# We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 22, 2022)

> Almost immediately after the Canon EOS R3 was announced, people were already asking about the Canon EOS R1, Canon’s future flagship camera.
> We haven’t heard much about it in recent months, as Canon rolled out the Canon EOS R10 and Canon EOS R7 and a couple of RF-S lenses.
> We have been told that the Canon EOS R1 is scheduled for the 2nd half of 2023 for an announcement and that we could see teasers beginning in the spring.
> The latest information says that Canon’s new flagship will be the “new resolution king” as...



Continue reading...


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 22, 2022)

No more than 60MP for me please, Canon!

Put a 100+MP sensor in a EOS R5DS


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Do the people buying ultra high end bodies care about 8k video? I always assumed that was a mid to low range thing because at the high end people are buying actual video cameras like the Red or similar.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 22, 2022)

I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels. 

The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 22, 2022)

So this will be killing 5DS/R series of bodies in future and going back 1D series roots but with added capabilities for sports/wildlife.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Sep 22, 2022)

I think Canon being almost two years behind (3 by the time this canera is supposedly available) is forcing their hand to put out a super high mpx sensor. They would have done better just putting a better sensor in the R3 which is perfect ergonomically but lacking in a modern day sensor size and releasing it sooner. Then they could work on a bigger sensor for the MK II. They are way behind with a flagship model already and I'm guessing that drove them to the idea of being mpx king. Personally, I think 50-60 mpx is the sweet spot. Guess we still have to wait another half a year to find out.


----------



## Fbimages (Sep 22, 2022)

In a sense I like that they are taking their time. Some great features came with the Z9 and other flagship cameras (like the bursts on buffer idea) and it gives time to Canon to embed those ideas in its new design. Ergonomically speaking, I find the R3 to be the perfect camera. On the wishlist are only a couple more pixels (maybe 40 max?) and more importantly a second CF express slot. The SD slot of the R3 is its most frustrating limitation.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 22, 2022)

Let's wait and see, how long it takes until we have a first [CR2] rated spec list...
And is anyone willing to make a first guess about the price?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 22, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So this will be killing 5DS/R series of bodies in future and going back 1D series roots but with added capabilities for sports/wildlife.


I don’t think so, this will cost twice what a high mp 5-series would cost. And when the 5d2 came out with the same res as the 1ds3 it basically killed it, but for those who wanted/need that 1-series still bought it over the 5d2. I think it’s definitely a market for a high mp speed monster like the R1, a lower mp almost as good R3 and the R5. The question mark for me is if there is a market for a high res 5-series, but if there is, those people hardly care for the sport-features of R1, R3 and R5..


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Sep 22, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> They would have done better just putting a better sensor in the R3 which is perfect ergonomically but lacking in a modern day sensor size and releasing it sooner.



I assume that they are working on a bigger stacked sensor, and this is the delaying factor.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> In a sense I like that they are taking their time. Some great features came with the Z9 and other flagship cameras (like the bursts on buffer idea) and it gives time to Canon to embed those ideas in its new design. Ergonomically speaking, I find the R3 to be the perfect camera. On the wishlist are only a couple more pixels (maybe 40 max?) and more importantly a second CF express slot. The SD slot of the R3 is its most frustrating limitation.


I am not familiar with the detailed features of the Z9. Do you mean "bursts on buffer" is what Olympus has had for several years, then the M6II and now the R7 where the buffer stores a burst of shots before the shutter is pressed or is it something else?


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> and more importantly a second CF express slot. The SD slot of the R3 is its most frustrating limitation.


I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.


You can have that today already, if you want to: https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/09/19/zitay-cfexpress-to-ssd-converter-adapter-review/


----------



## ReflexVE (Sep 22, 2022)

If you want to keep it all internal, there are adapters for that too: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LZMXMLQ


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Do the people buying ultra high end bodies care about 8k video? I always assumed that was a mid to low range thing because at the high end people are buying actual video cameras like the Red or similar.


So you consider the $9,000 Leica M11, the $6,500 Sony A1 to be mid to low range? You might want to rethink that?


----------



## Fbimages (Sep 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I am not familiar with the detailed features of the Z9. Do you mean "bursts on buffer" is what Olympus has had for several years, then the M6II and now the R7 where the buffer stores a burst of shots before the shutter is pressed or is it something else?


Yes exactly! The 50fps mode is nice, but you really need to time your shot, having the option to be lagging behind the action and still nail the shot is amazing


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> So you consider the $9,000 Leica M11, the $6,500 Sony A1 to be mid to low range? You might want to rethink that?


Not at all, I was just saying that people spending 10k for a camera to capture video are generally buying video camera bodies, not photo camera bodies. People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lenses, hence the popularity of video in cheaper bodies. I just don't see it as a compelling feature in an R1. I've no issue with it being included, but to call it out as a major improvement seems odd in a primarily stills device.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

I’m fine with a smaller body. I’m not fine with overheating or limitations on shooting modes due to heat… not on a 1 series. 

*As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see? 

• *Global shutter… or really fast rolling shutter. 

• Built in NDs. Canon, if you remove that mechanical shutter I hope you replace it with internal NDs. No mirrorless body has this and it is way overdue.

• Open gate video modes so we can take full advantage of those higher megapixels. All of your bodies *NEED* this feature for video. 

• A tilt-flip articulating screen like the Panasonic s1h features… but larger and brighter. 

• Built in support for wireless audio and time code… because innovation!

• I’m fine with built in cooling fan if fairly quiet…


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not at all, I was just saying that people spending 10k for a camera to capture video are generally buying video camera bodies, not photo camera bodies. People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lenses, hence the popularity of video in cheaper bodies. I just don't see it as a compelling feature in an R1. I've no issue with it being included, but to call it out as a major improvement seems odd in a primarily stills device.


I have video cameras… and I own the R3. I can tell you first hand I prefer having good video shooting capabilities in my hybrids bodies. I would not have purchased the R3 if it could not shoot video… and I will not purchase the R1 unless it excels in both video and stills.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> Yes exactly! The 50fps mode is nice, but you really need to time your shot, having the option to be lagging behind the action and still nail the shot is amazing


I've tried it on the R7, and it is a nice feature. To be honest, I'm not limited by my gear at present but by the lack of local birds for many months, though in the past few days some migrant waders have really livened things up.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

I'm certain there are lots of people like you. That doesn't make you the target demographic though. Is there a reason you prefer stills bodies to Red or Blackmagic type bodies designed for the job? Seems to me that if Canon intended to design video in as a high end feature they'd end up changing almost everything about the 1Dx body. For a start I'd want a bunch of holes to bolt things to, better support for external screens, more buttons etc.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 22, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> Let's wait and see, how long it takes until we have a first [CR2] rated spec list...
> And is anyone willing to make a first guess about the price?


I think we're looking at between $8 and 10K USD. If its got that thumbhole grip that showed up in some patent here a long time ago, plus 12k video, plus no overheating, plus QPAF, plus, plus, plus.....then Canon will want to establish themselves the leader and put a premium price on it to match. 

Having a 1 series body is on my bucket list. But I'm afraid it'll never happen as Canon continues to push up the price scale with all their offerings. Not like its the end of the world, but there is a reason I don't own a Leica, and its the same reason I won't own this Canon (if my guess on pricing turns out true). 

Maybe I'll look at the R3 instead. They should hit the used market at a decent discount once the R1 is out. Especially given all the grief they get online. 

-Brian


----------



## Karm (Sep 22, 2022)

I've been on the fence about buying an R3, mostly because of the unknown specs of the upcoming R1.

The main thing "holding me back" from just getting the R3 is that I'd prefer a larger sensor (between 35 and 65 MPx or so). If the R1 ends up being significantly more than that, like 80MPx or more, I'll need to consider whether that's really ideal. Handling 80MPx files would be a pain in the butt, especially if shot at 30fps or more. Noise performance would need to be equal to the R3 when down-sampled to consider it as an option.

There are also a few other features that I'd love to see in the high-end Canon cameras.
- pre-capture mode (buffering shots when half-pressing the shutter button, and saving a buffer once you press it)
- more options for burst rates (not just having 30, 15, and 3 fps options; perhaps also having options for 10 and 6 fps)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> *As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see? …*


As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things. 

Lesson: Don’t assume that you are representative of the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

Karm said:


> - more options for burst rates (not just having 30, 15, and 3 fps options; perhaps also having options for 10 and 6 fps)


Granted that burst rates were lower, the 1-series bodies still have H/M/L settings for fps but allowed setting specific frame rates for each of those.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> > *As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see? …*
> 
> 
> As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things.
> ...


Another R3 owner here, and I also don't care about video features of the R1 (nor do I assume I represent the market). I just ordered a Vixia HF G60 (with a large-for-a-camcorder 1" sensor and a 26-380mm FFeq FoV lens) for when I need to shoot video.


----------



## Karm (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things.


The global shutter would be pretty cool though, not gonna lie.  



neuroanatomist said:


> Granted that burst rates were lower, the 1-series bodies still have H/M/L settings for fps but allowed setting specific frame rates for each of those.


Ah! That's very interesting. I hope they implement something similar for the R1.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Maybe I'll look at the R3 instead. They should hit the used market at a decent discount once the R1 is out. Especially given all the grief they get online.
> 
> -Brian


The “grief” comes from people who don’t own or use the R3, so I would not count on their sales of non-existing cameras to reduce the price or flood the market.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor and remove the grip on the bottom of the camera? It's probably the most obvious ergonomic change they could make and would give an immediately useful range of features for photographers in terms of framing after the fact, or through in camera software. GoPro have led the way here, but I can see it catching on very quickly once camera companies realise they don't have to make the sensor a rectangle


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 22, 2022)

I used to shoot with a 1D X before migrating to a R5.
I still miss the ergonomics (apart from 1 thing: I absolutely adore the 3-wheel setup of the R5), battery life and the feeling of indestructibility. The R5 wins on AF, resolution and I love some of the new RF glass.

Because I want high resolution (like the 45mp on the R5 a lot, like the 80mp on my IQ1 80 even more), the R3 was not on the cards for me, even if I like a lot all the rest of it. Yes yes I could survive with the 18mp of the 1D X, but, for me, more resolution is better any time.
Video is not important to me but nice to have. For me good AF in video is more important than resolution and the R5 already does great for that. 

So, depending on specs, I am definitely interest in the R1, even though I am not in a hurry since a) the R5 is great and b) I will already spend on the future (?) new RF fast primes   
Give me 80+ mp, even better AF (maybe with the eye AF of the R3?), at least as fast as the R5, body similar as the R3, even better viewfinder, and I am in


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor and remove the grip on the bottom of the camera? It's probably the most obvious ergonomic change they could make and would give an immediately useful range of features for photographers in terms of framing after the fact, or through in camera software. GoPro have led the way here, but I can see it catching on very quickly once camera companies realise they don't have to make the sensor a rectangle


This has been suggested every year or so for at least the past decade by someone who thinks they just invented the wheel (because it's round like the sensor they want, I suppose).


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> This has been suggested every year or so for at least the past decade


And yet, here we are still with rectangle sensors and camera grips in 2022. Just because it's been mentioned before doesn't make it a bad idea. It's frankly embarrassing that GoPro did it before Canon.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor and remove the grip on the bottom of the camera? It's probably the most obvious ergonomic change they could make and would give an immediately useful range of features for photographers in terms of framing after the fact, or through in camera software. GoPro have led the way here, but I can see it catching on very quickly once camera companies realise they don't have to make the sensor a rectangle



Could any of the current RF lenses support an image circle that size? I'm thinking not. Would not be ideal to have to have separate lenses for your 1 series. 

I guess with a round sensor, you'd never have to tip your camera for a portrait orientation again. So you wouldn't need the integrated grip. But then you're also going to have to crop every image to your desired output format. Hmm...IDK if we'll ever see that in a MILC type camera or not. But I doubt the R1 would bring such a revolution anyway. Maybe for whatever mount comes next. Plus, the waste of round sensors on the circuit wafer would be large for large sensor sizes. I imagine go-pro can do it because their chips are tiny, and the resulting waste percentage less. But it would be quite costly for FF sensors I imagine.

-Brian


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Do the people buying ultra high end bodies care about 8k video? I always assumed that was a mid to low range thing because at the high end people are buying actual video cameras like the Red or similar.


Yes...at least I would definitely be in that category.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> In a sense I like that they are taking their time. Some great features came with the Z9 and other flagship cameras (like the bursts on buffer idea) and it gives time to Canon to embed those ideas in its new design. Ergonomically speaking, I find the R3 to be the perfect camera. On the wishlist are only a couple more pixels (maybe 40 max?) and more importantly a second CF express slot. The SD slot of the R3 is its most frustrating limitation.


I wonder if they might consider one removable memory slot combined with onboard memory, like 1TB or so?

I think I saw something like this on the new Hasselblad body released the other day....

Might they go for something like that on the new Canon?


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Could any of the current RF lenses support an image circle that size? I'm thinking not. Would not be ideal to have to have separate lenses for your 1 series.
> 
> I guess with a round sensor, you'd never have to tip your camera for a portrait orientation again. So you wouldn't need the integrated grip. But then you're also going to have to crop every image to your desired output format. Hmm...IDK if we'll ever see that in a MILC type camera or not. But I doubt the R1 would bring such a revolution anyway. Maybe for whatever mount comes next. Plus, the waste of round sensors on the circuit wafer would be large for large sensor sizes. I imagine go-pro can do it because their chips are tiny, and the resulting waste percentage less. But it would be quite costly for FF sensors I imagine.
> 
> -Brian


Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine. 
There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well. 
waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Yes...at least I would definitely be in that category.


You have a 1Dx for video? Can I ask why you didn't want a Red, Blackmagic or similar?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> And yet, here we are still with rectangle sensors and camera grips in 2022. Just because it's been mentioned before doesn't make it a bad idea. It's frankly embarrassing that GoPro did it before Canon.


It does have some merits. But, there would be 50% more pixels so the sensor would cost a lot more, the file sizes would be 50% bigger so taking up more space on the card, the computer, reducing burst size, slowing read out etc, with the extra pixels mainly being discarded on cropping to rectangular.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It does have some merits. But, there would be 50% more pixels so the sensor would cost a lot more, the file sizes would be 50% bigger so taking up more space on the card, the computer, reducing burst size, slowing read out etc, with the extra pixels mainly being discarded on cropping to rectangular.


Not really good reasons not to do it though, your same statements could have been written about Raw files before they became standard.
It would be easy enough with modern sensors to only read out the pixels needed, or to only write relevant ones to disk. The next gen DIGIC processor will certainly have the bandwidth to cope, and storage space just isn't an issue worth considering in 2023-24. 
Don't forget we're talking about the flagship ultra high end here, not an M series with an SD card and limited memory. The benefits for photographers obviously outweigh the drawbacks here, there's no good argument against as far as I can see.


----------



## amorse (Sep 22, 2022)

interesting to see the suggestion that this will hold the resolution crown. I wonder what that means for the R5S (which I was hoping for). I'd love the higher resolution, but I'm not sure a bigger grip is for me. I guess we'll have to wait and see


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 22, 2022)

So R5C did not make it Netflix… will R3? No? Who cares? Buy R1 is said inbetween the lines.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.


Let's review what you initially claimed:



lustyd said:


> How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor



I suggest you obtain and study a basic geometry textbook. Hint: look up the part about squares inscribed in circles. I'm sure you won't bother, though.

For a 43.2 mm diameter circle (the size of a FF image circle), the largest square that can fit within it has sides of 30.6 mm. A '35x35mm sensor' as you suggest would not be fully covered by many current lenses. A 30.6x30.6mm square sensor, when cropped to 3:2, would mean a decrease in light gathering and thus an increase in image noise compared to the current situation.

