Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]

[FaolainWolf]

So you define ‘compete’ as the number of MP. That might be the only thing that matters to you, and that’s fine. You might consider that others have different priorities, and that Canon is more likely to understand the priorities of their market than you.


But…are you? How many of them have you talked to about what they want? Do you believe Canon has not considered their desires?

Are you denying that resolution is relevant? If resolution is irrelevant, the R1 could (and probably should) be a 5MP monster! Why sacrifice anything for extra MP's, if MP's are irrelevant?

All I'm saying is that the R1 (if these are the specs) isn't trying to compete with the a1 and Z9. 30MP is very different than 50MP. They aren't in the same market segments. And yes, surely Canon knows that and made the conscious decision NOT to try to compete with them. They may have made the evaluation that there is a bigger market for 30MP than for 50MP. I'm not sure I agree with that analysis -- after all, you can dumb down an image, but you can't dumb it up. There's nothing wrong with NOT competing with the other brands' flagships. It just indicates the surrender of that niche. If that's a conscious decision, who can argue?

 

[FaolainWolf]

It's all about MPs. Yeah, more MPs!!!!! MPs are all that matters!!!!!!!!

Try not to sound like a fool.

Take thine own advice. I NEVER said MP's are everything. It's just that 30MP and 50MP are two different market segments. Do you honestly disagree? Foolishness, indeed.

If MP's are irrelevant, why do we need 30MP rather than 20MP? Or 5MP? You can dumb an image down, but you can't dumb it up. MP isn't everything. There is room for a low-MP camera -- witness the R3 -- and Canon (if these are the actual specs) surely believes that, in spades.

 

[3kramd5]

And yes, surely Canon knows that and made the conscious decision NOT to try to compete with them.

I doubt that. I suspect they make the product their research leads them to believe there is the best market for. I don't think any of the big three are making cameras based on what the two are are making. It may appear that way with Nikon and Sony, but that could easily be a result of Nikon's sensor supplier being Sony, with perhaps some customization to what are likely existing fabs.

If all three were vertically-integrated for the primary electronics, I think we'd see very different market entries from all of them.

30MP is very different than 50MP. T

Is it really, though? To scale, this is the ratio of 30MP to 50MP.

 

[neonlight]

I'll be blunt... a global shutter is stupid for a photography focused camera. A couple of legitimate NFL Sony pros I know feel the same way. It's great for the YouTube/Grifter crowd though.

afaik a global shutter does not "read the pixels all at once" but stores the image while the rows are read, so that means having to store all the pixels from the exposure at the same time.
That's where the additional electronics is needed, adding transistors and unless combined with BSI will eat space for the photodiode. So, more noise. ANd maybe loss of resolution if the image store loses some of the charge while it is waiting to be read.
BUt if it can be made to work well, with no loss of quality, why not?

 

[3kramd5]

afaik a global shutter does not "read the pixels all at once" but stores the image while the rows are read,

That's not correct. They read them all at once.

 

[Dragon]

That's not correct. They read them all at once.

No, they don't. They transfer them to secondary storage all at once and then read the secondary storage at their leisure. It is that secondary storage (capacitor) that cuts the sensitivity down because it eats up half the space and cuts the full well capacity in half, hence the 1 stop loss in sensitivity and the 250 base ISO. It is not the extra transistors that chew up space. It is the secondary storage capacitor. To read them all at once, they would need 46 million A/D converters, and that ain't happening.

 

[3kramd5]

No, they don't. They transfer them to secondary storage all at once and then read the secondary storage at their leisure. It is that secondary storage (capacitor) that cuts the sensitivity down because it eats up half the space and cuts the full well capacity in half, hence the 1 stop loss in sensitivity and the 250 base ISO. It is not the extra transistors that chew up space. It is the secondary storage capacitor. To read them all at once, they would need 46 million A/D converters, and that ain"t happening.

Whether you call the transferring charge from the sensor to secondary storage "reading the sensor" or not, fine, I stand corrected.

The point however is that it isn't done row-by-row. The end result is that every pixel is exposed and captured at the same time and thus there is no delay from row to row.

 

[Dragon]

Are you denying that resolution is relevant? If resolution is irrelevant, the R1 could (and probably should) be a 5MP monster! Why sacrifice anything for extra MP's, if MP's are irrelevant?

