It's obviously feasible to make a high MP camera in a 1-series body, but then it becomes something that it probably wasn't intended to be. The "problem" with high MP is that sports photographers would generally prefer to have unlimited buffer and more reasonable file sizes, rather than a crazy-high resolution that they don't need for their media format (on line or magazine). If you're wanting high MP to make 8' wide landscape photos, I am guessing that you are probably content with the R5-type of body that has lower fps and a smaller battery.
If it's possible to have some kind of selectable resolution (other than digital cropping), then maybe it could be the best of both worlds. For example, have an 80 MP sensor but use a super-compressed RAW option to make it perform like a 40 MP sensor when you want it to. Is that even feasible? If so, then you would suddenly have half the file size and twice the buffer when you didn't need the full resolution.
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
Sony A1 does pretty well for a high res high end camera.....I might have switched but for my Canon lenses
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
What is possible, without a doubt and has been done before, is a high resolution sensor in a 1 body with the build quality and superior AF system to go along with it.
They have shown with the R1 they can get a decent frame rate.
@Johnathan the downsized file idea is a concept I would think Canon still explores this to tie the body all in to one. I would imagine speed and processing power would be the limitations to make it happen. Most likely you would have more noise but they do keep getting better.
The real question, are we ready of a $9,000 camera that can do all this.
Answering my own question about super-compressed RAW, I see that Nikon has already done that with the Z9. It drops the 45 MP image down to 22 MB, and gives over 1800 continuous shots at 20 fps (which is a buffer size that even I would be happy with). They also have a 'regular' compressed RAW that gives similar performance to the Canon CRAW at 33 MB per image, but with a smaller buffer of course. I didn't look into the impact on image quality from the super-compressed version, but it's bound to take a bit of a hit. I'm quite encouraged by this --- it makes a dual purpose camera quite feasible, where you can have a super-high MP mode for the pixel peepers, and a fast-shooting movie making machine for the blasters like me![]()
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
@JH
Thats what I was saying earlier. Yes Sports people and many other types of work can use less resolution to keep files small. But with S-RAW you can have a smaller file size option and have high resolution when it is beneficial like cropping in a bird or wildlife shot. Or maybe even a photogernalist who might be reach limited. It be very convenient to be able to hit a custom function button and shoot full resolution if the shot called for it.
As far as those that say a 5-series is gonna make people happy because you are probably not shooting speed. I think that is not really even the intended market of a 1-series in the first place. The 1-series is definitely for a niche market and in that niche market I think a high resolution option would be welcomed by at least a good number of people. Are they the majority or minority I can't say. But enough where it be worth while to my thinking.
I am not a fan of the 5Ds R AF after being spoiled with the consistency and accuracy of the 1-series. It's alright, but doesn't blow me away. It is just so much more accurate, sensitive and consistent a 1-series AF that it is nice to have even for a landscape shot. Knowing it is infocus basically 100% of the time regardless of how challenging the situation is really nice. I don't have to over shoot and constantly pixel peep on the back of my camera. It is so nice.
And I say basically 100%, but in practice it is 100%. I rarely have to double check if a landscape shot is in perfect focus. It works extremely well.
But as much as I adored the 1Dx III, which gave me everything I ever wanted in a body and more. Besides having a lack of resolution. With an aging mount system and it costing 7k after tax, I had two of them. It just was too much of investment too keep. Hence I really REALLY hope the R1 has a 45/50mp sensor. It would be a dream camera for me.
Last edited by Fast Glass; 05-12-2022 at 07:15 AM.
I'm back from a wildlife trip to Jasper National Park, where I put about 9,000 shots on the R5 (along with the 100-500 RF lens). I also had my 1DXIII attached to the 500 f/4 with 1.4 extender, for the times when I needed more reach. Here are some observations:
R5 pros:
The 12 fps frame rate and buffer length were quite adequate (even for me), thanks largely to operating in C-RAW mode. I carried a couple spare batteries but the charge lasted more than long enough to keep the frame rate in the fast mode.
