Canon R1 has been announced

[Kayaker72]

The R1 is finally here :)

A link to Bryan's landing page. (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R1.aspx)

I am sure some will be disappointed by the 24.2 MP resolution. But I am constantly reminded by the 24 x 18 inch prints on my wall that were cropped from 5D3 images (22 MP) that 24 MP is still a lot. Clearly Canon thinks so.

Otherwise, seems like a very nice flagship camera.

1/64,000 max shutter speed
2.7 millisecond readout speed (virtually no rolling shutter)
12 fps max mechanical shutter (I was thinking the R1 might not have a mechanical shutter, so happy to see this)
40 fps 14 bit in electronic shutter mode
Pre-continuous shooting mode (1/2 sec)
The necessary discussion of improved AF
Dual CFe Type B card slots
AF down to EV -7.5 (almost black)



Seems like an amazing camera. I am looking forward to hearing more about it.

[neuroanatomist]

I pre-ordered mine at 6:01 AM this morning. B&H said ships November 1 on my order confirmation, but now they’ve changed the product page to match the expected availability on Canon USA, which is November 26. Basically 3 years to the day from receiving my R3.

[Fast Glass]

Honestly, looking at the R1 to the R5 II. The R1 is gonna be a touch sale for many people.

The R5 II is still a fast body, still will have undoubtedly excellent AF that will probably be splitting hairs with the R1.

Even if you don't need the resolution, it comes in with a 45mp and 8K vid as a bonus and costs less.

R5 II basically out specs what matters most to most people. The things that it is not class leading is only gonna apply to select few fast action sports photographers. I think even the photo journalists are gonna find the R5 II plenty good for the money. Even if resolution is not a factor.

If you have shot things like the 1D III and 1Ds III. And shooting professionally and taking great pics with that. It's really hard to not find the R5 II good enough compared to the R1. And better in some important ways.

I'm sure the R1 is a fine camera, I'd love one. I can afford two if I wanted. But I'd probably do the same thing with the pair of 1Dx III's I had. Looking at 14k worth of equipment and still only shoot 20mp

It just didn't justify the price for me. And I'm glad the R1 is cheaper. But I think it's still not cheap enough. It should be more like a 5k body. It's not far off from a R3.

They really shot themselves in the foot with the R5 II. In ways that matter to most people. It's the obvious choice from a value and feature standpoint.

I'm not gonna be too hasty with my judgment till I see reviews and lay my hands on it. It could be the AF and noise performance is substantial. And it could justify it's existence over the R5 II.

But at any rate, for me personally with wildlife and cropping being the reality of my world. The R5 II might be the hot ticket for me.

[Fast Glass]

What I still find slightly disappointing, although I didn't realistically expect it to have it. Was quad pixel AF.

R1 and R5 II still have dual pixel AF. Aka, still the same old system with presumably some software tweaks?

Man, not a lot separating it from the R3 at this point. It barely qualifies as a Mark-II. Much less the R1 title.

Like most of the specs are just copy and paste. Or minor incremental improvements but nothing game changing or even something to make anyone shooting an R3 want an R1.

They are basically the same camera.

[DavidEccleston]

The R1 got cross-type pixel AF. Dual pixel * 2 planes ~= quad.

[neuroanatomist]

The R1 got cross-type pixel AF. Dual pixel * 2 planes ~= quad.
Correct. It's not technically quad pixel, which would be each pixel divided into four sub-pixels. Instead, it's dual pixel with alternating pixels being split in an orthogonal orientation. Canon filed patents on both approaches. Functionally, either one addresses the need of providing the ability for the R1 to focus on both horizontal and vertical features (something no other Canon MILC to date can do). Cross-type AF points by any other name...

I expect the cross-type AF will be a significant improvement, especially with the AI-driven AF algorithms they've added. The pre-shooting buffer that now outputs separate RAWs will also be a great feature.

Early reports by sports shooters like Jeff Cable indicate that the AF is significantly improved over the R3, and that the eye controlled focus is also improved. I'll get to find out myself in November. I'm glad that Canon Rumors got the day/time of the preorder opening spot on, I was able to set an alarm and my immediate preorder means I'll actually get one in November, instead of having to wait for a subsequent allotment (those were the following Jan/Feb for the R3).