All I'm saying is that the R1 (if these are the specs) isn't trying to compete with the a1 and Z9. 30MP is very different than 50MP. They aren't in the same market segments. And yes, surely Canon knows that and made the conscious decision NOT to try to compete with them. They may have made the evaluation that there is a bigger market for 30MP than for 50MP. I'm not sure I agree with that analysis -- after all, you can dumb down an image, but you can't dumb it up. There's nothing wrong with NOT competing with the other brands' flagships. It just indicates the surrender of that niche. If that's a conscious decision, who can argue?

The A1 and Z9 are both kind of odd cameras. The A1 is in a general purpose body (similar to an R5), but is priced against flagships. The body is not appropriately rugged (or grippable) for pro sports work and the camera is very expensive for the everyday buyer. The Z9 took a shot at a high MP pro camera and I suspect Canon research says Nikon missed the mark, so they are doing something different to compete for the same market. I strongly suspect the R5 II will kick butt on the A1 at a substantially lower price, so Canon choosing to not compete is likely a premature observation in that case. Just because a company releases a particular product does not mean that a competitor needs to build a clone of the product to compete. The competition is for the hearts, minds, and WALLETS of people, not with the other guys' spec sheets.

 

[Dragon]

Whether you call the transferring charge from the sensor to secondary storage "reading the sensor" or not, fine, I stand corrected.

The point however is that it isn't done row-by-row. The end result is that every pixel is exposed and captured at the same time and thus there is no delay from row to row.

Very true, and as I said, the price is clearly 1 stop of dynamic range. If the 16 bit DGO-RAW spec is correct, then the A9 III will be down a full three stops from the R1. Somehow that doesn't feel like a selling point for Sony.

 

[3kramd5]

Very true, and as I said, the price is clearly 1 stop of dynamic range. If the 16 bit DGO-RAW spec is correct, then the A9 III will be down a full three stops from the R1. Somehow that doesn't feel like a selling point for Sony.

I think Sony is aiming a9iii at a9ii owners (a group I am not a part of). The latter has base ISO of 100, but I suspect it is rarely shot there. At equal sensitivity, there doesn't appear to be a substantial dynamic range hit from a9ii to a9iii, and Sony's selling point is probably that you can get similar noise levels with a global sensor architecture when compared with the previous generation body's rolling shutter.

The real selling point must be different. Upgraders have to believe that they will consistently capture images that before would have required luck, and that is far from clear. In some edge cases maybe it can, but most of the time? Probably not. It's even more of a niche product than a Canon R1 will be.

 

[Dragon]

I think Sony is aiming a9iii at a9ii owners (a group I am not a part of). The latter has base ISO of 100, but I suspect it is rarely shot there. At equal sensitivity, there doesn't appear to be a substantial dynamic range hit from a9ii to a9iii, and Sony's selling point is probably that you can get similar noise levels with a global sensor architecture when compared with the previous generation body's rolling shutter.

The real selling point must be different. Buyers have to believe that they will consistently capture images that before would have required luck. and that is far from clear. In some edge cases maybe it can, but most of the time? Probably not. It's even more of a niche product than a Canon R1 will be.

Likely a correct analysis, but I have to believe the total of folks who will sift through 500 frames to find the ONE perfect shot do not add up to that big a market, but I may be wrong.

 

[3kramd5]

Likely a correct analysis, but I have to believe the total of folks who will sift through 500 frames to find the ONE perfect shot do not add up to that big a market, but I may be wrong.

Start with the market of people who will spend $6,000 plus tax on a camera body, and reduce it from there

 

[DrToast]

The decision to not go with a high resolution sensor makes me think that the R3 was indeed originally going to be the R1, but they didn't feel it matched up to other flagship offerings.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Are you denying that resolution is relevant? If resolution is irrelevant, the R1 could (and probably should) be a 5MP monster! Why sacrifice anything for extra MP's, if MP's are irrelevant?

Sure, heck why not one pixel? Hyperbole becomes asinine at some point.

All I'm saying is that the R1 (if these are the specs) isn't trying to compete with the a1 and Z9. 30MP is very different than 50MP. They aren't in the same market segments.

They all represent the manufacturers’ flagships. Why should they compete with each other? Honestly, how many people do you think shot with a 1D X II then suddenly bought a D6? Not zero, but it’s probably pretty uncommon.

The primary market for the R1 are owners of the 1D X II/III, and to a lesser extent owners of other xD and R# cameras, not owners of Nikon or Sony cameras at this level. The entry level is a different story, of course.