Ridiculously sharp. When the focus is on target, the images are crazy good. The high MP sensor is incredible, and you can crop to your heart's delight when you need to.
Good to 10,000 ISO, and beyond. Really! Sure, if you zoom in to 100%, it looks a bit harsh, but that's because you have so many pixels. When you're looking at it 'normal' size, it is fantastic. The tree hugger shot that I entered in the IOTW contest is ISO 10,000 and I only cleaned it up with a touch of luminance smoothing in Lightroom.
Quick switching from full to crop mode. I believe it was Joel who gave me the hot tip to program the DOF preview button to switch to crop mode --- what a super benefit that is. If the target is small in the frame, crop mode makes it easier to put the focus dot on it.
Super light and easy to hand hold (with the RF 100-500 zoom). Both the other guys I went with had 400 mm f/2.8 lenses, which gave them great shots and low light performance, but they just couldn't swing their rigs around as quickly or hand-hold them as long as me. So I didn't miss much when the action was underway.
R5 cons:
Okay I officially don't like the single-point focus. The focus point is way too big. We were photographing bear cubs, and even when I put the focus box right on a cub it would often miss and grab something else like adjacent grass. I tried switching to spot AF to make the box smaller, but the performance diminished noticeably in the low-light conditions we were often in (the lens would hunt back and forth). By comparison, the regular-sized focus box on the 1DXIII is much smaller, and when I put it on an animal, it grabs the focus right away and never ever loses it. The focusing area is smaller of course, but as long as the box is on the animal, it will always (always!) be in focus. Not so with the R5.
The 2-second startup time when the camera is in standby mode. This drove me utterly nuts, even though I trained myself to half-press the shutter while I was bringing the camera up to my eye to speed up the process. When the action starts up, you need to be able to respond quickly. And holding a blacked-out viewfinder up to your eye when cubs are running around in front of you is incredibly frustrating. I sure hope the mythical R1 has an instant start up. Or else I'll just disable the auto-idle timer and let the battery drain down.
The EVF. When I would grab the 1DXIII to take shots, I just adored being able to see the animals in 'real life', rather than on an EVF screen. It really is a huge difference. For this reason alone I know that I will always have a 1DXIII in my bag.
I'd be interested in hearing from those who have the R3, if these issues are also present in that camera. But overall, I'm super pleased with how the whole system worked.
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
That is the reason I went ahead and ordered the R3. I do hope the R3 doesn't have this problem.
One thing I noticed about the big point, it seems that it actually focuses toward the bottom of the point. For instance focusing on a Doe behind a log. If I raised the top above her head and the lower on her face it would hit.
My R3 showed up last Wednesday and I have been comparing the two. Last night I was comparing the spot AF to see if there is a difference between the two. The R5's box seems to be just a very tiny bit bigger, but I notice when the R3 is in the very center a dot appears in the box. I am not sure if that means anything or not. I went around picking tiny objects that might have depth around it and pick out an object in the center to see if it would hold the fine point. For instance one of the targets was this toy https://battattoys.com/product/woode...-farm-animals/ . What I found is that the R3 does have a very slight edge on the R5 but in real world use it may not be very noticeable.
One thing I did is I turned off every function that might track an object. This included servo, continual AF and anything else related to tracking. Even continual AF would jump from the chosen spot.
There is another difference between the two that may matter. The R3 can use eye detect in every AF setting. The R5 only uses eye detect in Face + Eye Detect AF, the R3 doesn't even have that setting. When the eye detect setting is on the camera looks for an eye, when it doesn't find the eye it search's for a face. I saw this quit bit when shooting my black lab pups this weekend, black eyes on a black face and body are tough. Shooting the grand kids it would lock on their eye and if they blinked or turned a way for an instance the AF would hunt.
I think some of the issues I have had is just an understanding of how the new tech works and how to set up the settings properly for what I want to do. This will work out with time. As for the comparison between the 1Dx III and the R5 possibly the R3 and their respective AF I think the names say it all. 1, 3 and 5. Canon has always placed their bodies appropriately and the "1" is still top.