A 35mm circular sensor would be fully covered by a full frame image circle, of course, but would yield rectangular crops from an area smaller than a FF sensor, with the concomitant decrease in light gathering and increase in image noise. A 43.2mm circular sensor would work (and may be what you are actually trying to suggest), in that it would enable FF-size 3:2 crops in either orientation and work with current lenses. But in both cases, circular sensors are non-starters for manufacturing reasons. Silicon and the lithography needed to produce large sensors remains a significant cost, and cutting round sensors instead of rectangles out of the wafers means wasting a lot of the material along with significantly higher loss rates (it's not like cutting round cookies out of a sheet of dough where you can just ball the dough back up, roll it out again and cut out more cookies!).


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
> There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
> waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing


RE; Image circle, I was referring to the 35x35mm sensor proposed, not the round one. I don't think the image circle of RF lenses would quite reach that. Image circle for FF 35mmx24mm (3:2 format) is 42mm. for 35x35 it would have to be 49.5mm. 


Agreed waste for square sensors would not be an issue. For round, I do suspect it is why it won't take over the rectangular format for larger sensor size cameras. Though it is an interesting thing for the go-pro, as much of the time you can't be sure what orientation the camera will be in at any given moment it is quite useful for certain situations. I hope not all cameras go to the 10k price point....


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

"People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lense"

The Z Cam E2C costs $800 USD.
The full-frame Z Cam E2-F6 Pro costs $4K USD.
There are many other cinema cameras by many other companies in between those two,
Heck, Canon has the C200B and the R5 C.


----------



## Curahee (Sep 22, 2022)

Emyr Evans said:


> No more than 60MP for me please, Canon!
> 
> Put a 100+MP sensor in a EOS R5DS


Perhaps a lower resolution option doubling up pixels or combining 4 pixels.
That would be an interesting option.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

Karm said:


> The global shutter would be pretty cool though, not gonna lie.


A global shutter would be pretty impractical on a high speed cameras with the present technology.
Even the R10 is a high speed camera so I do not see a global shutter coming anytime soon.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 22, 2022)

I till hope that one day we will have a camera with two sensor that could slide up and down. That would make everybody happe. One sensor with 90 megapixels and the other one with 24 megapixels. 

Mirrorless cameras have the big advantage that they calculate the autofocus from the sensor. So even if that sliding mechanism would not keep the sensor 100% in place, aurofocus would still work perfectly. All you need is enough space in the camera body to slide the sensor up or down. A 1D series camera should have that space. Not sure how that would work with IBIS though.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> It's frankly embarrassing that GoPro did it before Canon


Can we be sure that Canon does not have such a sensor?
I also do not think that GoPro makes their own sensors.
I would not expect Canon to be anymore advanced than whoever does.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> You have a 1Dx for video? Can I ask why you didn't want a Red, Blackmagic or similar?


I have an R3 and plan to get an R5 C but I am a hybrid shooter.
If I were purely a video shooter than I would have gotten a C70.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Do the people buying ultra high end bodies care about 8k video? I always assumed that was a mid to low range thing because at the high end people are buying actual video cameras like the Red or similar.


It is not about 'people' but projects. I use Red or Alexa or Sony on features and use Canon 8k for small or self-funded films.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.


Not me. I do want Canon to keep the weight and size down. Besides, I have a huge investment in CF Express.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 22, 2022)

To those who don't like the focus on video: bear in mind that the video folks are making your still camera cost maybe $1000 less than it would without those features.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not at all, I was just saying that people spending 10k for a camera to capture video are generally buying video camera bodies, not photo camera bodies. People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lenses, hence the popularity of video in cheaper bodies. I just don't see it as a compelling feature in an R1. I've no issue with it being included, but to call it out as a major improvement seems odd in a primarily stills device.


Incorrect assumptions sir.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> And yet, here we are still with rectangle sensors and camera grips in 2022. Just because it's been mentioned before doesn't make it a bad idea...


Maybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

Karm said:


> I've been on the fence about buying an R3, mostly because of the unknown specs of the upcoming R1.
> 
> The main thing "holding me back" from just getting the R3 is that I'd prefer a larger sensor (between 35 and 65 MPx or so). If the R1 ends up being significantly more than that, like 80MPx or more, I'll need to consider whether that's really ideal. Handling 80MPx files would be a pain in the butt, especially if shot at 30fps or more. Noise performance would need to be equal to the R3 when down-sampled to consider it as an option.
> 
> ...


Please consider R5. It may just work great for your needs. It works great for me.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> To those who don't like the focus on video: bear in mind that the video folks are making your still camera cost maybe $1000 less than it would without those features.


I used to agree with that, but as video features become more and more sophisticated and require new design changes to implement at the high end, I'm beginning to think that we are entering an era where super-sophisticated video-only features may have a diminishing return.


----------



## Curahee (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
> There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
> waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing


Would not a round sensor waste a lot of pixels? A 100 MP sensor would actually be about 40 MP useable once cropped (I did not do the math). Where an 80 MP sensor wastes nothing except for post cropping if desired but not required. Also the computing power I would imagine would be exponentially greater (More heat, more difficulty to eliminate rolling shutter or more difficult for global shutter). Also just getting shutter speed up on the sensor and again all that effort and most of it wasted.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.
> 
> The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!


Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Maybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.


Because we went through decades of film based cameras, obviously. Those days are over though, time to move on


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I used to agree with that, but as video features become more and more sophisticated and require new design changes to implement at the high end, I'm beginning to think that we are entering an era where super-sophisticated video-only features may have a diminishing return.


Very possible that the video features are making cameras more expensive. However, the number of people who want to buy just a still camera maybe be miniscuile.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.


The debates are pretty meaningless.
There are high MP cameras that do well in low light and other high MP cameras that don't.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things.
> 
> Lesson: Don’t assume that you are representative of the market.


Which is exactly why *your opinion is irrelevant*… Canon is getting your money regardless. They’ll have to work a bit harder for people like me.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Curahee said:


> Would not a round sensor waste a lot of pixels? A 100 MP sensor would actually be about 40 MP useable once cropped (I did not do the math). Where an 80 MP sensor wastes nothing except for post cropping if desired but not required. Also the computing power I would imagine would be exponentially greater (More heat, more difficulty to eliminate rolling shutter or more difficult for global shutter). Also just getting shutter speed up on the sensor and again all that effort and most of it wasted.


It's only wasted if you don't use it. The number of scenarios where it would be useful are huge, and the technology is available. Most of the arguments against are effectively boiling down to "we don't do it that way". Instead of worrying about the technology, put yourself in more of a growth mindset and think what you could use that feature for. Perhaps you took a landscape shot and later realised it might have been cool as a portrait. Maybe you lined up perfectly and it still came out wonky. Instead of cropping you keep full resolution and just rotate a little. Maybe photos don't actually need to be rectangular at all, eyes certainly don't work that way.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Maybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.


I seem to recall that twin-lens reflexes like Rolleiflex etc had 6cmx6cm.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The debates are pretty meaningless.
> There are high MP cameras that do well in low light and other high MP cameras that don't.


Ok. Thanks. How do you compare R5 to R3?


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> Which is exactly why *your opinion is irrelevant*… Canon is getting your money regardless. They’ll have to work a bit harder for people like me.


Maybe they are working harder for the 99% of R1 potential buyers who are photographers and want a better photo camera. The 1% using a professional photography camera costing $10k to shoot video might seem irrelevant to a company who also have a range of video cameras.

My original point though was that calling out 8k video as the main compelling feature of a top tier photo camera would suggest there are no compelling photography enhancements (at least none we know of) and therefore why would anyone change from 1Dx anyway? To me, 8k video is an "oh yeah we stuck that in too because we could" in these bodies. The lower range stuff like the R3, absolutely people are buying those to save cash on a real video camera setup so it might be more compelling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> Which is exactly why *your opinion is irrelevant*… Canon is getting your money regardless. They’ll have to work a bit harder for people like me.


Your opinion is also *irrelevant*, since Canon doesn't care at all about you personally.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 22, 2022)

Just hurry up with the RP2


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I'm certain there are lots of people like you. That doesn't make you the target demographic though. Is there a reason you prefer stills bodies to Red or Blackmagic type bodies designed for the job? Seems to me that if Canon intended to design video in as a high end feature they'd end up changing almost everything about the 1Dx body. For a start I'd want a bunch of holes to bolt things to, better support for external screens, more buttons etc.


Firstly, if I wasn’t the target demographic this camera would not be 8K capable, as the rumors are suggesting. Clearly hybrid shooters are the target market… and that’s me… and people like me... I think we are the majority.

Leica m11 is stills only… as it’s the Hasselblad X2D… those are your highend “stills only” options. The R1 will be “a jack of all trades and master of all”… it won’t master video without the specs I’ve mentioned. And it better bring some serious dynamic range!

I prefer stills bodies because of convenience. I don’t like having to choose between shooting video or shooting stills. If I have a hybrid, I can do either; Also hybrid bodies draw less attention.

I hate rigging cameras… but to avoid rigging the features the camera offers must be complete.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your opinion is also *irrelevant*, since Canon doesn't care at all about you personally.


My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$


Lol. Your money is insignificant. Canon sells millions of ILCs per year. Whether or not one individual buys a single camera (or a few cameras) is utterly meaningless to Canon. Get over yourself.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Ok. Thanks. How do you compare R5 to R3?


The R3 is a lot better in low-light than the R5.
At the same time the R5 is very good in low-light despite being 45 MP.
I would also choose the R3 in low-light over the 12 MP a7S III.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The R3 is a lot better in low-light than the R5.
> At the same time the R5 is very good in low-light despite being 45 MP.
> I would also choose the R3 in low-light over the 12 MP a7S III.


What do you consider the level of low light to be (iso will be a good enough number)? And it what way at those low levels is the R3 better? And what RAW converter and other software do you use to deal with noise?


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. Your money is insignificant. Canon sells millions of ILCs per year. Whether or not one individual buys a single camera (or a few cameras) is utterly meaningless to Canon. Get over yourself.


I don’t think I’m the only one that will not purchase this camera if it does not support video. I believe collectively we would make a big dent in the bottom line.

What I don’t understand is why so many stills shooters are “anti video”… whereas, hybrid shooters nonetheless embrace stills features and video features alike.

Hey… video is just 24 stills per second. What benefits video benefits stills.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> I don’t think I’m the only one that will not purchase this camera if it does not support video. I believe collectively we would make a big dent in the bottom line.


Of course you don't. Like many deluded posters here, you think your personal opinions represent those of a large number or even the majority of other buyers, with zero evidence to support your belief. Dozens of times over the past decade-plus, people have predicted that if Canon didn't give them and all those masses they spoke for X or do the Y that they and all the masses they spoke for demanded, Canon's bottom line would suffer and they would dramatically lose market share.

What happened? Canon gained market share.

But hey, you go on predicting a big negative impact for Canon because of your personal opinions. Surely this time, you'll be right.






DBounce said:


> What I don’t understand is why so many stills shooters are “anti video”… whereas, hybrid shooters nonetheless embrace stills features and video features alike.


I don't, either. I see many people saying they don't care about video, and only a handful of whiners who seem anti-video (and to whom I often say, why aren't you using a Nikon Df?).

Personally, I like the video controls on my R3...they give me some extra ones I can assign for other uses, e.g. I have the stills/video switch set to toggle silent shooting.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Maybe they are working harder for the 99% of R1 potential buyers who are photographers and want a better photo camera. The 1% using a professional photography camera costing $10k to shoot video might seem irrelevant to a company who also have a range of video cameras.
> 
> My original point though was that calling out 8k video as the main compelling feature of a top tier photo camera would suggest there are no compelling photography enhancements (at least none we know of) and therefore why would anyone change from 1Dx anyway? To me, 8k video is an "oh yeah we stuck that in too because we could" in these bodies. The lower range stuff like the R3, absolutely people are buying those to save cash on a real video camera setup so it might be more compelling.


"there are no compelling photography enhancements" No need to be so insecure. Sir. The will be still photography enhancement for sure. It is a stills camera first.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The R3 is a lot better in low-light than the R5.
> At the same time the R5 is very good in low-light despite being 45 MP.
> I would also choose the R3 in low-light over the 12 MP a7S III.


Thank you


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$


Yes, YOUR opinion is relevant and Canon does want YOUR dollars. By YOURS I mean collective people who have your needs.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.


It is not just the noise, but at high ISO most high resolution cameras including the R5 have that colour shift. Either the whole photo turns to green or magenta or - and that is much worse - that colour shift only happens in the dark areas that you try to recover. The special thing about the R3 is that it keeps the colours at high ISO even in the shadows and the blacks also stay black for much longer, while you have to darken the blacks in post, if you use a higher resolution camera.
This video compares low light capabilities or the R3 and R5: 




This screenshot from the video shows the bad chromatic noise of the R5 at ISO 12.800:


Look, how much cleaner the R3 is. Scaling down does not help getting rid of the R5 noise.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course you don't. Like many deluded posters here, you think your personal opinions represent those of a large number or even the majority of other buyers, with zero evidence to support your belief. Dozens of times over the past decade-plus, people have predicted that if Canon didn't give them and all those masses they spoke for X or do the Y that they and all the masses they spoke for demanded, Canon's bottom line would suffer and they would dramatically lose market share.
> 
> What happened? Canon gained market share.
> 
> ...


All opinions are personal. A market research company will evaluate how many of these opinions are there and if they need to address these collective opinions in their marketing assessment reports which will help the manufacturers design and price their products. In other words, if one person wants something, perhaps more do. The question would be how many such people there are.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It is not just the noise, but at high ISO most high resolution cameras including the R5 have that colour shift. Either the whole photo turns to green or magenta or - and that is much worse - that colour shift only happens in the dark areas that you try to recover. The special thing about the R3 is that it keeps the colours at high ISO even in the shadows and the blacks also stay black for much longer, while you have to darken the blacks in post, if you use a higher resolution camera.
> This video compares low light capabilities or the R3 and R5:
> 
> 
> ...


FANTASTIC videos. Great photographer. Lovely model.  The question still remains: Di the R5 have more noise because of the higher MP or is there more to the story!?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> All opinions are personal. A market research company will evaluate how many of these opinions are there and if they need to address these collective opinions in their marketing assessment reports which will help the manufacturers design and price their products. In other words, if one person wants something, perhaps more do. The question would be how many such people there are.


Obviously Canon regularly conducts market research, and I presume they act on such research (based on their manifest success in the ILC market).

That doesn’t explain why people on this forum persist in arguing that their personal opinion is representative of some significant fraction of the market. Given the typical characteristics of forum members here and the litany of instances where such arguments were proven false by history, it’s unlikely to be true. Still, that doesn’t seem to stop people from making themselves look foolish.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> FANTASTIC videos. Great photographer. Lovely model.  The question still remains: Di the R5 have more noise because of the higher MP or is there more to the story!?


So far it is Canon's only stacked BSI sensor. If they bring a high megapixel stacked BSI sensor, we will know how much diffrence that makes. However there are certain kind of noise like that large pattern colour noise that gets worse when pixels gets smaller. The smaller a pixel is, the more it has to be amplified and at some point the quality "falls apart" as the video phrases it. So while that high frequency pixel level noise is less visible when pixels get smaller at the same print out size, that low frequency noise will always stay visible.

The R3 also is better than the R6 at high ISO. That can only be explained by the new sensor technology. We might have to wait for another year to learn how good a stacked BSI sensor is in a high megapixel camera. 