[neuroanatomist]

Just getting around to scrolling through Bryan's preview, another big difference with the R1 is a much deeper buffer than the R3. The R3 can shoot full RAW at 30 fps for 5 seconds (150 frames), the R1 can seemingly just keep going (1000+ frames). The 1/400 s flash sync is also much improved over the R3 (Bryan has an incorrect value of 1/320 s for the ES sync).

[Fast Glass]

There is no deying it is better in every way. But the differences in things like buffer depth. That's a small incremental thing. That most people didn't have an issue with in the first place.

It really should have been called an R3 II.

Also, it is not quad pixel AF. It has cross type AF. To be seen how much improvement there is. Which I honestly did not expect to have quad pixel AF regardless, but if it did. That alone would justify the R1 for me.

But an incremental improvement and everything is just pretty much a copy and paste from the R3. It even looks like one.

It's a tough sale for me personally. Unless the AF and noise performance is a big jump in performance.

[Fast Glass]

Reading the whole review, and trying not to be hasty. But I am baffled Canon had the audacity to call this an R1.

It's 99% the same as an R3 with some minor incremental improvements. IQ is basically the same as the R3, AF is basically the same hardware wise. Just more firmware stuff, but it's minor incremental stuff.

The dual slots are nice, the faster read out is nice, bit more proccessing speed. But that's it for any significant hardware differences. Rest is all software which will get trickled down to lower models eventually.

It's really a R3 II. If you look at it like that, it's whatever. If you don't have the R3, get the "R1", it's priced according at least. But I wanted a real R1. Not an R3 II, and a really minor upgraded R3 at that.

The R5 II is much closer to what an R1 should actually be. If they tossed that camera in an R1 form factor with all that proccessing power and features. That would be the buissness and a real competitor Nikon and Sony. An all around flagship for every situation and every photographer with no compromises.

[Busted Knuckles]

R5 II seems to be the dark8ng of this set of releases from Canon. 30 vs 40 fps at 2x resolution. Raw 8k equivalent. Every day.

Not that I can justify swapping my R5 yet for the mark 2

[neuroanatomist]

AF is basically the same hardware wise. Just more firmware stuff, but it's minor incremental stuff.

It seems you don't understand how the cross-type AF works. They use alternating row pairs of dual pixels in orthogonal orientations. It's not a firmware change, it requires the splitting of the DPAF photosites to differ from row to row on the sensor, meaning a new architecture was required for the entire sensor, since cross-type AF is available across the full FoV.

3065

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/attachments/img_6601-jpeg.216599/


The R5 II is much closer to what an R1 should actually be. If they tossed that camera in an R1 form factor with all that proccessing power and features. That would be the buissness and a real competitor Nikon and Sony. An all around flagship for every situation and every photographer with no compromises.
I wonder why Canon didn't do as you suggest, and make the R1 with a higher MP sensor?

I suspect it's because the company that has led the camera market for over two decades, through a 90% contraction in the market and a transition from DSLR to mirrorless while maintaining dominance of that market the entire time, knows a lot more about making and selling cameras than any of us.

Personally, I thought they were making a mistake in discontinuing the EOS M line. It was the most popular camera line for a while, at one point 17% of all cameras sold in the world were M bodies. Canon killed it off anyway. They kept their near-50% market share, and last year they held over 40% of the mirrorless market share (a very solid lead over Sony at 32% and Nikon at 13%) despite killing off the M line. So much for my opinion about what Canon should or should not do.

The bottom line is that they have an excellent track record of producing cameras their customers will buy. It is very unlikely that the R1 will be an exception to that, the whining and second-guessing occurring on the internet has occurred with most new Canon releases. If any of that was actually relevant or impactful, Canon's sales would have slipped. They haven't.

[Fast Glass]

I know exactly how the AF works, I can read literature too. It is a minor incremental improvement fitting a R3 II. This is not game changing or the quad pixel AF kind of improvement.

