair of Canon 1dx iii, so 20mp..mainly shooting Rugby. AF and iso performance is more important to me than going to megapixals. I also have a 5d sr at 50mp for team group shots. 24mp would me fine for me.
18 stops dr, 2:3 full sensor readout for video 6k clog 1-3
So I guess the 24.6mp A9III now isn't looking so low in its megapixels. Pro and hobbyist alike are making great shots with that camera, as will all the Canon R1 users . It is more about capturing that shot with top AF , fps and pre-capture for sports and wildlife photographers. . Cheers and thanks Simon for helping clear the air.
24 is mildly disappointing. I personally own an R6II and 24mp has never bothered me, but I was hoping it would have more to better compete with the A1
I'm sorry. There's no way that it's going to be 24 megapixels. That's going to make a lot of people not want it. And for a camera that's already going to be around $6k to alienate more people from it makes no sense at all.
It makes perfect sense for good low light capabilities you can’t push it beyond that
@hawaiifreespeechnews I think with 30 or 35 you still would have good low light. The R3 already has 24 mp. It's basically an R3 mark ii
I don’t think you really understand the market for this camera.
Don’t know if you know of Jeff Cable, but he is about to head off to his 7th or 8th Olympics. He is the official photographer for USA water polo. Despite the fact that he is may shoot a couple of thousand images during a match, he is contractually obligated to get 5-10 finished images back to Team USA with 15 minutes of the end of the match. Let me repeat that. He has 15 minutes to download 2k images, go through them, and find 5-10 images to do a light retouching, and then get them to Team USA. He doesn’t have time to wait for huge files to buffer and download.
If you need larger files, great! Get the R5 II, that is not and never has been what the 1 series cameras have been about.
@@hootbaez6185 Let me just correct something. These photographers don't work alone, they have a whole media team at the desk that receives the images wirelessly and have to sieve through them WHILE the photographer shoots so that theres live updates from the source. But you are absolutely right about the fast-pace nature of the work. When I have done news photography and covered sports events, there are times where we don't even send in the RAWs and just send in JPGs so that the desk can process them a lot faster.
@hootbaez6185 I mean they already have the R3 for that. The rumors have pointed around a jack of all trades camera but it's a little crippled in my opinion. As a 24 mp camera can only do 6k video. Again. This is all just in my opinion.
When I owned the R I realized 30M pixels is the sweet spot, images look silky smooth yet not taking up as much space.
Oh such a gut punch! 45mp has been a Godsend for wildlife with my R5 and EF 400mm f2.8 for that detail and cropability. Although 24mp will be better for limiting diffraction softening at high f-stops (such as with sunrises at the beach), I really wanted 45mp or at least 30mp in the R1. Now I have to think about getting a 600 f4 or 800 f5.6 as compensation.
I can watch a movie at 720p. Why buy 4k TV/monitor?
23 Megapixles for the R1 is surprising for us in the normal camera race, but it's not a bad thing "except if you crop a lot or enlarge for huge prints" I can members 8 or 16 megapixles being all the rage lol. If you need more then the R5 is all you need. I like what the R1 looks like and the specs, but not what I need or want to pay lol. Thanks for the update 😀
Maybe 24mp is enough for pros but I’m not a pro. I need to crop. Heavily sometimes. And you might say well you don’t need this camera then. But when does that stop anyone. Plus it’s not really the pros you need to convince to buy this. They make money when they sell to as many people as possible. I’m the one they need to convince to buy this. And I’m not convinced at all.
The point of tech is innovation. Not stagnation. Otherwise, we'd still all be using film. What was also "good enough" at the time. Those that fail to innovate, will get left behind.
Canon R1 will have the same megapixel and features like the Nikon Z 9, exactly 45 Megapixel. The focus group will be sports, action and wildlife professionals. Canon R 5 Mark II will have the same features like the Nikon Z 8. The focus group will be art, fashion and advertising professionals. Now take a closer look to the store prices in Europe: Canon R3 for 4.399 EURO, Canon R5 for 2.999 EURO, Nikon Z9 for 5.329 EURO, Nikon Z8 for 3.749 EURO. We expect the new cameras in the stores before the start of the Christmas Business. I think the weekend 8th - 9th November 2024 both cameras will be available in the european stores.
Pass me my Z8 ..45 M Pixels off the Bat same as the Z9
What do you shoot?
If Nikon had Canon's level of AF, I would be a Nikon shooter by now. (And if Sony had Canon's level of telephoto glass, I would be shooting Sony.) All three brands have their trade-offs.
@@billmartin1010ypu need to shoot Z8 after the firmware 2.0. It's excellent moreso if you set it up properly.
It might be enough with 24 Mp in many cases.
However it is not enough for me to upgrade to this one from what I already have.
When I buy a new camera I accept better image quality in all my pictures from the new camera not only better autofocus and better low light capabilities.