However the Hasselblad X2D already does great at high ISO, although it also has quite small pixels.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I seem to recall that twin-lens reflexes like Rolleiflex etc had 6cmx6cm.


They weren't circular. The original Kodak ("You press the button, we do the rest") yielded a circular image.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Very possible that the video features are making cameras more expensive. However, the number of people who want to buy just a still camera maybe be miniscuile.


I don't disagree with that. But, my question regards just how sophisticated those video features need to be and what are the additional costs of achieving the high-end video features. With the R5 we saw one of the downsides of offering high-end video (overheating). In my opinion (and yes, it is just my opinion) the R5 would have been just as popular without the high resolution video features.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously Canon regularly conducts market research, and I presume they act on such research (based on their manifest success in the ILC market).
> 
> That doesn’t explain why people on this forum persist in arguing that their personal opinion is representative of some significant fraction of the market. Given the typical characteristics of forum members here and the litany of instances where such arguments were proven false by history, it’s unlikely to be true. Still, that doesn’t seem to stop people from making themselves look foolish.


Agree. Except there may be a better word than 'foolish' to describe this kind of thinking. 'Confused' perhaps?


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I don't disagree with that. But, my question regards just how sophisticated those video features need to be and what are the additional costs of achieving the high-end video features. With the R5 we saw one of the downsides of offering high-end video (overheating). In my opinion (and yes, it is just my opinion) the R5 would have been just as popular without the high resolution video features.


No buddy, I got the R5 for the fantastic 8k video. And with the intense competition, companies need to up the game all around. I believe: If Canon felt that a still camera without video would have a market, they would make it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps (likely) not. (I would immediately buy a still-only retro type of body but that wish will never come true.)


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 22, 2022)

Market research will probably say that McDonald's has the best food, because they sell more food than most other restaurant chains. Market research might say that K-pop is great music and that the Marvel movies are great cinema. The masses also buy overpriced s**t like an iPhone. 

I wonder how much YouTube influences the decisions for video. It is an important platform, but is has a great bias for video, as all YouTuber create videos and most want video in their cameras. So when a camera comes without video or with "only" 1080p, they complain a lot. 

Would we even have mirrorless cameras if it wasn't for video?

I wish Canon would at least give us the option of buying a camera without video. Leaving a feature away can't be very expensive.


----------



## Curahee (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> It's only wasted if you don't use it. The number of scenarios where it would be useful are huge, and the technology is available. Most of the arguments against are effectively boiling down to "we don't do it that way". Instead of worrying about the technology, put yourself in more of a growth mindset and think what you could use that feature for. Perhaps you took a landscape shot and later realised it might have been cool as a portrait. Maybe you lined up perfectly and it still came out wonky. Instead of cropping you keep full resolution and just rotate a little. Maybe photos don't actually need to be rectangular at all, eyes certainly don't work that way.


Would it be possible to take 2 shots? one vertical, one horizontal?
Also even using both vertical or horizontal there is still considerable loss of pixels as I stated before.
Photos do not need to be any shape, I have used a toilet seat as a frame. Ovals were popular in Victorian times through about the 1920's.
That said I doubt in my lifetime will I see Michael's stocking round frames etc.
And a custom frame would be expensive.
Then your monitor for social media would need to be round or again a loss of use for a large portion of the screen. 
And round cell phones? That will be interesting.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Market research will probably say that McDonald's has the best food, because they sell more food than most other restaurant chains.


From the standpoint of investors they do.
Customers have the choice of "better" food somewhere else but still choose it.


----------



## Karm (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Please consider R5. It may just work great for your needs. It works great for me.


Oh, I absolutely have considered that one. It's a great allround camera, from what I have seen. However there are a number of boxes that it doesn't check for me, that the R3 does check:
- Battery life is significantly less, and would require at least a battery grip to compensate (I come from DSLR with practically infinite battery life)
- FPS is inconsistent based on battery levels, exacerbating the above shortcoming
- Without a battery grip, the grip is smaller than the DSLR grip I'm used to (I'd prefer bigger rather than smaller)
- If adding a grip, the R5 becomes heavier than the R3
- R5 is bitrate limited at higher shutter speeds & using electronic shutter
- Electronic shutter suffers from rolling shutter
- Low light performance slightly falls behind the R3, even when downscaled to 24MPx

And then there's some of the nice-to-have features that the R3 does have, like higher shutter speeds and the eye control AF.

I'm awaiting the R1 official specs to know whether it would be a better alternative.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.
> 
> The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!


The newer stacked sensor of the R3 has more dynamic range than the older CMOS sensor in the R5. Leading to more shadow recovery and faster readout and thus better performance in ALL modes of processing.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> No buddy, I got the R5 for the fantastic 8k video. And with the intense competition, companies need to up the game all around. I believe: If Canon felt that a still camera without video would have a market, they would make it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps (likely) not. (I would immediately buy a still-only retro type of body but that wish will never come true.)


Yeah, but you may be making the same mistake others are by assuming your needs are representative. You are a professional filmmaker, so you had a reasonable need/desire for 8k. The unknown is what percentage of the market fits into that category. 

It doesn't have to be a binary choice between no video and Hollywood style video features. I'm just speculating that there could be a middle ground that meets the needs of most video users without requiring costly, high-end features that are exclusively for video use. 

You needed 8K, but I suspect that most users do not need 16K or 8K in order to film their kid's kindergarten graduation and share it on Facebook.

It seems to me that most technologies go through cycles of convergence followed by specialization. That is, someone develops a device can accomplish multiple tasks, but as the demands for each of those tasks increases, it becomes harder and harder for the all-in-one device to meet those demands. As a result, we start to see devices that specialize in doing one of the tasks better than the others and so we turn to purpose-built devices. The all-in-ones still exist, but no one expects them to work as well as the purpose-built models. 

I am simply exploring the possibility that we may be reaching the point where it could be more economical to have purpose-built still cameras that forgo some, but not all, video features in order to emphasize the stills side without compromises and without added unnecessary costs.


----------



## mxwphoto (Sep 22, 2022)

Curahee said:


> Perhaps a lower resolution option doubling up pixels or combining 4 pixels.
> That would be an interesting option.


If Canon does come out with an 80mpx sensor I would want to see quad bin 4-1 so you go down to a 20mpx file but with each group of pixels being able to take on greater dynamic range through dual or quad gain iso on the pixels. 18stops dynamic range with a 20mpx file anyone?


----------



## Juangrande (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> I’m fine with a smaller body. I’m not fine with overheating or limitations on shooting modes due to heat… not on a 1 series.
> 
> *As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see?
> 
> ...


Sounds like you want a cinema body.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.
> 
> The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!


This patent application for very new ergonomics was floating about 12 months ago: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-...esign-with-integrated-grip-with-pass-through/
Generally, Canon has a good history where ergonomics is concerned, so if such a beast comes to fruition, it would be interesting to see its handling.


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yeah, but you may be making the same mistake others are by assuming your needs are representative. You are a professional filmmaker, so you had a reasonable need/desire for 8k. The unknown is what percentage of the market fits into that category.
> 
> It doesn't have to be a binary choice between no video and Hollywood style video features. I'm just speculating that there could be a middle ground that meets the needs of most video users without requiring costly, high-end features that are exclusively for video use.
> 
> ...


You make (as usual) a lot of good points. Here are my thoughts: 
I am (every buyer or prospective buyer is) a representative of the market for sure! How big or small, 'they' will figure out and decide their path accordingly. R5 IS the middle ground (you can choose any resolution Full HD to 8k). If I need (like) 8k, I am sure that there are others as well! Btw FB is a bad example - that is taken over by cell phones.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> No buddy, I got the R5 for the fantastic 8k video. And with the intense competition, companies need to up the game all around. I believe: If Canon felt that a still camera without video would have a market, they would make it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps (likely) not. (I would immediately buy a still-only retro type of body but that wish will never come true.)


It's amazing how a thread gets twisted so quickly. Firstly, your R5 isn't an ultra high end body, it's a midrange and exactly the kind of device I originally suggested people buy when they can't or won't get a full video device. Secondly, liteally not one person on this thread has suggested Canon should make a photo only camera, just that those buying the ultra high end photo camera generally don't care about video as a feature. Those people are generally pro photographers. There's no reason Canon would make a camera without video, but for the 1Dx at $10k and the R1 at very likely $13k when it arrives it's unlikely many people want the compromise jack of all trades approach. Some obviously will, as the thread has shown, and I'm sure they will be happy with the video features included.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Curahee said:


> Then your monitor for social media would need to be round or again a loss of use for a large portion of the screen.
> And round cell phones? That will be interesting.


Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> It's only wasted if you don't use it. The number of scenarios where it would be useful are huge, and the technology is available. Most of the arguments against are effectively boiling down to "we don't do it that way". Instead of worrying about the technology, put yourself in more of a growth mindset and think what you could use that feature for. Perhaps you took a landscape shot and later realised it might have been cool as a portrait. Maybe you lined up perfectly and it still came out wonky. Instead of cropping you keep full resolution and just rotate a little. Maybe photos don't actually need to be rectangular at all, eyes certainly don't work that way.


I guess you missed the part where it was mentioned that sensors are cut from larger wafers. Square sensor = far fewer sensors that can be cut from a wafer. Far fewer sensors cut from a wafer = much higher cost. They don't do square because it is not worth it, not because it has always been done that way. I am sure that I have taken many landscape shots that looked better in portrait orientation. I cropped them. Works fine. Not going to pay extra $$$$ for your square sensor. Doubt many would.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?


Give it up. Your idea is impractical in so many ways. Stop trying to be the smartest guy on the forum. It's not working.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I'm certain there are lots of people like you. That doesn't make you the target demographic though. Is there a reason you prefer stills bodies to Red or Blackmagic type bodies designed for the job?


How much does a _weather-resistant_ RED body cost? Is it handholdable when used? How likely is it to survive, say, a cyclist crashing into it?



lustyd said:


> Seems to me that if Canon intended to design video in as a high end feature they'd end up changing almost everything about the 1Dx body.


Or not.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I guess you missed the part where it was mentioned that sensors are cut from larger wafers. Square sensor = far fewer sensors that can be cut from a wafer. Far fewer sensors cut from a wafer = much higher cost. They don't do square because it is not worth it, not because it has always been done that way. I am sure that I have taken many landscape shots that looked better in portrait orientation. I cropped them. Works fine. Not going to pay extra $$$$ for your square sensor. Doubt many would.


You realise that that "much higher cost" is pennies at the wafer stage? And yes, I fully understand the chip industry.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Give it up. Your idea is impractical in so many ways. Stop trying to be the smartest guy on the forum. It's not working.


It's not "my idea" and it's not impractical at all, it's the logical next step in camera evolution. Sensors the size and shape of 35mm film only exist because of that 35mm film. Does it make sense to drop all of the pixels above and below the 16:9 frame? It's literally what you're all saying is stupid, yet cameras do this now for almost all video and quite a lot of pictures.
I don't pretend to be the smartest guy on the forum, but it's nice to know I'm not the dumbest.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 22, 2022)

Kit. said:


> How much does a _weather-resistant_ RED body cost? Is it handholdable when used? How likely is it to survive, say, a cyclist crashing into it?


You know they make films with them right? Outdoors? Plenty rugged enough and weather resistant models are there if needed. They also aren't the only manufacturer of video bodies.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> They weren't circular. The original Kodak ("You press the button, we do the rest") yielded a circular image.


OK. I thought you were talking about the ones of my youth which had 127 film. You must be even older than me...


----------



## antonio_s (Sep 22, 2022)

Imo IF it really doesn't have a mechanical shutter, which isn't something we've heard afaik, it should have a global shutter. Until then, I want my mechanical shutter. Yes, I know the Z9 and R3 have improved ES a lot. I still want the mechanical, though. Also, of course, the R-series using the mechanical shutter as a dust protector has been a plus, so I think it's worth keeping, at least for this generation, anyway. Canon is pretty conservative with this sort of thing, I feel, so I expect it will remain.

As for 8K video, and the people who have asked why it should be included... Well, no, few people are going to be going R1 mainly for that, but people expect it from a top-line camera with that sort of resolution now. So it's to be expected.

HOWEVER, for many, many people, a hybrid camera is what they shoot video with, including many pros. Tons of people shoot all their video on a DSLR or mirorrless photo camera. There's a lot of money in that and there's plenty of flexibility with it. You can even use the cine lenses with them if you so choose... Though tons of people just use photo lenses. The cinema camera and cine lens are niche products --- with a place, but niche --- and they don't control the whole video production world.

I'm sure it will be great, but I imagine I'll be sticking with my R5 for quite some time myself. It's a great camera, especially for stills. And I've used it with an Atomos V for great video capabilities (not 8K because I don't have the V+), although I'm really a stills guy.


----------



## M1k4 (Sep 22, 2022)

Emyr Evans said:


> No more than 60MP for me please, Canon!
> 
> Put a 100+MP sensor in a EOS R5DS



What if they release two versions of R1 ? 
- R1 100 MP resolution, pixel shift etc.
- R1S 50'ish MP and speed


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> OK. I thought you were talking about the ones of my youth which had 127 film. You must be even older than me...


Well not quite that old. https://designyoutrust.com/2016/02/15-rare-photos-taken-with-the-first-ever-kodak-photo-camera/


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Well not quite that old. https://designyoutrust.com/2016/02/15-rare-photos-taken-with-the-first-ever-kodak-photo-camera/


I've a great idea: make computers with round screens to view circular images.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Btw FB is a bad example - that is taken over by cell phones.


Yeah, I should have said Tik-Tok


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> And yet, here we are still with rectangle sensors and camera grips in 2022. Just because it's been mentioned before doesn't make it a bad idea. It's frankly embarrassing that GoPro did it before Canon.


Um, wouldn't one still need to cut a rectangular file out of that circle? You suggested a 35mm circle. Seems to me the result would be akin to aps-c size (or smaller) after cutting out the rectangle... or we buy stock in the round picture frame company?

Honestly don't get the point, but I'm in Arkansas and that ain't biscuits they're cookin' next door.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 22, 2022)

I don't see how it's gonna be a high MP body and also be the sports leader. Any ideas?


----------



## antonio_s (Sep 22, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I don't see how it's gonna be a high MP body and also be the sports leader. Any ideas?


Setting to change output resolution?


----------



## navastronia (Sep 22, 2022)

antonio_s said:


> Setting to change output resolution?


But RAW output will be the same size as the whole sensor . . .


----------



## navastronia (Sep 22, 2022)

I hope for ~40 MP, Global Shutter or a very fast stacked sensor, and an improved version of the new eye-tracking AF system found in the R3.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3.


Where are you seeing this? Top pair from the normal dpreview scene, bottom from the low light scene (left side, i.e. lowest light). They're equal in the top comparison, and the R3 is maybe a hair better in the bottom (1/3ev or less).


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> You have a 1Dx for video? Can I ask why you didn't want a Red, Blackmagic or similar?


Well, I would be in the market for a R1 with those high video features....
I not only want, but expect the high end stills camera body to have pro like video capabillties. 

Not looking for separate high end video and stills cameras. Reds and the like are out of budget anyway, whereas a R1 will be in budget.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Because we went through decades of film based cameras, obviously. Those days are over though, time to move on


Speak for yourself...
I'm shooting more and more medium format film and branching now into large format film.

It still has a very valid place today...