You may be anti resolution because you look at it with a very narrow set of circumstances and so does Canon. But it is exceedingly useful not just for enlargement, but gives noise reduction software an easier time to weed out detail vs noise, it gives photographers extra room to crop and maintain good resolution, it gives other photographers the detail for huge enlargement. Myself I have a 42" wide printer, the 50mp images have a clear advantage in prints this size. It is YOUR opinion relatively high resolution isn't all that useful. But that's your opinion, not facts. The fact is it makes a big difference for pro's, the very target audience of the R1. The people who print big, people who sell images, people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images. Of all the photographer, pro's are the ones who will benefit the most and use high resolution.

But, it's the whole package deal, this is an R3 II. It is priced accordingly and I'm not mad it exists. But calling it a R1, that just so far away from what it is. It's really an R3 II, and a minor incremental upgrade at that.

A real R1 is best in class in everything, that's what it was promised as. And it's just far away from that.

In my mind, they have still yet to create a camera that can truly differentiate itself from the R3 and worthy of the R1 name.

[Fast Glass]

And the nail in the coffin is that the R3 exists and the R5 II exists. For those that could care less about resolution. The R3 does 99% of what the R1 does. For those that don't have a need for something that serious. R5 II comes in at a significantly cheaper price point and the resolution is just a bonus.

It's a hard sale the R1 because of that. If the R3 didn't exist. It be a no brainer, get an R1, there wouldn't have been a low rez speed camera like it.

[neuroanatomist]

I know exactly how the AF works, I can read literature too. It is a minor incremental improvement fitting a R3 II. This is not game changing or the quad pixel AF kind of improvement.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, having the two orientations in adjacent pairs of rows is functionally equivalent to quad pixel – the alternating orientations are separated by 12 µm on the sensor. Canon has three major patents (and other minor ones) in this space. Quad pixel is likely the most technically difficult to implement. They also had a 'dual cross-type' AF patent (reminiscent of the old dual-cross center points, or column of five, on PDAF sensors), that one also used dual pixels, but the splits were four orientations (horizontal like regular DPAF, vertical like the R1 adds, and also both diagonals).

Incidentally, if you 'know exactly how the AF works' then why did you state, AF is basically the same hardware wise. Just more firmware stuff...? Because that statement makes it clear that you had no idea how the AF works. Rewriting history is hard when it's right there on the page.


You may be anti resolution because you look at it with a very narrow set of circumstances and so does Canon. But it is exceedingly useful not just for enlargement, but gives noise reduction software an easier time to weed out detail vs noise, it gives photographers extra room to crop and maintain good resolution, it gives other photographers the detail for huge enlargement. Myself I have a 42" wide printer, the 50mp images have a clear advantage in prints this size.
I'm not anti-resolution, by any means. I know the resolution I need, and that's what I need. I have ample focal length available, out to 1200mm f/8 with very good IQ, and my 'distance' shooting is typically at 840mm f/5.6. Any more 'reach' provided by smaller pixels at that point becomes moot due to the effects of atmosphere and diffraction.


It is YOUR opinion relatively high resolution isn't all that useful. But that's your opinion, not facts. The fact is it makes a big difference for pro's, the very target audience of the R1. The people who print big, people who sell images, people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images. Of all the photographer, pro's are the ones who will benefit the most and use high resolution.
I see. So my opinion that higher resolution isn't all that useful (to me) is not a fact. But your opinion that higher resolution makes a big difference for professionals is a fact. LOL. No, that's not how it works.

I have not and do not suggest that my needs represent those of anyone but me. When I state that I don't need more than 24 MP, I am not saying that no one does. What you are doing is suggesting that because you personally need/want more than 24 MP, a majority of others do, as well. You are entitled to your opinions, not to your own facts. Some people truly cannot grasp that opinions ≠ facts, and/or would not know a fact if it bit them on the butt. One need look no further than politics to see that in action.

Who do you think is more likely to know what most 'people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images' want in a sensor? You, or the company that dominates the industry? If you think that the answer is you, that's ludicrous. Some people suggest that Sony and Nikon do make higher MP bodies, and while that's true, the fact is that Canon does dominate the industry so a smart competitor would make something the dominant player doesn't, specifically because they don't. It's why Sony moved to mirrorless in the first place, they were smart enough not to try and compete with Canon and Nikon in DSLRs. Of course, now Canon has committed fully to mirrorless, and they solidly lead that market segment now, as well.


