Canon R1 has been announced

[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), 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. 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 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), 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. He uses all the superlatives..."game changer"..."next level"....

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.