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

DBounce said:


> Firstly, if I wasn’t the target demographic this camera would not be 8K capable, as the rumors are suggesting. Clearly hybrid shooters are the target market… and that’s me… and people like me... I think we are the majority.
> 
> Leica m11 is stills only… as it’s the Hasselblad X2D… those are your highend “stills only” options. The R1 will be “a jack of all trades and master of all”… it won’t master video without the specs I’ve mentioned. And it better bring some serious dynamic range!
> 
> ...


Actually, as I understand it...The Hasselblad X2D has video coming in the somewhat near future with firmware updates.
I believe the X1D had video....and from what I read and hear, the X2D has it coming soon.

HTH,
C


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Market research will probably say that McDonald's has the best food, because they sell more food than most other restaurant chains. Market research might say that K-pop is great music and that the Marvel movies are great cinema. The masses also buy overpriced s**t like an iPhone.
> 
> I wonder how much YouTube influences the decisions for video. It is an important platform, but is has a great bias for video, as all YouTuber create videos and most want video in their cameras. So when a camera comes without video or with "only" 1080p, they complain a lot.
> 
> ...


Well, I supposed Canon "could" sell you the exact same hardware they have now and just disable the video parts for you....

Not sure if they would cut the price of this "stills only" model for you tho....

C


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Market research will probably say that McDonald's has the best food, because they sell more food than most other restaurant chains. Market research might say that K-pop is great music and that the Marvel movies are great cinema. The masses also buy overpriced s**t like an iPhone.


Attributes like 'best' and 'sh!t' are value judgements, that's not what market research is about. Market research may determine that McDonald's sells more hamburgers than anyone else, or that people prefer those hamburgers to other foods. Just because Canon sells the most ILCs doesn't make their cameras the best. But the fact that they sell the most cameras suggests that a majority of ILC buyers believe that Canon cameras are the best_ for them_.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?


What's instagram....?


----------



## navastronia (Sep 22, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Where are you seeing this? Top pair from the normal dpreview scene, bottom from the low light scene (left side, i.e. lowest light). They're equal in the top comparison, and the R3 is maybe a hair better in the bottom (1/3ev or less).
> 
> View attachment 205721



R3 definitely better in shadow detail.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?


How about this – you wait an ILC with a circular or square sensor and buy that. I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting, but it's your choice.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Sounds like you want a cinema body.


I want a true hybrid without sacrifice… a master at stills and a master at video. Isn’t that what Canon has already stated the R1 will be?


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Actually, as I understand it...The Hasselblad X2D has video coming in the somewhat near future with firmware updates.
> I believe the X1D had video....and from what I read and hear, the X2D has it coming soon.
> 
> HTH,
> C


Well with a 102MP rolling shutter non-stacked sensor… it’s probably not going to be very usable.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 22, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Where are you seeing this? Top pair from the normal dpreview scene, bottom from the low light scene (left side, i.e. lowest light). They're equal in the top comparison, and the R3 is maybe a hair better in the bottom (1/3ev or less).
> 
> View attachment 205721


Maybe you have to bumb up the shadows. The most significant difference between cameras is usually visible if you download the RAWs from Dpreview, and the bump up the shadows a few stops. Then you see huge diffrences between older cameras and newer ones in the bottles at the bottom. I did not compare the R3 and R5 so far in that way.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

Kit. said:


> How much does a _weather-resistant_ RED body cost? Is it handholdable when used? How likely is it to survive, say, a cyclist crashing into it?


RED Komodo $6K USD.
$8K to really make production ready.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

M1k4 said:


> What if they release two versions of R1 ?
> - R1 100 MP resolution, pixel shift etc.
> - R1S 50'ish MP and speed


That is backward.
That would be the Fuji naming system.
The 1DS was always the high MP slower version of the 1D.


----------



## R1Media (Sep 22, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not at all, I was just saying that people spending 10k for a camera to capture video are generally buying video camera bodies, not photo camera bodies. People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lenses, hence the popularity of video in cheaper bodies. I just don't see it as a compelling feature in an R1. I've no issue with it being included, but to call it out as a major improvement seems odd in a primarily stills device.


If that's the case, why doesn't any camera company have a camera that only takes photos? Especially as there most expensive flagship model  

All the phone users will be so happy coz they will finally have more video capabilities than the best camera! 


DBounce said:


> I have video cameras… and I own the R3. I can tell you first hand I prefer having good video shooting capabilities in my hybrids bodies. I would not have purchased the R3 if it could not shoot video… and I will not purchase the R1 unless it excels in both video and stills.


Right? It's assumed that a newer and more expensive camera (R1) will have all the capabilities of a older one (R5/R3) and surpass it if you want people to upgrade. If video on my R5 is better than the R1 why the fk would i spend another 10k to shoot higher than 45MP and have to switch back to the R5 when I need to shoot video... Ofc I'm going to sell the R5 and just use the R1 (unless I need a backup body for work that's a different story).


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I've a great idea: make computers with round screens to view circular images.


Done!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

M1k4 said:


> What if they release two versions of R1 ?
> - R1 100 MP resolution, pixel shift etc.
> - R1S 50'ish MP and speed


Could be the model they follow with future generations of the R3. 

R3: lower resolution similar to R6. R1: Higher resolution similar to R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

R1Media said:


> Right? It's assumed that a newer and more expensive camera (R1) will have all the capabilities of a older one (R5/R3) and surpass it if you want people to upgrade.


I suppose it depends on what capabilities you’re talking about. The 5Ds with 50 MP came out in 2015. There have been many Canon ILC models since then, including two 1-series bodies, none of which have surpassed that MP count.


----------



## sanj (Sep 23, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I don't see how it's gonna be a high MP body and also be the sports leader. Any ideas?


If by sports leader you mean the highest FPS with the bust buffer, it is unlikely it will be the sports leader. Maybe Canon is changing how it places its cameras in the hierarchy. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.
> 
> The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!


I would expect enough processing power that the R1 could do oversampling at least 20fps say to 20mp. 
If the sensor was ~80mp (scaled up from R10 etc pixel density) then a 4:1 would be relatively simple to implement and be effectively 4x the pixel size.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I don't see how it's gonna be a high MP body and also be the sports leader. Any ideas?


C-raw


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course you don't. Like many deluded posters here, you think your personal opinions represent those of a large number or even the majority of other buyers, with zero evidence to support your belief. Dozens of times over the past decade-plus, people have predicted that if Canon didn't give them and all those masses they spoke for X or do the Y that they and all the masses they spoke for demanded, Canon's bottom line would suffer and they would dramatically lose market share.
> What happened? Canon gained market share.
> But hey, you go on predicting a big negative impact for Canon because of your personal opinions. Surely this time, you'll be right.


Putting this out there as food for though 

I agree that individual opinions or demands of posters in this forum are irrelevant in the big scheme of things for Canon.... but we can form some relative conclusions from forum posters vs the user base of Canon cameras in general in the world:

- There are more R5/6 owners (and xD previously) than in the general population
- There are long term users of both Canon and other ecosystems with experience moving up from xxxxD/xxxD/xxD etc to higher end models/lenses.
- That shoot a range of genres and have a reasonable understanding of the technical aspects of optics, sensors, patents and other technical parts of the systems
- There are both video and stills and hybrid shooters that participate
- There are participants who will actually purchase higher end bodies (Rx) and lenses (big whites and specialty lenses)
- We have both professional (define at your leisure) and cashed up prosumers as well as those that look to value for money.
- We have switchers and others that have owned multiple bodies and can provide subjective evaluations of the ergonomics
- Forum posters do a reasonable job in challenging wildly unrealistic posts than other camera forums ie the relative quality of the forum is higher than others

Clearly Canon Rumors is no replacement for a specific user group like agencies and single genre sports photograhers but...
Could Canon be actually using Canon Rumors as a focus (boom tish) group? 
Should they use it as it is cheaper than running a separate focus group for marketing purposes?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> C-raw


It would need to be loss less though and cRaw is a lossy compression albeit pretty close to raw. 
I would prefer a oversampling format rather than compression algorithm.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 23, 2022)

For giggles, my prediction for the R1 specs are....

Same body as R3 ( AF-On smart controller buttons, dual CFe slots):
- Global shutter (no mechanical shutter). Rolling shutter artifacts significantly better than current electronic shutter
- Flash sync at any shutter speed
- 9+ megadot EFV with no blackout and fast refresh rates (at least 120fps). >0.5" in size
- 80mp sensor with IBIS (IBIS can be turned off)
- 30+ fps raw. 120fps with cropped sensor
- QPAF in very low light
- ~20mp on-the fly over sampled (no lossy compression/cRAW/S-RAW) at 30fps unlimited buffer. Best of both worlds.
- Predictive shutter press
- Pixel shift high resolution stills with in-camera file generation
- New Digic XI processor for much greater processing power generating less heat (system on chip). Dual processors to spread any heat physically
- 12k raw internal video. External recording via UBS-c
- Oversampled unlimited 8k cinema raw lite internal recording to CFe card capacity
- Oversampled 6K/60. Oversampled 4k/120 unlimited internal recording.
- No recording limit
- Clog2/3
- New battery with greater capacity
- Full sized HDMI 2.1 port (48G) or thunderbolt 4 USB-C or both.
- Mini XLR audio option
- Ethernet port
- Side flippy screen. Dual axis screen as a possibility but I don't think that it would be as weather/ abuse resistant as a side version

USD10k


----------



## navastronia (Sep 23, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> For giggles, my prediction for the R1 specs are....
> 
> Same body as R3 ( AF-On smart controller buttons, dual CFe slots):
> - Global shutter (no mechanical shutter). Rolling shutter artifacts significantly better than current electronic shutter
> ...



That's definitely a $10,000 camera, I'll say that much!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It would need to be loss less though and cRaw is a lossy compression albeit pretty close to raw.
> I would prefer a oversampling format rather than compression algorithm.


You mentioned sports. I mostly shot C-raw on the R-3 for sports this year. No loss of quality and hardly ever filled the buffer. The buffer could be a problem shooting Raw because it would fill at inopportune times (like the middle of a play). Download times were much faster which was important when trying to get photos processed quickly after a game.


----------



## Chig (Sep 23, 2022)

lustyd said:


> How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor and remove the grip on the bottom of the camera? It's probably the most obvious ergonomic change they could make and would give an immediately useful range of features for photographers in terms of framing after the fact, or through in camera software. GoPro have led the way here, but I can see it catching on very quickly once camera companies realise they don't have to make the sensor a rectangle


Nice idea but it won't fit because the RF lens mount blocks part of the image circle, however a circular sensor is possible for aps-c or super 35


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You mentioned sports. I mostly shot C-raw on the R-3 for sports this year. No loss of quality and hardly ever filled the buffer. The buffer could be a problem shooting Raw because it would fill at inopportune times (like the middle of a play). Download times were much faster which was important when trying to get photos processed quickly after a game.


There have been some comparisons online for raw vs cRaw on the R5 at least. The differences look to be in the shadows but there isn't much difference. The R1 should have the highest quality though and have a bigger buffer.

Are you shooting dual raw/cRaw to CFe and SD? There have been measurement for the R5 showing longer burst if recording just to CFe both for cRaw and raw. I assume that the R1 will be dual CFe so any bandwidth limitations of SD cards shouldn't be there.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There have been some comparisons online for raw vs cRaw on the R5 at least. The differences look to be in the shadows but there isn't much difference. The R1 should have the highest quality though and have a bigger buffer.
> 
> Are you shooting dual raw/cRaw to CFe and SD? There have been measurement for the R5 showing longer burst if recording just to CFe both for cRaw and raw. I assume that the R1 will be dual CFe so any bandwidth limitations of SD cards shouldn't be there.


I shoot c-raw to the cf express card and jpg to the SD card as a backup.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 23, 2022)

One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs. 

Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.

And perhaps the biggest flaw of the R3: The SD card slot. Please give ud dual CFexpress slots! SD cards are for amateur cameras and as an SD card is much smaller than a CFepress card, there are adapters from SD to CFexpress if you still want to use an SD card. Those adapter cost acout $12. So the argument for having an SD slot for cheaper cards is gone. Just use an adapter.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.


Hi to me - thats exactly my point.

I did this for R5 for more than one year. Convert the CR3.images to DNG and use the Canon RF profiles.
I use Windows, installed the most recent Adobe Camera Raw and then copied the RF profiles from
c:\Users\All Users\Adobe\CameraRaw\LensProfiles\1.0\Canon\
to
c:\Users\david\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\LensProfiles\1.0\Canon\
(my Username is of course david..)
And then I could use the profiles in LR5.7. Really.

But after one year this sucks, and I bought a one year subscription for a discount (often for about 90€ per year, instead of per month. yeah yeah, my LR5 was much cheaper back than and I used that for years)

And i converted my LR11 database with all these DNG and edits later via an SQL statement to CR3, so the edits are now for the CR3 I can directly use, and could delete the DNG files.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [..]Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.[..]


There are no corrections done to RAW files in the camera, those are all done by your preferred RAW converter (LR, ACR, DxO PL, DPP4). The forcing is only an issue in DPP4, literally every other RAW converter will not apply any corrections if you don't want to.


----------



## Chig (Sep 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> C-raw


Yep or heif or jpeg which many sports pros prefer


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 23, 2022)

lustyd said:


> You realise that that "much higher cost" is pennies at the wafer stage? And yes, I fully understand the chip industry.


That's not really how they see it though. The wafer itself may seem cheap, but with all the prep, lithography, deposition, wasted sensors due to the imperfect nature of the deposition steps, etc....they have a (relatively) high cost of getting a good sensor off a chip. So if a wafer that used to produce 100 chips can now only produce 60, they need to make 40% more wafers for the same total number of chips....its a big cost bump that they aren't just going to eat. 

Articles in the past have said an APSc sensor may cost $250. And a FF sensor $500-1000. I'm sure a BSI stacked one could be more. Add 40% to those prices, its a big bump. 

-Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> That's not really how they see it though. The wafer itself may seem cheap, but with all the prep, lithography, deposition, wasted sensors due to the imperfect nature of the deposition steps, etc....they have a (relatively) high cost of getting a good sensor off a chip. So if a wafer that used to produce 100 chips can now only produce 60, they need to make 40% more wafers for the same total number of chips....its a big cost bump that they aren't just going to eat.
> 
> Articles in the past have said an APSc sensor may cost $250. And a FF sensor $500-1000. I'm sure a BSI stacked one could be more. Add 40% to those prices, its a big bump.


One can always hope that facts and cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet because their idea is just the bestest thing ever and they wants it, Precious. 

A vain hope, obviously....


----------



## lustyd (Sep 23, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> an APSc sensor may cost $250.


Quoting tray prices isn't helpful here since they are relatively unrelated to wafer yield. If they wanted to do it they easily could, and we've seen that many times in the past. It's a premium device with premium components and features. The M1 Ultra is twice the size of the regular M1 but somehow Apple make it work.


----------



## lustyd (Sep 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> One can always hope that facts and cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet because their idea is just the bestest ever and they wants it.


No, that's like hoping cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet at the idea of progress they don't like the sound of.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.
> 
> Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.
> 
> And perhaps the biggest flaw of the R3: The SD card slot. Please give ud dual CFexpress slots! SD cards are for amateur cameras and as an SD card is much smaller than a CFepress card, there are adapters from SD to CFexpress if you still want to use an SD card. Those adapter cost acout $12. So the argument for having an SD slot for cheaper cards is gone. Just use an adapter.