In my mind, they have still yet to create a camera that can truly differentiate itself from the R3 and worthy of the R1 name.
That's perfectly fine. If you don't want it, don't buy it. I often ask people, if the higher MP count is so important to you, why are you still with Canon? You commented that you could afford two R1's if you wanted. So why haven't you bought a Fuji GFX with 100 MP? Or a Sony a7r5 with 60 MP? Or if you have, good for you!

Canon is going to make the cameras that their market research indicates people will buy. History has shown they are very, very good at making that determination. You're welcome to disagree with them, but odds are high that their assessment of the needs of professionals and amateurs is far, far more accurate than yours.

[Fast Glass]

Basically the same is NOT equivalant to "The same thing". You are putting words in my mouth. And second, this is NOT the same as quad pixel AF. It is a cheat way of trying to achieve the same thing but it isn't and will not perform the same. This is an incremental improvement of dual pixel AF, that's all.

And once again, you are putting words in my mouth, I gave factual reasons why resolution DOES make a big difference and the point was if there was a camera with high resolution appealed the most and mattered the most to particular segment. It is the segment the R1 is aimed at. Pro's. You have been anti resolution for years and been beyond vocal about it. What YOU like is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

Maybe people are invested in the system and there are lenses that only exist in that system. It's ussually not feasible in the high end realm to swap when you got 10's of thousands invested. Like I do. And Canon right now just dropped the ball on the true profesional segment. They are already behind everyone. With the release of the Z9 II and A1 II. Those systems will utterly wipe the floor not only in things that matter like AF. But in every aspect.

You are conveniently cherry picking the resolution aspect like you love to do. While completely ignoring that this is 99% the same as a the R3. These are NOT game changing improvements, it's litteraly the same body, same features tweaked and improved some. But it's still fundamentally an R3 II. And a minor improvement at that.

[Fast Glass]

Canon is making cameras based on what they want, not what the market wants. And they pulled an Olympus with the R1, making minor improvements and trying to sell it as an generational improvement.

And also I don't appreciate you demonizing everyone just because people are disappointed in a camera manufacturer. They have a right to be. They don't need to jump ship just because they are complaining. Lots of products came to exist because people were vocal about what they want and critical of the brands shortcomings.

We had 2 pro speed bodies already, at the very least they needed to make a generational upgrade. And they miserably failed at that.

[neuroanatomist]

Canon is making cameras based on what they want, not what the market wants. And they pulled an Olympus with the R1, making minor improvements and trying to sell it as a generational improvement.
They make what they believe will sell. No company is perfect, the R100 is a good example. No touch screen, and unlike the cheaper Mxxx models that were on many best-seller lists alongside the M50/II, the R50 is but the R100 is not. But generally, if a company makes what they want but not what their customers want, that company does not do well. By objective measure, Canon is doing very well in the camera market.


And also I don't appreciate you demonizing everyone just because people are disappointed in a camera manufacturer. They have a right to be. They don't need to jump ship just because they are complaining. Lots of products came to exist because people were vocal about what they want and critical of the brands shortcomings.
I don't. You can be as disappointed as you want. You can feel and state that you believe Canon is doing a terrible job, or that Sony or Nikon makes perfect cameras. Criticize away. As I keep saying, everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and they are welcome to state that opinion freely.

What you are not welcome to do is claim that your opinions are facts. You may not like the R1, but claiming that it won't meet the needs of people who use top of the line glass with the best techniques and spend the time and effort to get world class images is simply not true.

Perusing the gear used by winners of top awards like the World Press Photo Awards shows MP counts ranging from 12-46. This is the global winner of that award for 2024, from his LinkedIn page. Those are a pair of R3 bodies hanging from his shoulders. Seems he can manage to get world class images with 24 MP.

https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D03AQE-1HnVrUJExQ/profile-displayphoto-shrink_400_400/0/1666078308079?e=1727308800&v=beta&t=tMRqOvvSbhhVRt49B5org7edqGz0d6Q_LSbHIwkNpE0

[Fast Glass]

You can't stop putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it.