…but you can't dumb it up. There's nothing wrong with NOT competing with the other brands' flagships. It just indicates the surrender of that niche. If that's a conscious decision, who can argue?

If you’re suggesting that Canon is surrendering the ‘flagship niche’, clearly you can dumb it up.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The decision to not go with a high resolution sensor makes me think that the R3 was indeed originally going to be the R1, but they didn't feel it matched up to other flagship offerings.

Right, so they’ll call the 30 MP one the R1. Seriously? Sheesh.

 

[frankchn]

Right, so they’ll call the 30 MP one the R1. Seriously? Sheesh.

Agreed that whatever they call it, R3, or R1 or whatever, doesn't matter.

That said, if you line up the 1DX Mark III, R3, and this hypothetical camera next to each other, I would say these cameras are successive generations of the same line aimed at the same target market. There are clear improvements from one camera to the next across most metrics.

If the rumor is indeed true and they do name this camera the R1, I find it weird that Canon would say that the R3 isn't a flagship when the predecessor and successor cameras are. Of course, in the end it doesn't matter.

Or they call this camera an R3 Mark II and we can watch all hell break loose haha.

 

[DrToast]

Right, so they’ll call the 30 MP one the R1. Seriously? Sheesh.

Oh look....another guy unaware that cameras have more than one spec.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That said, if you line up the 1DX Mark III, R3, and this hypothetical camera next to each other, I would say these cameras are successive generations of the same line aimed at the same target market. There are clear improvements from one camera to the next across most metrics.

If the rumor is indeed true and they do name this camera the R1, I find it weird that Canon would say that the R3 isn't a flagship when the predecessor and successor cameras are.

Having used the R3 and a prior 1-series camera, I disagree. 1-series bodies have a level of functionality and available customization that the R3 simply lacks. It’s a great camera, but it’s not a 1-series camera. The R1 will be, obviously.

There also the obvious 4-year cycle for the 1D X releases, into which the R1 fits perfectly but the R3 doesn’t.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh look....another guy unaware that cameras have more than one spec.

Oh look…another guy who believes every asinine claim on the internet.

 

[DrD]

Pixel size determines the number of photons of light that each pixel on the FF (36 x 24 mm) sensor catches. The Sony A7R5 sensor has 9504 x 6336 pixels, thus each pixel is 3.8 microns (also known as micrometer, 1,000 of which = 1 mm). The Canon R3 sensor is 6000 x 4000 pixels, and each is pixel is 6 microns wide, or 1.58x bigger than the individual pixels on the Sony A7RV -> hence its much better low-light (ISO noise) performance. The Canon R5, Nikon Z9/Z8 all have a 45 MP sensor, Nikon's sensor is 8256 x 5504 and the Canon R5 has 8192 x 5464. The pixel size on the R5 is 4.4 microns, thus each pixel is 16 percent larger than any pixel on the Sony A7R5, whilst the R5 pixels are 73 percent of the size of the R3's pixels (put another way the R3 pixels are 1.36x the R5's). The old Canon 1DX III had 5472 x 3648 or 20 MP resolution where each pixel was 6.6 µm, around 10 percent larger than the current R3. However, the R3 has a new back-illuminated stacked sensor, thus technology improvements have likely more than offset any deficits due to slightly smaller pixels.

The real question is not "How many pixels should the new R1 have?", the correct question is: "What pixel size on a standard 36 mm x 34 mm full frame sensor does a professional photographer require to have the ability to shoot high quality images in different lighting circumstances?"

For reference; the latest iPhone 15 Pro has 1.22 microns pixel size for 48 MP images and 2.44 for 12 MP. Many smartphone camera sensors have 0.9 µm pixels and are hopeless in low-light conditions.

So, before demanding 60 MP or 80 MP (10960 x 7306 with each pixel 3.25 microns) for the new R1, please say what pixel size you are prepared to pay 5x the cost of a flagship smartphone? An 80 MP sensor would have pixels just 1.5 times larger than an iPhone! Creates a problem as if FF MILC camera sensors start to resemble the pixel density of a smartphone, then why buy such a camera (if not for the better low-light capability and shallow DoF, the latter can be simulated now by computational photography)?

A situation similar to Moore's Law for integrated circuit chips, is occurring also for camera sensor resolution. Both computer chips, with smaller and smaller lithography (wafer diameter), and camera sensors with continually increasing resolutions, are hitting diminishing returns.