I will wait for the R5 mkii and see what it brings.
24 MP ?? - What an absolute disgrace !!! - if this resolution turns out to be accurate, then I am selling all of my Canon gear and moving never to return….
Everyone is buying flagships now....goodbye
Why?
Lets us know when you put up your gear for sale. I only buy used gear.
I would much prefer the 30 MP mentioned earlier. I shoot R6mkii and mki sports and other types of photo. I order printed banners as well as print on my own Canon Pro1000 20/24mp’s look just fine on even my largest prints. I also shoot with multiple telephoto Lenses such as the RF 70-200, 100-300 and 100-500 and would prefer the speed and accuracy over the alleged 6 MP loss. With that being said, being that much of these features are so close to the R3, I would hope the price point is too!
Even that would have been pathetic. Now I'm 100% no longer interested.
How much the R1 could cost?
This is a great topic for you to catch more interaction…$o kudos to that. Regarding the 24 megapixel, here’s my theory why Canon did this. They don’t want to have a camera where you can crop. They want to camera where you need to buy the correct lens for the shot. This camera should have at least matched the R5 specs regarding a sensor. Nice video ❤️
Very interesting. I'd love to get some first hand insight into this.
With the sports photographers cameras, it´s similar like with the broadcasting video cameras. 24mp is plenty enough for a medium, which only need 1080p and sometimes maybe only 4k on the video side. They are not doing fine art print or cinema movies with that cameras.
I am sure, that a lot of hybrid "cinematographers" would want a R1 with 12k or 17k (because it´s the latest and greatest) video capability and probably with a 100mp sensor or more, because "medium format cameras have it" ...but that would be detrimental for a medium (news and broadcasting), which has to deliver pictures and videos as fast as possible.
i shot museum, school, hot air balloon, group camping and concert events with two 20MP 6D canon cameras with F2.8 24-70mm, and 70-200mm zoom lenses and have no complaints from my clients. When the events are at night, I also use F1.4 prime lenses, 24mm, 35mm, and F1.8, 135mm prime (sometimes 85mm F1.8). Some of the museum events are in small rooms lit with only one to 6 candles. Almost all shots are hand held and flash is very rarely used. I specialize in the dark, the dank, and the dusty and 20MP seem to be fine.
That is alright but what would be the point for you to upgrade?
If Canon wants to sell the new cameras they have to offer improved image quality.
If the competition offers 45 - 60 Mp then those who want to upgrade will consider changing brand.
Maybe there is a material limitation to getting the balance of resolution to ISO performance that keeps every generation at 24MP. Perhaps sensor technology or materials science needs to change fundamentally to satisfy what Canon is trying to accomplish. Sony has a different strategy. Or it's a strategy to get more people into the super telephoto lenses or just a larger variety of lenses to keep people from cropping. I'm probably going to get an R3 when the prices drop even more. (And whatever the MK2 version of the R5C)
My 1st 5D was 12mpix and it absolutely did fine, even wedding shots 👍😊 (I Needed to frame the shot, so almost no cropping) Mark ii was so much better in speed and resolution and only😂 20mpix 😉 I sure can follow yoshua that 24mpix will be just fine 😊👍
At least now it is clear to me that I won't get the R1 and I'll save some money 😂. I like 8K-RAW videos, and for VR180 videos, 24MP is not what I want. 30 MP also would be at the low side, but 24 is a no-go for me. Hope quad pix will also come in the R5 MK II and the C version of it.
24mpx is not enough when you are poor and cant afford those big white fixed supertelephoto lenses... but any broke coment its irrelevant because if you are poor, cant afford the R1 either... 😂
Including my comment..
My R5 is excellent for sports photography and so I’m looking forward to what the R5mii has to offer. It is great for cropping pics of outfielders and some distant receivers catching a football and it is great in switching to capture video at a touch of a button. While the pro photographers are saying that 24 mp is enough because they’ve shot with less mp in the past, it is also important to note that they also have very long focal lengths in their lenses such as 400, 500, 600 primes that the general public doesn’t own. No wonder they’re offering deep discounts on the R3 and both R6 cameras because if these rumors are true then the R1 is no longer a $6,500.00 camera and it goes on to prove that the R3 was way overpriced to begin with. If the R5mii lives up to the rumors, then that camera will be the flagship to lead Canon in the coming years.
24MP is certainly adequate if all you do is Instagram, Facebook, and a Squarespace website. The R1 spec is perhaps bridging the generational gap between the 1Dx series and the social media generation.
20 megapixels is more than enough for me and I shoot sports at a high-level. I’d say I get my framing right 90% of the time. The noise reduction sounds like a real game changer for sure.
However, I feel that if I’m spending thousands to purchase a flagship camera, I want the abilities to range widely. 30mp would have been a nice addition and make this camera perfect in my opinion.