First off, people been BEGGING Canon since the 1Ds III to make a pro high resolution body. Canon has objectively ignored this. Nikon and Sony have listened and gain a lot of photogs to their side because they LISTEN to their customers.

Second, I never said they did a terrible job. I said they didn't make a real R1. I said plain as day, the R1 is a good camera and not even overpriced. But this was NOT what was promised when Canon was pushing in their advertisements with a do it all pro camera for everyone. And it is simply not that at all. It is a very niche pro speed camera.

I made it abundantly clear what was my opinion and facts. And quite frankly I barely mentioned my opinion because it means nothing to anyone but me.

And here you go again at the very end, litteraly again demonizing me and others of the same camp that thinks high resolution is useful. What others use is completely irrelevant, if Canon made high resolution bodies he would be taking the same images with high resolution. That's not proof of anything other than he shoots Canon. Simple as that.

And not withstanding, I'm not the only one that thinks the R1 should have really been called the R3 II. There is countless comments on social media where people say the same thing.

[Fast Glass]

Bottom line, your preferences are not facts. Your shooting style and your demands for equipment are not universal. Stop ridiculing others because they are more objective than you and understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Once you do that, there is nothing to even argue about. Because I'm not arguing with you about your personal choice. But you don't get to make your personal choice facts.

[neuroanatomist]

Bottom line, your preferences are not facts. Your shooting style and your demands for equipment are not universal. Stop ridiculing others because they are more objective than you and understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Once you do that, there is nothing to even argue about. Because I'm not arguing with you about your personal choice. But you don't get to make your personal choice facts.
Responding substantively is not worth my time. Enjoy life in your bubble where you’re right about everything (including knowing more about how to make and sell cameras and what professional photographers need than the company that dominates the industry).

[Fast Glass]

I never once made such statements, I gave clear cut facts. You only try and put words in my mouth over and over again.

And you did it once more. You are incapable of anyone having a different point of view, and when you are proven wrong. You just put words in my mouth, try and speak from authority because of your unrelated profession, you ridicule and demonize people that have a different point of view or complain about short commings of Canon. You are essentially saying Canon can do no wrong and any criticism is only done by ignorant people.

You love to brag how you are a scientist and facts based. Yet you are incapable of doing so.

And I don't even know why you are arguing with me, I already said the R1 is a good camera. I don't even think it is over priced all things considered. I'm not putting you down for buying one, more power to you. Yet you have this beef with me.

It's illogical.

[neuroanatomist]

From Jeff Cable, Team USA Olympic photographer (link (https://blog.jeffcable.com/2024/07/capturing-photos-of-men-from-usa.html?m=1)), who has shot the past 7 Olympics:


Now, for those of you who are into photography and cameras, let me tell you about the Canon R1 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=0&InitialSearch=yes&Ntt=Canon%20R1&BI=19250&KBID=11129&SID=DFF). The focus on this camera is absolutely AMAZING! In past Olympics, my take rate when photographing gymnastics was maybe 40% in perfect focus. With the Canon R1 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=0&InitialSearch=yes&Ntt=Canon%20R1&BI=19250&KBID=11129&SID=DFF) I have a 95% take rate. This is crazy! And at 30 fps I ended up with more than 5,000 images to choose from. Trying to select my favorites was daunting!! When this camera locks in, it holds. And it locks in so fast that when I hit the focus button with the gymnast in mid air, it still locks on their face perfectly. This is a game changer.

[Kayaker72]

From Jeff Cable, Team USA Olympic photographer (link (https://blog.jeffcable.com/2024/07/capturing-photos-of-men-from-usa.html?m=1)), who has shot the past 7 Olympics:

Sweetness

I have been waiting for more hands on impressions. I am in the camp suspecting that the AF will be much improved. Time will tell. Glad he has an R5 II as well.

Regarding the discussion above, hopefully that is out of your systems, it was starting to veer off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavidEccleston]

Canon highest end cameras have never participated in the Megapixel race, instead they have always used a lower pixel count to ensure fast readout, fast buffer output, etc. More data WILL be slower. Call it the R3 mk II in your head if you must, but it *is* a pro-camera, very much in line with Canon's other pro cameras. They even announced the R5mkII at the same time for people who do need the Megapixels, but apparently that's not enough, those megapixels must be branded as a 1 series or they don't count.

As for those who switched to Sony, etc. Why?
- You can get Megapixels from Canon in the R5 series. Do they need more... that's valid, but not related to megapixels in R1.

- Is Sony's sensor still lower noise? If you need that, that's valid, but again, not related to megapixel in R1 or R5.

- Are they hurt that the megapixels aren't in the 1 series? That's not really valid. That's not Canon's MO. The reduced pixel count *ensures* performance.

- Is there a feature being withheld on the high-megapixel camera? Sure, the cross type AF for now, but they'll trickle down next release. Is the competition any better here, or do they all tend to put all their features into all their cameras? I know a few years ago there was some surprise that a mid-range Nikon got some high-end feature... so it sounds like having pro features reserved for the high-end cameras for a cycle or two is standard across the industry. Does Sony not do this? I don't care about a single counter-example, but a pattern showing this is their normal business practice, otherwise the R7 and R8 having the same focus as the R3 are my Canon counter examples (reviewers seems pleasantly surprised).

So, what specifically is Canon doing / not doing to drive pro customers away? Reading Bryan's preview and he sounds super stoked to get the R5 mk II. I didn't see any complaining that the pixels weren't called R1. So, ignoring the nameplate, what's wrong with Canon's offerings?

[neuroanatomist]

Are they hurt that the megapixels aren't in the 1 series? That's not really valid. That's not Canon's MO. The reduced pixel count *ensures* performance.
I suspect it's more that they're hurt that Canon didn't give them what they personally wanted. Not sure why anyone would feel that a manufacturer owes them something, but some apparently do.


- Is there a feature being withheld on the high-megapixel camera? Sure, the cross type AF for now, but they'll trickle down next release.
That may be a technical problem at this point, e.g., the computational burden of AF at 30-40 fps with the orthogonal orientations for cross-type AF are feasible at 24 MP but not at 45 MP.


So, what specifically is Canon doing / not doing to drive pro customers away? Reading Bryan's preview and he sounds super stoked to get the R5 mk II. I did see any complaining that the pixels weren't called R1. So, ignoring the nameplate, what's wrong with Canon's offerings?
Some people think they know exactly what pros want/need. Many people that think that aren't pros themselves, others are but should really only speak for their own needs. Canon clearly talks to pros, and the R1 and R5II are designed to meet the broad needs of the professional market.

[Kayaker72]

I suspect it's more that they're hurt that Canon didn't give them what they personally wanted. Not sure why anyone would feel that a manufacturer owes them something, but some apparently do.


My take is a variation of this. Over the years I have seen a number of people that want the "Flagship" to be the absolute best of everything. There has always been a group that puts high MPs in that category. So, for them, I get it. They want the bigger battery, ergonomics, etc all with the higher MPs. Nikon and Sony are effectively doing variations of this.

Canon has never played that game. They have always defined a large market, tried to create a camera very well suited to that market and added a few features to broaden the appeal. This way, each camera has it's own defined niche.

R1 is pretty clearly aimed at sports. The "5" series has been events, even though I think Canon is broadening out the R5 in part to compete with other brands.

Granted, any camera can pretty much be used for any purpose, it is just some are better suited for something compared to others. So it does get down to what you need and picking the best camera for your purpose.

[Jonathan Huyer]

For sure the R1 is aimed at sports shooters, but I'm really curious as to how it will perform with wildlife. Has anyone seen any impressions in that category as of yet? I own the R5 and it works really well with the RF 100-300 f/2.8. Will the R1 be a noticeable improvement with animals? Maybe I need to wait and see.

[neuroanatomist]

R1 is pretty clearly aimed at sports. The "5" series has been events, even though I think Canon is broadening out the R5 in part to compete with other brands.
That’s been the case since the 1D and 1Ds lines were merged in 2012. The 1D X took a small step down in resolution from the 1Ds III while maintaining the speed of the 1D IV with a FF sensor. The 5DIII took over from the 1Ds III, and a few years later there was a 5Ds. There will likely be an R5s at some point, as well.

Objectively, Canon’s strategy has been successful. Good, affordable entry level bodies with the brand people see in the hands of pros. Not sure why some people think Canon should change their strategy now. The market has changed dramatically both in terms of the type and number of cameras sold over the past decade, and Canon has continued to lead the market with their market share unchanged even as Nikon lost a lot of customers to Sony.

The initial feedback on R1 performance is excellent, which is completely unsurprising. Canon knows how to meet the needs of the pros that use 1-series cameras.

[Kayaker72]

For sure the R1 is aimed at sports shooters, but I'm really curious as to how it will perform with wildlife. Has anyone seen any impressions in that category as of yet? I own the R5 and it works really well with the RF 100-300 f/2.8. Will the R1 be a noticeable improvement with animals? Maybe I need to wait and see.

Not yet, but I am looking. It is interesting that Jim Cable is claiming a significant better hit rate with the R1 with Olympic sports. I have seen where Canon is having mini-events and letting reviewers borrow cameras. But I have yet to see much regarding hands on with wildlife, other than the launch videos. This is part of why I think Canon might be focusing the R5 II for wildlife, they included a launch video (https://youtu.be/cMG8Zxm-3Vc?si=Pes8KB_YT9-PGpJk). He uses all the superlatives..."game changer"..."next level"....:rolleyes:



Objectively, Canon’s strategy has been successful. Good, affordable entry level bodies with the brand people see in the hands of pros.

Yep. And where are people most likely to see "pros" using Canon cameras? Sporting events.

Great strategy. And fortunately, great cameras as well.

[neuroanatomist]

They want the bigger battery, ergonomics, etc all with the higher MPs. Nikon and Sony are effectively doing variations of this.
As someone pointed out (elsewhere), Nikon came out with the Z9 (gripped body) then two years later came out with the Z8 (essentially the same camera as the Z9 but without the integrated grip). Sony doesn't offer an integrated grip body. When Fuji updated the very nice GFX-100 to the MkII version, they eliminated the integrated grip.

Taken together, the upshot seems to be that none of the major manufacturers see a strong market for a high MP, integrated grip body. It's fine for people to want that, and like you I certainly 'get it'. But what I don't get is when people claim that their desire is representative of a large enough market segment to matter, or that Canon is somehow not meeting the needs of 'professionals' in general by not offering such a body. It seems like an unreasonable expectation for Canon to meet everyone's personal needs.

There's also a reason that the R5II is generally very close in specs to the R1, namely to meet the needs of those wanting pro-level performance with a higher MP count.

[Kayaker72]

Taking a step back, the R5 is really Canon's comparable "Flagship" and the R1 is really a unique offering aimed at a specific audience. The R5/A1/Z8 have similar MP (45-50) and fps (10-12 mechanical and up to 30 electronic). A simplistic comparison, sure, but two key features that are almost identical.

Going back 12 years, the 5D3 was 6 fps and the 1Dx was 12 fps. At the time, that was a significant and meaningful differentiation.

I am sure they are coming, but it will be interesting to see the comparisons of the R5 II to the A1 and Z8. But I might adjust my thinking a bit and start considering the R5 II as a co-Flagship camera.

[neuroanatomist]

Taking a step back, the R5 is really Canon's comparable "Flagship" and the R1 is really a unique offering aimed at a specific audience.
I suppose it's semantics. The best or most important thing owned or produced by a particular organization." Canon says the R1 is their flagship, so it is." The R5 II will probably sell 6-7 times as many units as the R1.

The Toyota Century is their flagship SUV, it costs $170,000. They'll sell many more Land Cruisers, though...and even more RAV4s.



Going back 12 years, the 5D3 was 6 fps and the 1Dx was 12 fps. At the time, that was a significant and meaningful differentiation.

I am sure they are coming, but it will be interesting to see the comparisons of the R5 II to the A1 and Z8. But I might adjust my thinking a bit and start considering the R5 II as a co-Flagship camera.
I think that's when Canon really started pushing the 5-series into the professional realm with the 5DIII. Same AF as the 1D X, which for Canon was a big differentiator for the older 1-series bodies.

For someone who wants more MP, the R5 II is almost a no-brainer. As I've said before, while I'm not opposed to more, the 18-24 MP range is enough for my needs. For me, the 1-series (and R3) is more about ergonomics.