It's interesting how opinions can differ on subscription models. For me its the best thing ever Adobe did ie: the subscription model. Photoshop used to be so expensive as a one off and quite expensive to upgrade. I get very annoyed with the purchase model that Luminar use. They just keep bringing out new programs and abandon older versions. I find Adobe have been consistent and surprisingly have improved Photoshop and LIghtroom (I had felt incentive was low for them to do that). The consistency of Photoshop has allowed me to learn it over a long period of time and I get great value out of my monthly subscription. It's the cheapest part of my photography and one I get great enjoyment out of long after I've taken the shots. I'm always learning something new. Adobe are very quick bringing out the updates to handle new raw file formats. I assume Canon can't stand still with CR2, they are always trying to improve. The flaw you mention on the R3 (which I also find on the R5 ) is the SD Slot. They should have bit the bullet and went all CF Express in both cameras. SD just can't keep up. I clicked your Skyscraper database. Very good I thought. I never ran across it before. I love tall buildings and modern architecture (well some of it anyway). Your database will be in use by me for any city I will visit. Thanks for that. 
As for the R1 - It's a camera I've waited long for. I think it needs now to be high MP to compete with the best out there. I have a 1DXIII which is a great camera but 20MP was way too small, it should have been at least 30MP. The R3 size format is a good one. I'm sure the R1 will be similar in size. It makes sense to me it will be a 50+ MP camera, I sure it will be high frame rate , 8K (which I've no use for). It took me a long time to bite the bullet but I bought the R5 and its a really good camera. Near perfect in my mind - focus tracking could be better but impressive compared to other cameras. We've lived through a great era of progress in cameras, I fear its reaching the end, it's reached a limit of near perfection. I've enjoyed the ride.


----------



## Karm (Sep 23, 2022)

I do believe that wafers have become significantly more expensive recently. Nvidia just released an announcement complaining about that themselves, saying Moore's law is dead and that GPU prices will no longer drop.

With relation to the "circular sensors", a complicating factor there is the fact that you can't get the same efficiency of circular sensors out of an area of wafer as you can get with rectangles - because there's wasted area in between the circles. All in all there are several reasons why it'd make sensors significantly more expensive compared to their current ones. Sure, it's probably doable (for those kind of prices, anyways), but it's not a simple / cheap thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2022)

lustyd said:


> No, that's like hoping cogent arguments will penetrate the thick skulls of those petulantly stamping their feet at the idea of progress they don't like the sound of.


If only you could make a cogent argument. But when you fail at basic math, that's a tall order.



lustyd said:


> How about a 35mmx35mm sensor


Yes, how about a sensor larger than the image circle of most full frame lenses? That was a wonderfully cogent argument for progress.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 23, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Quoting tray prices isn't helpful here since they are relatively unrelated to wafer yield. If they wanted to do it they easily could, and we've seen that many times in the past. It's a premium device with premium components and features. The M1 Ultra is twice the size of the regular M1 but somehow Apple make it work.


And it's €1200 or so more expensive for the customer. But it is nice to do DeepPrime + Optics on an R5 image in 6 seconds


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 23, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> It's interesting how opinions can differ on subscription models. For me its the best thing ever Adobe did ie: the subscription model. Photoshop used to be so expensive as a one off and quite expensive to upgrade. I get very annoyed with the purchase model that Luminar use. They just keep bringing out new programs and abandon older versions. I find Adobe have been consistent and surprisingly have improved Photoshop and LIghtroom (I had felt incentive was low for them to do that).


My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end sour subscription, you lose access to the software after having spend hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so. The same odel that is used for leasing a car. You lease a car for some time and in the end you can buy the car for a small sum. Then it is your car forever. 

Adobe may come with a lot of useful updates, but firstly I do not like updates anyway unless I really need them and secondly the incentive for Adobe would be much higher if they always had to come with new features to make you keep your subscription. At the current model you have to keep your subscription even without any update. Otherwise you lose access to the software.

The only reason I want a Lightroom update is the support for new cameras and for that the monthly price seems quite excessive. I still use Photoshop CS2 for photo editing. That is a software that came out in 2005 and it still does everything I need. The only thing I miss is the straighten tool with four lines instead of one. Straightening a photo with Photoshop CS2 is a lot of work. Maybe there is a third party plugin that might be able to do that.

Thanks that you like my skyscraper website. It ist pretty basic, but sadly Emporis, the most comprehensive building database, went offline last week after all data that was entered by the vommunity over years was sold to an investor from the US, who prefers to monetize it and hide it from the public. So it needs skyscraper websites like mine to keep some data public. Actually the reason I created it was excatly the idea not to miss any skyscrapers on future journeys. That's why I made it possible to download all skyscrapers of a city or country into Google Earth on your smartphone.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end your subscription, you lose access to the software after having spent hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so.[..]


For Lightroom specifically, the situation is a bit worse: you have to login to Adobe servers every 2 weeks, or your software will stop working. It's not funny to discover that on day 2 of your vacation with no internet in your room. Thankfully, a few minutes with my phone in hotspot mode and roaming fixed it in that case, but I can imagine situations where you have zero internet, but loads of pictures.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2022)

sanj said:


> If by sports leader you mean the highest FPS with the bust buffer, it is unlikely it will be the sports leader. Maybe Canon is changing how it places its cameras in the hierarchy. We will have to wait and see.



Remember when we used to refer to the 1 series as the "sports/wildlife" leader instead of the "sports leader?" Back then, sports people weren't offended that all those extraneous megapixels (12!) that the wildlife people desired. It's a sign of the times in Canon world. Not so much among the other makers.

The wildlife people looking for hi-res (admittedly not all of them) get to wait until Canon opts to come out with something that competes with the A1 or Z1. Many seem to think that will be the R1, but I doubt it. It sounds a bit to me like wishy rumors, based on knowing that Canon has a hole in its line-up, and assuming the next new body will fill it. Canon seldom fills its line-up holes in an order that forum dwellers find rational.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end sour subscription, you lose access to the software after having spend hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so. The same odel that is used for leasing a car. You lease a car for some time and in the end you can buy the car for a small sum. Then it is your car forever.


Sure, or they could just make their software free. But that's not going to happen.

For example (using round numbers), a standalone perpetual license for CS6 cost $500. A PS CC subscription costs $100/year. So if they let you keep the current version after 2-3 years, they're making $200-300 instead of $500 for that perpetual license. An extra $50 at the end isn't going to make up for the lost revenue.

Incidentally, if you lease a car and pay the residual buyout at the end, you'll often end up paying more than if you'd bought the car at the start. Leasing is not a cheaper way to buy a car you plan to keep for many years, it's a cheaper way if you want a new car frequently. That analogy holds well for the software subscription model – you are basically driving PS CS2 into the ground, so buying makes a lot more sense for you. The subscription model is better for people who want/need the latest version frequently, e.g. those of us who buy new cameras somewhat often and need updated software to support the RAW files.

Having said that, what is best for the customer is not really the driver here. Subscription models mean stable revenue streams, and investors like stable revenue streams. Adobe's stock price was stable for many years prior to 2012 when they changed from perpetual licenses to subscriptions. From 2012 on, their stock has steadily increased (until just recently, of course), at a rate that far outpaced the indices.


----------



## AEWest (Sep 23, 2022)

Emyr Evans said:


> No more than 60MP for me please, Canon!
> 
> Put a 100+MP sensor in a EOS R5DS


Perhaps the pixel density of an R7 in full frame size, or about 82MP...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> There are no corrections done to RAW files in the camera, those are all done by your preferred RAW converter (LR, ACR, DxO PL, DPP4). The forcing is only an issue in DPP4, literally every other RAW converter will not apply any corrections if you don't want to.



That used to be true. The RAWs appear to be cooked to varying degrees by the major makers. Sometimes very obviously (as with the Sony "star eater" issue). It is generally accepted nowadays that there will be some noise processing, some sharpening and a lot of dynamic range fiddling. The RAW file is now considered by the manufacturers to be a file with the level of correction that improves quality up to the point where some users may disagree.

It is especially prevalent with the smaller sensor cameras, like MTF, and especially on noise.

When canon brags about a new processor, it does so specifically when referring to ISO or noise. The R3 page on Canon's site, for instance, lists as a major benefit: "DIGIC X Image Processor with an ISO range of 100-102400..." Those two are actually linked in the marketing. This has been going on for a while.

My impression is that Canon's level of RAW is pretty good versus others'.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.
> 
> Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.
> 
> And perhaps the biggest flaw of the R3: The SD card slot. Please give ud dual CFexpress slots! SD cards are for amateur cameras and as an SD card is much smaller than a CFepress card, there are adapters from SD to CFexpress if you still want to use an SD card. Those adapter cost acout $12. So the argument for having an SD slot for cheaper cards is gone. Just use an adapter.


A bit OT from the thread, but I dropped Adobe like a hot rock years back when they went to the rental model.

I'm currently using Capture One, and love it...the color control, IMHO can't be touched.
But the catalog and library functions are a bit primitive and wonky.
You might look into On1 RAW...they are MUCH more LR like and have some really great tools.

Capture One

On1 RAW

You might give them a look...I left after LR 5 myself....

HTH,
cayenne


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Sep 23, 2022)

100mp sensor, 30-40fps electronic shutter, no mechanical with a sensor guard like Z9. All great but the price will be the deciding factor. Canon has lost a huge proportion of the pro market this last 5 years to Sony. Freelance and staffers alike. They are cheaper with access to 3rd party glass. Canon can go all out on specs but it will be pointless if costs £10k as very few will buy it. 
8k video is a waste hardly anything displays it so your not selling it for weddings for another 5-10 years. There is a cinema line focus that for 8k right now. 
Photography is a reducing market
The amount people can and will pay is reducing
Competition is undercutting

Canon needs to take a bit of a loss lead and regain market share. The pro end is the high earner and the one which will keep going. Eventually low end you will lose to mobile phones. 

£12k & £17k lenses are gorgeous to look at but not many buy new. 

R5 was well spec’s and priced. R3 bit pricey but nice kit. I can see Canon shooting themselves on this one.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 23, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Well, it looks like the ideal R1 will have something like 60MP, over 30fps, quad pixel AF, endless frame burst and serious COOLING system!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> For Lightroom specifically, the situation is a bit worse: you have to login to Adobe servers every 2 weeks, or your software will stop working. It's not funny to discover that on day 2 of your vacation with no internet in your room. Thankfully, a few minutes with my phone in hotspot mode and roaming fixed it in that case, but I can imagine situations where you have zero internet, but loads of pictures.


That is really intrusive. If photography was my main income and I had important photos on my computer, I might not want it to connect to the internet at all. Some people prefer doing offline work on computers that actually do not have any internet connection at all. I even did all I could to prevent Windows from sending "telemetry" to Microsoft. It is MY internet connection and no software should use it without my consent.



neuroanatomist said:


> For example (using round numbers), a standalone perpetual license for CS6 cost $500. A PS CC subscription costs $100/year. So if they let you keep the current version after 2-3 years, they're making $200-300 instead of $500 for that perpetual license. An extra $50 at the end isn't going to make up for the lost revenue.


It is not so much about the price. The buy out price after three years could be $200 or whatever it takes for Adobe to generate the same revenue. The problem is that we do not even have a choice. Imagine no houses would be for sale any more, just fpr rent. That would mean that no matter how much you would be willing to pay, you would not have the chance to own house. Sadly that happens with apartments in some cities. The fact that the standalone license is gone clearly shows that subscriptions generate more revenue for Adobe and of course that means more costs for photographers. 

I used Lightroom since version 1.0, which I purchased for 200 Euros back then. Later Lightroom versions were much cheaper. More in the region of 80 Euros. Now it is 141.94 Euros per year. That clearly is a price explosion. They use the trick that prices seem lower, if you only pay a small amount per month, but I hope I will live for many decades more and over these decades a Lightroom subscription would cost thousands of Euros, even if the never raise the price, which is quite unlikely. For Photoshop it is even worse. It costs 284.03 Euros per year now. That's more than a full version every two years, that you could use forever. How can that be a good deal for any photographer. If that really was a good deal for the photographers, Adobe could continue offereing the standalone version and photographers would still buy the subscription.

My great fear is that this model will come to hardware one day. You might no longer get the chance to buy a camera. You can only rent it for a certain amount per month. You might says that the advantage is that you then will always have the latest camera, but it will never ne your camera. And if you damage it, you might even have still to pay for the repair. That renteing model was already in place for some professional film equipment for many years. You could not by a Panavision camera, even if you were rich. That might be okay for film makers, but I still want to own the stuff I spend my money on. 

I also do not have a Netflix subscription for example. The 11.99 Euros per month add up to 7,194 Euros over 50 years not including price increases. That's enough for a very nice journey.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My great fear is that this model will come to hardware one day.











Why BMW is offering heated seats on a monthly subscription | CNN Business


BMW is now offering British drivers the option of enjoying a heated seat on a monthly subscription basis. Of course, you can still get heated seats the regular way -- just buy them as an option when you purchase the car -- but for those who didn't do that, or who bought a used car without the...




www.cnn.com


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why BMW is offering heated seats on a monthly subscription | CNN Business
> 
> 
> BMW is now offering British drivers the option of enjoying a heated seat on a monthly subscription basis. Of course, you can still get heated seats the regular way -- just buy them as an option when you purchase the car -- but for those who didn't do that, or who bought a used car without the...
> ...


I would never buy such a car that lets my ass freeze unless I pay a monthly ransom. And I say that as a German, who usually likes the quality of German cars. 

Does that mean that you do not own the heated seats any more? If you hack the heating to work without a subscription, would that be theft? That is quite crazy, as those cars are already overpriced.


----------



## mxwphoto (Sep 23, 2022)

Per the CNN article "The benefit would be a lower upfront price for the car and, potentially, the ability only pay for the feature when it might be needed, like in the winter."

Keep dreaming, hardware is already installed regardless if one wants the feature so the only thing is another paywall to lock operation of hardware you already paid extra for.

I certainly hope this subscription nonsense does not end up extending to cameras as that will become the death knell of photography for all but the wealthy and professional users.


----------



## Pixel (Sep 23, 2022)

You all scoffed at me when I said it would be 2024 before the next flagship is released. 
I still haven't given up on the EOS-1R moniker just yet.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 23, 2022)

Canon used to come up with a new flagship at the beginning a few months before Olympic Summer Games, because those are the greatest sports event on earth and a challenge for all cameras. I would not expect Canon to change that schedule. If they released the next flagship one year earlier this time, they would either do the same next time or have five years between two flagships, which would be a lot. This time there even is less hurry than ever, because they already have the R3 that already beats the official current flagship, the 1D X Mark III in most disciplines. The R3 will be more than enough for the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Especially with its new 195 fps burst. 

Maybe Canon also wants time to react to whatever the Sony A1 Mark II has to offer.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 23, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Per the CNN article "The benefit would be a lower upfront price for the car and, potentially, the ability only pay for the feature when it might be needed, like in the winter."
> 
> Keep dreaming, hardware is already installed regardless if one wants the feature so the only thing is another paywall to lock operation of hardware you already paid extra for.
> 
> I certainly hope this subscription nonsense does not end up extending to cameras as that will become the death knell of photography for all but the wealthy and professional users.


Well, I guess that will have the meaning of "shade tree mechanic" change from maintenance to hacking.<P>
I'd definitely want to severe the communications line from car to manufacturer (they have no need of constant telemetry)...and if I buy the hardware I'll run it as I please.

The camera would be tougher, but someone out there would hack it open, much like that Magic Lantern project did...


----------



## bernie_king (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One thing I would be very happy with: Give us the option to switch back from CR3 RAW images to CR2! Then we could import the lens profiles form Adobe Camera RAW to Lightroom 5.7, which I still use today because I absolutely hate subscriptions of any kind. I do not care if CR2 has larger files and therefore I get less fps. It is very annoying if I am forced into a monthly Lightroom subscription just because of Canon changing the RAW format. Of course I could convert all CR3s into DNGs and than use with Lightroom, but that would be an annoying extra step that would slow down my workflow a lot and double the amount of storage, as I of course would not delete the original RAWs.
> 
> Also Canon should give us the option to disable all in camera lens corrections. A RAW should really be raw. You can still correct distortion later if you want.
> 
> And perhaps the biggest flaw of the R3: The SD card slot. Please give ud dual CFexpress slots! SD cards are for amateur cameras and as an SD card is much smaller than a CFepress card, there are adapters from SD to CFexpress if you still want to use an SD card. Those adapter cost acout $12. So the argument for having an SD slot for cheaper cards is gone. Just use an adapter.


I personally like the subscription model. It used to be that when a new camera came out (didn't matter that they were CR2 files, etc...) you had to upgrade your Photoshop to the newest version or Camera RAW wouldn't be compatible. Those upgrades were hundreds of dollars, not to mention you would have to upgrade Lightroom as well (more money). On top of that, Photoshop was several hundred dollars to start. Now, for $120/year I have the latest and greatest software and never have to worry when I buy a new camera. At the time I calcluated I would save money unless I kept my cameras more than 4 years (which I never do). Even then, new features really enhance the abilities of Photoshop/Lightroom and many times newer versions of plugins (Topaz, etc...) want the newer versions of Photoshop.


----------



## Chig (Sep 23, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Canon used to come up with a new flagship at the beginning a few months before Olympic Summer Games, because those are the greatest sports event on earth and a challenge for all cameras. I would not expect Canon to change that schedule. If they released the next flagship one year earlier this time, they would either do the same next time or have five years between two flagships, which would be a lot. This time there even is less hurry than ever, because they already have the R3 that already beats the official current flagship, the 1D X Mark III in most disciplines. The R3 will be more than enough for the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Especially with its new 195 fps burst.
> 
> Maybe Canon also wants time to react to whatever the Sony A1 Mark II has to offer.





Skyscraperfan said:


> Especially with its new 195 fps burst.


I believe this burst rate has no tracking and fixed focus so not terribly useful for sports


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2022)

bernie_king said:


> I personally like the subscription model.


I do not mind subscription being a choice.
I just hate when it is the only choice.


----------



## Chig (Sep 23, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Remember when we used to refer to the 1 series as the "sports/wildlife" leader instead of the "sports leader?" Back then, sports people weren't offended that all those extraneous megapixels (12!) that the wildlife people desired. It's a sign of the times in Canon world. Not so much among the other makers.
> 
> The wildlife people looking for hi-res (admittedly not all of them) get to wait until Canon opts to come out with something that competes with the A1 or Z1. Many seem to think that will be the R1, but I doubt it. It sounds a bit to me like wishy rumors, based on knowing that Canon has a hole in its line-up, and assuming the next new body will fill it. Canon seldom fills its line-up holes in an order that forum dwellers find rational.


I agree, the flagship R1 is more likely to have between 24 and 50mp I think to suit the sports journalist market.

I suggest that it would have the following:

24-50mp BSI stacked sensor
40-50fps or even more
twin CFexpress slots
twin Digic X processors or a new processor
quad pixel autofocus
new upgraded version of the LP-E19 battery but backwards compatible with existing R3 and 1DXiii bodies
I hope it has:

modern software like smartphones 
android apps 
built in security features 
But I'm not holding my breath on Canon doing these as Japanese companies don't seem too great on software


----------



## entoman (Sep 23, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> I think Canon being almost two years behind (3 by the time this canera is supposedly available) is forcing their hand to put out a super high mpx sensor. They would have done better just putting a better sensor in the R3 which is perfect ergonomically but lacking in a modern day sensor size and releasing it sooner. Then they could work on a bigger sensor for the MK II. They are way behind with a flagship model already and I'm guessing that drove them to the idea of being mpx king. Personally, I think 50-60 mpx is the sweet spot. Guess we still have to wait another half a year to find out.


I don't think Canon will feel obliged to put a "super hi-res" sensor in the R1. Much depends on how you see the role of the R1 - what is its intended purpose and market?

My guess is that it will be aimed at a mostly pro or semi pro photographers who will habitually use the camera in extreme conditions i.e. atrocious weather, subject to heavy knocks etc. It will have to be capable of 8K. It will have to be extremely tough. It will probably have a significantly improved version of the eye-controlled AF found in the R3. A high priority will be given to thermal dissipation that doesn't require the use of a noisy fan, and doesn't suck humid air or dust into the camera's internals. It will need to have very fast readout and may have a global shutter, dispensing with a mechanical shutter.

It will have to have a stacked BSI sensor, but I don't expect it to exceed 45MP (although it may have some kind of pixel-shift or AI-based means of achieving 100MP+). Most importantly, IMO, it will need to offer a choice of RAW resolutions, because lower res RAW options would allow a great deal more images in the buffer, and would make faster transmission of images possible.


----------



## DVaNu (Sep 23, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.


I agree with your idea. Sandisk recently came out with the Pro-Blade SSD ecosystem, aimed at video / photographers and content creators. I’ve read some interesting reviews in regard to this new system, suggesting that camera manufacturers could and should integrate slots in their camera bodies to accommodate the Pro-Blade mags (M2 form factor) as an option. Especially for flagship models suck as the R3 or rhe future R1, which have integrated battery grips, this memory form factor makes sense and could be easily integrated. But I guess that this SSD system is too new to even be considered. Regardless of that I think that buyers should be given rhe choice, as Sony does (or did?) on one of their models, to choose between different memory card systems on their camera.


----------



## Bonich (Sep 24, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
> There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
> waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing


Did you ever use any RF lens?
- The minor issue: Many lens hoods are not circular, they do not support the whole image circle all around but only in the sensor's edges.
- The relevant issue: Wide angle lenses like i.e. 15-35 2.8 do have a rectangular rear opening to cut off all light not heading to the rectangular standard sensor to support max contrast.
- The critical issue: The RF mount does not support round sensors due to the electrical connectors being in the way telelens' light at the edge where you have the long edges of our 24x36 sensor. Please take a look to the rear of an RF teleconverter!

You may love to live in fantasia land, I prefer to keep one foot in contact with reality: Round sensors are no RF feature. But you can crop a circle in post processing ...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 24, 2022)

One situation where light is actually "wasted" is the video aspect ratio of 16:9 on a full frame sensor. Canon should allow us to use the whole sensor for video if we really want. Not everybody makes videos just for 16:9 displays. Canon gives us the green area for video, while it could give us the red area or (if 16:9 is needed) the blue area. The green area does not reach the image circle with any of its corners. So video is always cropped.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 24, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One situation where light is actually "wasted" is the video aspect ratio of 16:9 on a full frame sensor. Canon should allow us to use the whole sensor for video if we really want. Not everybody makes videos just for 16:9 displays. Canon gives us the green area for video, while it could give us the red area or (if 16:9 is needed) the blue area. The green area does not reach the image circle with any of its corners. So video is always cropped.
> View attachment 205727


I don't shoot much video, so pardon if it's a silly question - how hard is it to crop the video in post processing?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 24, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't shoot much video, so pardon if it's a silly question - how hard is it to crop the video in post processing?


I only tried video post processing with some free software and very often it was impossible to choose an output that is not 16:9. I am sure though that professional editing software will allow you outpouts in any anspect ration though. Not all videos are meant for full screen viewing. 
However it is impossible to uncrop a video. That's why I think that Canon (and others) should give us full frame video that really uses the whole diagonal.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 24, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I only tried video post processing with some free software and very often it was impossible to choose an output that is not 16:9. I am sure though that professional editing software will allow you outpouts in any anspect ration though. Not all videos are meant for full screen viewing.
> However it is impossible to uncrop a video. That's why I think that Canon (and others) should give us full frame video that really uses the whole diagonal.


Various decoders will also refuse to decode non-standard aspect ratios, so supporting those is not a priority for consumer facing products.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 24, 2022)

That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What was wrong with 4:3 for example?


Nothing, you probably even get the added cardiovascular benefit of additional movement when you want to change the channel on your tv.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.


For your favourite subjects, I would have thought 16 height by 9 width or better still 160:9 would be more suitable than 4:3.


----------



## entoman (Sep 24, 2022)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> R5 was well spec’s and priced. R3 bit pricey but nice kit. I can see Canon shooting themselves on this one.


I think the R1 will follow Canon's traditional pricing policy for pro camera bodies, i.e. it will be more expensive than the nearest equivalent Nikon and Sony competitors, but not by a huge amount.

Here are the current GBP prices:

Sony A1..............£6499
Nikon D6............£6799
Canon 1DXiii.......£6999

Nikon Z9.............£5299
Canon R3............£5879

I'd deduce that the R1 will be about the same price as the 1Dxiii at approx £6999

Canon must sell huge numbers of 1Dxiii bodies (I don't know the exact figures), and I see no reason why the R1 won't follow suit, assuming that it is a significant jump above the R3 in terms of specification, performance and build quality.

Pros, most of who have a huge investment in Canon glass, aren't likely to jump ship for the sake of a modest increase in cost compared to a Z9 or A1.


----------



## entoman (Sep 24, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.


I disagree that "the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff". A good videographer will use that space to provide context, showing the surrounding environment, or e.g. a relevant person approaching the main subject. Humans have binocular vision, and our natural field of view using both eyes is much wider than it is tall. The vast majority of computer monitors have a 16:9 ratio. Most advertising hoardings have a very wide apsect ratio. The same is true of normal widescreen cinema.

A ratio of 4:3 works very well for portraits on a wall...

Incidentally, the most impressive images of skyscrapers that I've seen, have been wide city panoramas.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> For your favourite subjects, I would have thought 16 height by 9 width or better still 160:9 would be more suitable than 4:3.


Actually I love the fact that vertical videos became a thing.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 25, 2022)

I used to shoot the 1N, 1V, and 1Ds MkI II III. But now the R5 feels like all the camera I'll ever need.
45MP basically records 114 lp/mm and lenses just aren't sharp enough to really make use of it, so while I've always wanted more MP in the past, for the first time I don't. And I'm no longer active/crazy enough to need the top possible sturdiness.

(Math is sqrt(45,000,000*2/3)/24mm = 228 linear pixels per mm, or 114 line pairs per mm.)


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 25, 2022)

DBounce said:


> *• *Global shutter… or really fast rolling shutter.
> 
> • Built in NDs. Canon, if you remove that mechanical shutter I hope you replace it with internal NDs. No mirrorless body has this and it is way overdue.



They announced a patent a couple years ago for a sensor that would have two separate charge buckets per pixel, that could be switched between instantly across the sensor. The patent outlined that it would provide both these options, plus nearly double dynamic range.


To produce global shutter with this, you simply switch the sensor into bucket B, then read out bucket A.


To produce "built-in ND" you expose bucket A for say 999 microseconds, then bucket B for 1 microsecond, and repeat. That ratio would cut the brightness of bucket B by about 10 stops (2^10~=999/1). The speed cutting between the two would need to be fast enough that the resulting series of still images still would produce continuous motion blur. The speed I mention would be 1ms per exposure, so would be able to make motion blur totally continuous on a 10k pixel wide image (66MP) if an object took 10 seconds to cross the photo (10,000 ms would mean it moves one pixel per ms at that speed). Of course in practice even perfectly focused objects will not be just one pixel wide, and most motion blur doesn't cross the entire photo, so would probably create beautiful blurs at say 1/60th second of a tennis player in daylight, and so on.


To produce HDR, you do the same as "built-in ND" but then use bucket A for the shadows, and bucket B for the highlights. This could produce probably over 20 stops dynamic range. You'd be able to properly expose a daytime interior while the scene outside the windows is also properly exposed. Or, you could shoot a nighttime interior and still be able to read the makers' marks on the lightbulbs.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 25, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels.


There's not really any such development, at least, a recent development. Back around 2000, the Canon/Kodak digitals with 1.5MP needed more, and I was glad the EOS-1Ds MkII and MkIII went up to 16MP then 21MP, but that was 2006 or so and Canon's latest pro M3 is still about the same MP, 15 years later.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 25, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As an R3 owner I could not care less about any of those things.
> 
> Lesson: Don’t assume that you are representative of the market.


I don't think you're being fair. DBounce wasn't assuming he was the only type of customer.


----------



## tonblom (Sep 25, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.


CF Express is a NVME drive in a caddy. You can do this, but how would you get rid of the heat: https://www.diyphotography.net/you-...alf-by-using-an-m-2-nvme-ssd-in-this-adapter/


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 25, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One situation where light is actually "wasted" is the video aspect ratio of 16:9 on a full frame sensor. Canon should allow us to use the whole sensor for video if we really want. Not everybody makes videos just for 16:9 displays. Canon gives us the green area for video, while it could give us the red area or (if 16:9 is needed) the blue area. The green area does not reach the image circle with any of its corners. So video is always cropped.
> View attachment 205727


Actually your blue retangle stretches past the current sensor edges. If you had that for video now, 3:2 stills would be cropped. However, as there are already cameras with "open gate" video (Panasonic GH6, Fujifilm X-H2S), maybe this is coming to Canon as well. Could be nice with anamorphic lenses, even if you target 16:9 displays.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't think you're being fair. DBounce wasn't assuming he was the only type of customer.


He did not equivocate, but stated clearly:


> *As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see? …*



It takes quite a bit of hubris to think that simply because you own a product you are the "target audience." I could buy a Corvette or a mini-van, but in neither case would I assume that I am the "target audience." 

I simply pointed out that his wish list was not reflective of all other R3 owners.


----------



## danfaz (Sep 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't think you're being fair. DBounce wasn't assuming he was the only type of customer.


Well, he specifically said in bold type that he was the target audience because he owns an R3.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 25, 2022)

unfocused said:


> He did not equivocate, but stated clearly:
> 
> 
> It takes quite a bit of hubris to think that simply because you own a product you are the "target audience." I could buy a Corvette or a mini-van, but in neither case would I assume that I am the "target audience."
> ...


I didn’t feel the need to spell out the obvious… I am one of many. I see likes on my wish list. So clearly others feel as I do.

Canon has already stated the R3 will be master of video and stills. Do you have a problem with this? If so there are plenty of other cameras that are “stills” focused. Have you heard of Pentax?


----------



## DBounce (Sep 25, 2022)

danfaz said:


> Well, he specifically said in bold type that he was the target audience because he owns an R3.


Think about it… you honestly believe that I think canon is developing this camera specifically for me? I simply mean I am within the target demographic.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 25, 2022)

unfocused said:


> He did not equivocate, but stated clearly:
> 
> 
> It takes quite a bit of hubris to think that simply because you own a product you are the "target audience." I could buy a Corvette or a mini-van, but in neither case would I assume that I am the "target audience."
> ...


*“As an owner of an R3”*… meaning: R3 owners are the target audience.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I used to shoot the 1N, 1V, and 1Ds MkI II III. But now the R5 feels like all the camera I'll ever need.


After the R5, R5 C, and R3, Canon did not leave much room for an R1.
It will be basically for the people who are not satisfied with those 3.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2022)

DBounce said:


> *“As an owner of an R3”*… meaning: R3 owners are the target audience.


But are they? We don't really know what the target audience of the R1 is. Seems unlikely though that Canon thinks that even a majority of people who bought the R3 will turn around and immediately buy the R1. 

Perhaps you only meant to share your "wish list" of what you personally would like in an R1. Nothing wrong with that, but it would have saved you some criticism, not only from me but from a number of others on this forum, if you had been more clear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2022)

unfocused said:


> But are they? We don't really know what the target audience of the R1 is.


Claiming one is ‘the target audience’ is merely a way of saying ‘what I want is most important’.


----------



## entoman (Sep 25, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> After the R5, R5 C, and R3, Canon did not leave much room for an R1.
> It will be basically for the people who are not satisfied with those 3.


The R3 is more than sufficient to fulfil the needs of most professionals. But manufacturers are always striving to provide more. So what are the few remaining areas where improvements would be beneficial, and where does that leave the R1?

*More MP*? - possibly, but that will only be useful if there are also options to shoot uncompressed RAW at lower resolutions, as 24-30MP is enough for 90% of images.
*Global shutter*? - possibly, but ultra fast readouts would reduce rolling shutter to the level where it became virtually undetectable, so global shutter may not be necessary.
*8K*? - probably, and that would need more MP than the R3 has.
*Greater durability*? - possibly, suggesting the possibility of dispensing with mechanical shutter.
*Faster burst speeds*? - possibly, but the R3 is already pretty damn fast.
*Better eye-controlled AF* - definitely, as the R3 is less than perfect in this regard.
*Better AF tracking* - almost certainly there are advances to be made in subject recognition, AF acquisition and tracking.
*Better EVF* - definitely, higher resolution, more natural rendition, and reduced lag time are all needed.
*Faster file transmission* - definitely and of increasing importance to pros competing to get images to the media rapidly.
*Pre-capture*? - definitely, sports, wildlife and reportage photographers all want pre-capture, but it requires a powerful processor, a huge buffer, and very fast readouts.
*AI*? - possibly, AI could be used to increase resolution, DR and sharpness, and to reduce noise and motion blur, all of which could be baked into the original image.

The next question, is how much extra, over and above the R3 price, would buyers be prepared to pay?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> The R3 is more than sufficient to fulfil the needs of most professionals. But manufacturers are always striving to provide more. So what are the few remaining areas where improvements would be beneficial, and where does that leave the R1?
> 
> *More MP*? - possibly, but that will only be useful if there are also options to shoot uncompressed RAW at lower resolutions, as 24-30MP is enough for 90% of images.
> *Global shutter*? - possibly, but ultra fast readouts would reduce rolling shutter to the level where it became virtually undetectable, so global shutter may not be necessary.
> ...


That's a good list. A couple of comments.


> *More MP*? - possibly, but that will only be useful if there are also options to shoot uncompressed RAW at lower resolutions, as 24-30MP is enough for 90% of images.


Why uncompressed raw? Having shot a lot of compressed raw under a lot of different conditions and having seen no real world disadvantages, I don't see why there would be a problem with shooting a higher resolution file as C-raw to save time and space. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon were to make C-raw the default raw option for high megapixel bodies. 

Definitely agree with *Better eye-controlled AF* and *Better AF tracking. *Eye-controlled autofocus on the R3 really isn't ready for prime time. Autofocus tracking can always be improved. One area much in need of improvement is to have the tracking do a better job of locking onto an individual subject and staying there. A lot of the You Tube "experts" will "test" autofocus by tracking a single subject. That's a joke. Autofocus won't be there until you can pick out a single player in a group and lock on that subject even as others come into the scene.

As far as *Faster file transmission* goes, I think the bigger need is a user friendly interface that allows the photographer to quickly select a single image, give it some basic processing and cropping and seamlessly post that photo to social media, all without needing a second device. Not all photographers have the support mechanism that professional and NCAA photographers have.


----------



## entoman (Sep 25, 2022)

unfocused said:


> That's a good list. A couple of comments.
> 
> Why uncompressed raw? Having shot a lot of compressed raw under a lot of different conditions and having seen no real world disadvantages, I don't see why there would be a problem with shooting a higher resolution file as C-raw to save time and space. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon were to make C-raw the default raw option for high megapixel bodies.


To be honest I haven't really done any serious comparisons between RAW and C-RAW, as to make valid comparisons it would be necessary to simultaneously shoot RAW and C-RAW images and deliberately underexpose/overexpose to check shadow/highlight retention, colour gamut and noise levels. I do however notice a significant difference between C-RAW and JPEG, with the latter producing undesirable compression-related artefacts and a more "plasticky" rendition. Currently I'm shooting almost everything on C-RAW.

But even C-RAW uses a lot of memory and reduces buffer when shooting a series of hi-speed bursts, so I'd like to see options to shoot at lower resolution RAWs/C-RAWs, e.g. 90MP, 45MP and 22.5MP.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually I love the fact that vertical videos became a thing.


It is fascinating to see the reaction for he DJI mini 3 pro's option to shoot vertical/portait by rotating the lens assembly. No loss of pixels due to cropping a landscape orientation photo/video. Some video purists can't abide by vertical videos but they fit Facebook/Insta/TikTok scrolling well.
For stills photography, a portrait orientation gives more pixels for multi-shot panoramas as well. 
A simple but useful feature


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end sour subscription, you lose access to the software after having spend hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so. The same odel that is used for leasing a car. You lease a car for some time and in the end you can buy the car for a small sum. Then it is your car forever.
> 
> Adobe may come with a lot of useful updates, but firstly I do not like updates anyway unless I really need them and secondly the incentive for Adobe would be much higher if they always had to come with new features to make you keep your subscription. At the current model you have to keep your subscription even without any update. Otherwise you lose access to the software.


Please note that LR adds a sidecar file with your raw/jpg/heif file. It doesn't modify the original file so you never "lose" access to your photos and can import into any editor you prefer - in parallel if you like. PSD files are a different story of course so if you prefer them, also export a final edited photo.

If you have edited in LR and then cease to subscribe to LR anymore then:
- You can continue to use Lightroom Classic excluding the Develop module, Map module and mobile sync ie you can export jgp/etc with changes at any time. I believe that you can still use it to organise your files ie the catalogue features
- Your LR Cloud content will be deleted. I don't use their cloud storage as I store locally (with backup multiple ways) but some may.

For me, it was a simple decision. I used to update LR every 2 years but rolling that into a subscription was about the same cost but bundled PS as well. Yes, Adobe can jack up the prices at any time and exchange rate changes against USD can also affect local pricing. They will never reduce the price but would seek to limit any increases to avoid backlash. Their perpetual licenses would also change price over time as well.

Subscription models give stable cash flows which help fund R&D rather then larger one-time sales which can be subject to prevailing macro economic conditions.

Lastly, updates also include bug fixes and most importantly - security fixes.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why BMW is offering heated seats on a monthly subscription | CNN Business
> 
> 
> BMW is now offering British drivers the option of enjoying a heated seat on a monthly subscription basis. Of course, you can still get heated seats the regular way -- just buy them as an option when you purchase the car -- but for those who didn't do that, or who bought a used car without the...
> ...


For the car analogy, Tesla charges a monthly subscription for autonomous driving. They have also limited their free standard connectivity access to 8 years (in the US) for maps etc as they don't accept carplayAndroid Auto. They will probably force older owners to subscribe to their premium connectivity package after that. I can see where their ongoing costs are and it isn't like heated seats where the hardware is already installed.

I also wish that other cars had cooling seats like Lexus does for warmer countries. That said, Lexus charges AUD300 for one-time updated navigation maps which is absurd!


----------



## lustyd (Sep 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.


While your points are great for stills, video works differently. If you want to show an imposing skyscraper the best* way to do it is with a widescreen aspect and a tilt shot, allowing the viewer to gradually understand the height of the building as the shot develops. Photo is about framing, video is about story and the time aspect is important. A tilt shot of that one massive tree can also be used to show that the surrounding trees are so much smaller. A single tree could also be emphasized with a zoom dolly shot where background movement would be important, so the widescreen is again very useful. A bottle of beer might be best with a GoPro attached, showing the background as the drinker lifts it, or with a GoPro on the drinker's chest showing the bottle rising to their mouth. Or even a Snorri-cam shot of their head, making the background move about wildly as you see them drinking, giving a drunk effect. We're not trying to frame the bottle in video, we're trying to tell the story of the bottle and what's happening to and around it. Unless you're shooting an ad, then it's a bottle with probably some snow behind it and a drop of condensation dripping down the side...

*edited to say that best is probably a bad word here. Maybe default/easy/standard/way students are taught


----------



## Curahee (Sep 26, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?


I don't do stupid things like instagrams, FB tic tok or other such silly things.
I have a life in the real world.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 26, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> I think 50-60 mpx is the sweet spot. Guess we still have to wait another half a year to find out.


What would be nice would be a switchable resolution of say 100 mpx or 60 mpx, dealers' choice. That way everyone would be happy.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 26, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> After the R5, R5 C, and R3, Canon did not leave much room for an R1.
> It will be basically for the people who are not satisfied with those 3.


ACtually, I'm thinking the R1 MIGHT have the super-sensor they patented a couple years ago that can do global shutter, electronic ND, and double dynamic range. In other words something that's changes the game in a way other than mere MP or build quality.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 26, 2022)

It is impossible to predict with absolute certainty what features the R1 will have, but some features I would like include:

1) Metering link to AF point similar to all other 1 series camera
2) Cross-type AF points in the sensor to improve AF precision
3) Dual CF-Express type B slots
4) A sensor that can acquire lossless RAW images at multiple resolutions like the Leica M11. 

Definitely looking forward to the R1, but it will likely be another year before we have any definitive specs. I anticipate a development announcement in early Q2 2023.


----------



## entoman (Sep 26, 2022)

Curahee said:


> I don't do stupid things like instagrams, FB tic tok or other such silly things.
> I have a life in the real world.


That's a bit harsh. I loathe twitter, facebook, instagram etc, but I know plenty of people who most definitely lead very fulfilling lives in the "real world", and still find enjoyment posting images on Flickr.

Also, I have to ask - if you are only interested in the "real world", why are you spending time posting on social media yourself? (CR is social media, in case you hadn't noticed).


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 26, 2022)

lustyd said:


> While your points are great for stills, video works differently. If you want to show an imposing skyscraper the best* way to do it is with a widescreen aspect and a tilt shot, allowing the viewer to gradually understand the height of the building as the shot develops. Photo is about framing, video is about story and the time aspect is important. A tilt shot of that one massive tree can also be used to show that the surrounding trees are so much smaller. A single tree could also be emphasized with a zoom dolly shot where background movement would be important, so the widescreen is again very useful. A bottle of beer might be best with a GoPro attached, showing the background as the drinker lifts it, or with a GoPro on the drinker's chest showing the bottle rising to their mouth. Or even a Snorri-cam shot of their head, making the background move about wildly as you see them drinking, giving a drunk effect. We're not trying to frame the bottle in video, we're trying to tell the story of the bottle and what's happening to and around it. Unless you're shooting an ad, then it's a bottle with probably some snow behind it and a drop of condensation dripping down the side...
> 
> *edited to say that best is probably a bad word here. Maybe default/easy/standard/way students are taught


Interesting comment and point of view.
Convincing!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 26, 2022)

john1970 said:


> It is impossible to predict with absolute certainty what features the R1 will have, but some features I would like include:
> [..]
> 4) A sensor that can acquire lossless RAW images at multiple resolutions like the Leica M11.
> [..]


A lower resolution image is per definition neither lossless nor RAW. Unless it's a crop, in that case it can be RAW.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 26, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> A lower resolution image is per definition neither lossless nor RAW. Unless it's a crop, in that case it can be RAW.


You could argue that an oversampled raw image eg 4:1 would be lossless. It wouldn't be raw in the normal definition though.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 27, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> I think Canon being almost two years behind (3 by the time this canera is supposedly available) is forcing their hand to put out a super high mpx sensor. They would have done better just putting a better sensor in the R3 which is perfect ergonomically but lacking in a modern day sensor size and releasing it sooner. Then they could work on a bigger sensor for the MK II. They are way behind with a flagship model already and I'm guessing that drove them to the idea of being mpx king. Personally, I think 50-60 mpx is the sweet spot. Guess we still have to wait another half a year to find out.


One will debate what is the "best" sensor size, on one hand, most people post things on the internet, or their computer screen which is in best 8K (2400*3600 pixels)? Thus asking why need for 50-60mpx while they can only see a fraction of it. Then you will say "crop", but again does one need to crop or just get closet to the object and fill the frame with the object, not copping it? Higher mpx means lower dynamic range, much more sensitivity to movements etc. I have a friend with the R6, I have the R5, and to be honest, for most pictures, there is no real difference between our pictures when we post them online. For sports and action photographers, speed of "action" is more important then higher mpx. the R1 is made for those people, not those taking higher mpx shots that needs lesser speed.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> The R3 is more than sufficient to fulfil the needs of most professionals. But manufacturers are always striving to provide more. So what are the few remaining areas where improvements would be beneficial, and where does that leave the R1?
> 
> *Global shutter*? - possibly, but ultra fast readouts would reduce rolling shutter to the level where it became virtually undetectable, so global shutter may not be necessary.



Canon patented, 2-3 years ago now, a sensor design that has global shutter, built-in ND, and can almost double dynamic range. It's a compelling package that would get my interest even though R5 build quality and MP is enough for me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 27, 2022)

masterpix said:


> One will debate what is the "best" sensor size, on one hand, most people post things on the internet, or their computer screen which is in best 8K (2400*3600 pixels)? Thus asking why need for 50-60mpx while they can only see a fraction of it. Then you will say "crop", but again does one need to crop or just get closet to the object and fill the frame with the object, not copping it?


There are many examples where you are not able to zoom with your feet and need to crop to the composition/framing you prefer. I have cropped significantly many times and appreciate the R5's pixel density to still have a reasonable resolution for viewing on screen or printing. The obvious reason is not having the ideal focal length ie my RF100-500mm wasn't sufficient and I couldn't get closer.. Similar with macro when I am shooting underwater. Working distance is important not to disturb wildlife.



masterpix said:


> Higher mpx means lower dynamic range,


Please provide evidence of this and whether it is significant when downsampling between different sensor sizes.


masterpix said:


> much more sensitivity to movements etc. I have a friend with the R6, I have the R5, and to be honest, for most pictures, there is no real difference between our pictures when we post them online. For sports and action photographers, speed of "action" is more important then higher mpx. the R1 is made for those people, not those taking higher mpx shots that needs lesser speed.


I am not the target audience for a R1 but I regularly use 14fps with my R5. It makes so much of a difference compared to my previous 5Div. 14fps was the top speed for the 1DX and 16fps on the 1DXii (with mirror up). I don't tend to use 20fps eshutter as I get banding with indoor lighting.

I am not saying that I need every pixel for my content but if it is available then I will use it.
If you don't need the R5's pixel density then the R6 is much cheaper.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There are many examples where you are not able to zoom with your feet and need to crop to the composition/framing you prefer. I have cropped significantly many times and appreciate the R5's pixel density to still have a reasonable resolution for viewing on screen or printing. The obvious reason is not having the ideal focal length ie my RF100-500mm wasn't sufficient and I couldn't get closer.. Similar with macro when I am shooting underwater. Working distance is important not to disturb wildlife.
> 
> 
> Please provide evidence of this and whether it is significant when downsampling between different sensor sizes.
> ...


While it is dificult to compare sensors from different generations, there is one comparison that cross my mind, two cameras that came at about the same time, have similar processor and similar software: the R6 has a larger dymanic range in compare to the R5. It is simply cause the sensor pixels are a bit larger than therefore can collect little bit more light.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> You could argue that an oversampled raw image eg 4:1 would be lossless. It wouldn't be raw in the normal definition though.


You have _lost_ resolution, though you may gain in other areas (DR?). I suppose it depends if you apply "lossless" to every aspect of the image.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> For the car analogy, Tesla charges a monthly subscription for autonomous driving. They have also limited their free standard connectivity access to 8 years (in the US) for maps etc as they don't accept carplayAndroid Auto. They will probably force older owners to subscribe to their premium connectivity package after that. I can see where their ongoing costs are and it isn't like heated seats where the hardware is already installed.
> 
> I also wish that other cars had cooling seats like Lexus does for warmer countries. That said, Lexus charges AUD300 for one-time updated navigation maps which is absurd!


I'm not going to rent features in a car that "I" purchased either.

If it comes to that and the feature hardware is already IN the car, well, I'll be soon hacking it to manual control and use whatever I want in my car.

For software, hey I understand it, some places like the rental model. I noticed software I like (Capture One and On1 Raw) offer a choice of license purchase or rental.

If Adobe offered the choice, they might woo me and a lot of others back...but they don't so....

PS is fun, but I find that Affinity Photo does the same job, often faster since it has an engine that was built new from scratch and doesn't have the tons of legacy code holding it back....and that one purchase 5-6 years ago now I think....gets regular updates still.

If Affinity can do this and put out a competitive product....why can't Adobe?

Oh well...too early to rant...

Ctabasco9


entoman said:


> That's a bit harsh. I loathe twitter, facebook, instagram etc, but I know plenty of people who most definitely lead very fulfilling lives in the "real world", and still find enjoyment posting images on Flickr.
> 
> Also, I have to ask - if you are only interested in the "real world", why are you spending time posting on social media yourself? (CR is social media, in case you hadn't noticed).


LOL...

I dunno about CR being "social media"....you HAVE read some of the posts here, eh?


(including some of my old rants...not always that sociable)


----------



## entoman (Sep 27, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I dunno about CR being "social media"....you HAVE read some of the posts here, eh?
> 
> 
> (including some of my old rants...not always that sociable)


One of the reasons I spend quite a lot of time here on CR is because, most of the time, the debates and exchanges are sociable and amicable in nature .

It's also the reason why I spend far *less* time on dpr, where the opposite is often the case.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> One of the reasons I spend quite a lot of time here on CR is because, most of the time, the debates and exchanges are sociable and amicable in nature .
> 
> It's also the reason why I spend far *less* time on dpr, where the opposite is often the case.


DPR is people just shouting at each from their respective camps. Not a lot of learning to be had there or at least hard to sift the wheat from the significant chaff. Given the volume of the posts from some, it would seem to be their full time job.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> You have _lost_ resolution, though you may gain in other areas (DR?). I suppose it depends if you apply "lossless" to every aspect of the image.


Of course resolution is lower... that is the entire point! If the R1 has a 80mp sensor then recording raw would be 80mp. Oversampling down to 20mp using 4:1 of the fly means that the shots are reasonably sized for their usage for sports etc (unless HEIF/jpg is preferred). Oversampling is still "lossless" in that perspective. 
For video, oversampling gives you better image quality for that resolution. Oversampling 4kHQ mode on the R5 is better than their standard 4K line skipped mode... the latter could be considered closer to raw as you are using alternative rows of the full sensor.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2022)

masterpix said:


> While it is dificult to compare sensors from different generations, there is one comparison that cross my mind, two cameras that came at about the same time, have similar processor and similar software: the R6 has a larger dymanic range in compare to the R5. It is simply cause the sensor pixels are a bit larger than therefore can collect little bit more light.



I agree that in theory that the R6 should have better dynamic range as the pixel size is bigger but that logic doesn't seem to be obvious any more.
There seems to be subjectively a difference at >ISO6400 with the R6 being better
https://petapixel.com/2020/09/11/canon-eos-r5-vs-r6-astrophotography-and-high-iso-comparison/

For dynamic range, DXOmark (love or loathe it) shows that the R5 has better DR than the R6
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-R6-versus-Canon-EOS-R5___1354_1355

From Photons to Photos, the R5 is slightly better at higher ISO and half a stop better at low ISO



DPR's studio shot comparison tool shows that the R5 has greater noise subjectively at ISO6400 but those comparisons are at 1:1 and not downsampled to the same resolution.


----------



## GoldWing (Sep 28, 2022)

Canon is way late to the party. Agencies are loading up on Nikon glass.

What was Canon thinking. If the R1 is not 85MB or better Nikon is ready with a 105 Monster.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Canon is way late to the party.


Yeah, people have been saying that for a decade. Somehow, Canon continues to dominate the market.

But hey, a stopped analog clock is right 0.139% of the time. So keep going, you’ve probably got a similar chance.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Of course resolution is lower... that is the entire point! If the R1 has a 80mp sensor then recording raw would be 80mp. Oversampling down to 20mp using 4:1 of the fly means that the shots are reasonably sized for their usage for sports etc (unless HEIF/jpg is preferred). Oversampling is still "lossless" in that perspective.
> For video, oversampling gives you better image quality for that resolution. Oversampling 4kHQ mode on the R5 is better than their standard 4K line skipped mode... the latter could be considered closer to raw as you are using alternative rows of the full sensor.


I don't feel strongly either way, but to be pernickety, if something has been lost, it surely can't really be lossless, that's all I'm saying  I'm a big fan of downsampling fwiw.


----------



## sanj (Sep 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I don't feel strongly either way, but to be pernickety, if something has been lost, it surely can't really be lossless, that's all I'm saying  I'm a big fan of downsampling fwiw.



I googled and learnt the word 'pernickety'. Nice. Will use it often in future. Thanks. I will have a British friend pronounce it for me. What fun!


----------



## Curahee (Sep 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> That's a bit harsh. I loathe twitter, facebook, instagram etc, but I know plenty of people who most definitely lead very fulfilling lives in the "real world", and still find enjoyment posting images on Flickr.
> 
> Also, I have to ask - if you are only interested in the "real world", why are you spending time posting on social media yourself? (CR is social media, in case you hadn't noticed).


I was bored between a couple of meetings.
LOL


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I don't feel strongly either way, but to be pernickety, if something has been lost, it surely can't really be lossless, that's all I'm saying  I'm a big fan of downsampling fwiw.


The way I look at it is that if the file contains all the data that the sensor is capable of recording, then it's lossless, and anything else is by definition lossy.

What matters however is whether the lossy image is *visibly* inferior.

By inferior I mean has it lost sharpness or detail, have the tones and colours become compressed to the detriment of the photo, and are there any artefacts.

The most practical way to analyse this is to take simultaneous stills images in RAW, C-RAW, JPEG and HEIF, and compare them side by side on a high quality monitor at 100%.

Personally, I can't tell the difference comparing RAW and C-RAW, but there may be circumstances (e.g. astrophotography or black cat in a coal cellar) where uncompressed RAW has an edge. I can *usually* tell the difference between simultaneously shot C-RAW and JPEG, as the latter always has less fine detail, and under certain circumstances the colour compression can lead to a contouring effect separating areas of slightly different tone. Sharpening (especially with Topaz DeNoise AI) can do a fair job of restoring detail and edge sharpness, but if colour information has been lost, there's no way to regain it.

I always prefer to err on the side of caution, so until recently I shot almost everything on RAW. Since I got my R5 a year ago, I've mostly shot C-RAW and only shot RAW in particularly difficult lighting conditions. I only shoot JPEG in situations when shooting RAW might fill the buffer, e.g. BIF bursts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I always prefer to err on the side of caution, so until recently I shot almost everything on RAW. Since I got my R5 a year ago, I've mostly shot C-RAW and only shot RAW in particularly difficult lighting conditions. I only shoot JPEG in situations when shooting RAW might fill the buffer, e.g. BIF bursts.


My plan was RAW to CFe and SD, switch to just CFe if I had buffer issues, then switch to C-RAW if still having buffer issues. So far I haven’t had any buffer issues shooting RAW to both cards on my R3.


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My plan was RAW to CFe and SD, switch to just CFe if I had buffer issues, then switch to C-RAW if still having buffer issues. So far I haven’t had any buffer issues shooting RAW to both cards on my R3.


Hey neuro, I'm glad to hear that you're not having problems. I usually shoot C-RAW to both cards, except when shooting BIF, and then I shoot JPEG to both cards. So far, I haven't had any lockups when shooting JPEG bursts, but that will be fully tested on a major shoot in December. I can pretty much guarantee that I get lockups when shooting bursts on C-RAW (or RAW), it happens almost every time when shooting BIF bursts (regardless of shutter mode), and it happens with both SanDisk and Delkin CFE cards. I've even tried removing the SD card and having only a CFE card in the camera, but the lockups still occur (roughly one lockup per 2 hour BIF shooting session).

I'm looking forward to when the next iteration of R5 is announced, but wary of these issues occurring with that camera. I've heard reports of lockups with R3 although they don't seem to be as common as with R5. I honestly can't see Canon solving this problem with the R5. Fortunately most of my photography doesn't involve burst shooting - if it did, I'd be pretty frustrated. It would be interesting to know if anyone has had lockup issues with the R7 (I haven't checked forums, but have heard no mention on comments pages).


----------



## Mmm Toast (Sep 29, 2022)

Will the IBIS still wobble like jello? The firmware update did not help -_-


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 29, 2022)

Sorry to put this comment here. Does anyone else who is a CR Pro subscriber see advertisements on the CR site over the last week or so? I am wondering what is happening as one of the reasons for signing up as CR Pro, apart from supporting the site, is to have an advertisment-free experience. Now I am getting unwanted videos, big banners on the bottom etc. Also, when I tried to go to an article, clicking on the link resulted in an ad poping up. It is getting unpleasant. Could CR explain what is happening?


----------



## Mod_1 (Sep 29, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> Sorry to put this comment here. Does anyone else who is a CR Pro subscriber see advertisements on the CR site over the last week or so? I am wondering what is happening as one of the reasons for signing up as CR Pro, apart from supporting the site, is to have an advertisment-free experience. Now I am getting unwanted videos, big banners on the bottom etc. Also, when I tried to go to an article, clicking on the link resulted in an ad poping up. It is getting unpleasant. Could CR explain what is happening?


Craig is himself annoyed with what is going on and working hard with the site developers to sort out the problems. This is very much a state-of-the art site and is continually being developed. I too have to bear with problems.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 29, 2022)

Mod_1 said:


> Craig is himself annoyed with what is going on and working hard with the site developers to sort out the problems. This is very much a state-of-the art site and is continually being developed. I too have to bear with problems.


Thank you for looking into this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> Thank you for looking into this.


FWIW, it seems to be the CR main page that is affected. The forum pages seem fine, at least for me.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 29, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> Sorry to put this comment here. Does anyone else who is a CR Pro subscriber see advertisements on the CR site over the last week or so? I am wondering what is happening as one of the reasons for signing up as CR Pro, apart from supporting the site, is to have an advertisment-free experience. Now I am getting unwanted videos, big banners on the bottom etc. Also, when I tried to go to an article, clicking on the link resulted in an ad poping up. It is getting unpleasant. Could CR explain what is happening?


I never got one single advertisement since I became CR Pro, honest. And even before, my ad-blockers were 99,5% efficient.
I live in France and Germany, by the way... Could be the reason.


----------



## entoman (Sep 29, 2022)

Mod_1 said:


> Craig is himself annoyed with what is going on and working hard with the site developers to sort out the problems. This is very much a state-of-the art site and is continually being developed. I too have to bear with problems.


Why do even non-CR Pro folk have to put up with such annoyances anyway?

We all accept that it's necessary to fund the site, and that that means being subjected to unwanted advertising, but is is really necessary to have huge pop-ups blocking the content?

Does it not occur to the advertisers and the website owners, that the most obvious responses to such intrusions are:

a) *a strong likelihood that irritated users will visit the website *less* frequently*.

b) *a strong likelihood that irritated users will deliberately avoid buying anything from the advertisers in question*.

Fortunately there is enough of interest on CR to keep me here despite the annoyances, but I've already permanently abandoned several other sites that use the same extremely intrusive advertising.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> FWIW, it seems to be the CR main page that is affected. The forum pages seem fine, at least for me.


Cheers! For me, it's the CR home page and the article page. Discussion forum is fine.


----------



## Pixel (Sep 29, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Canon is way late to the party. Agencies are loading up on Nikon glass.
> 
> What was Canon thinking. If the R1 is not 85MB or better Nikon is ready with a 105 Monster.


Getty is not. Canon all the way. AP is all Sony. So not sure what you're talking about.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, people have been saying that for a decade. Somehow, Canon continues to dominate the market.
> 
> But hey, a stopped analog clock is right 0.139% of the time. So keep going, you’ve probably got a similar chance.


Hey, you are assuming analogue hands move once a minute. Even an old-fashioned grandfather (tall case) clock moves the hands in 1 second intervals. That reduces it to 0.0023%. In 1672 or so, Joseph Knibb made a split seconds clock that beat 1/3s for Professor Gregory at St Andrews University. That would reduce it being right 0.00077% of the time - getting closer to the accuracy of some of the comments here.






Gregory's Astronomical Clock


Gregory's Astronomical Clock




mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Does it not occur to the advertisers and the website owners, that the most obvious responses to such intrusions are:
> 
> a) *a strong likelihood that irritated users will visit the website *less* frequently*.
> 
> ...


Not that I've been getting hit with this stuff (ad blockers--but I did buy the lower of the two pro levels anyway). But I've often wondered the same thing in general about genuinely obnoxious advertising--everything from loud TV ads to popups that cover the center of the screen.

There is a sincere belief in many quarters that ANY publicity is good publicity.

And you can't convince them otherwise.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Not that I've been getting hit with this stuff (ad blockers--but I did buy the lower of the two pro levels anyway). But I've often wondered the same thing in general about genuinely obnoxious advertising--everything from loud TV ads to popups that cover the center of the screen.
> 
> There is a sincere belief in many quarters that ANY publicity is good publicity.
> 
> And you can't convince them otherwise.


Seems in the USA everything costs some money.
My ad blockers (Ublock origin, for instance), were for free, just like my CPS platinum membership...


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Seems in the USA everything costs some money.
> My ad blockers (Ublock origin, for instance), were for free, just like my CPS platinum membership...


You didn’t have to spend lots of money on Canon gear to get to platinum?


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> You didn’t have to spend lots of money on Canon gear to get to platinum?


When you love, you don't count...
And you don't tell your wife.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Seems in the USA everything costs some money.
> My ad blockers (Ublock origin, for instance), were for free, just like my CPS platinum membership...


Oh....you may have misunderstood me. Ad blockers don't cost money here, and I don't have a Canon pro membership. Let me explain.

The ad blockers are free here as well; I was saying that even though I had adblockers and never saw the ads (and I'm not seeing any now) on Canon Rumors, I still, nevertheless, got a _Canon Rumors_ pro membership--for this site (not for Canon), one of the benefits was you'd never see ads. I decided to give them some money to thank them for the good information and education I got here.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 30, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Oh....you may have misunderstood me. Ad blockers don't cost money here, and I don't have a Canon pro membership. Let me explain.
> 
> The ad blockers are free here as well; I was saying that even though I had adblockers and never saw the ads (and I'm not seeing any now) on Canon Rumors, I still, nevertheless, got a _Canon Rumors_ pro membership--for this site (not for Canon), one of the benefits was you'd never see ads. I decided to give them some money to thank them for the good information and education I got here.


Sorry, I misunderstood you...had the same motivation to become CR Pro!


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 4, 2022)

Karm said:


> I've been on the fence about buying an R3, mostly because of the unknown specs of the upcoming R1.
> 
> The main thing "holding me back" from just getting the R3 is that I'd prefer a larger sensor (between 35 and 65 MPx or so). If the R1 ends up being significantly more than that, like 80MPx or more, I'll need to consider whether that's really ideal. