Canon R1 has been announced

[Kayaker72]

The R1 is finally here

A link to Bryan's landing page.

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.

[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.

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.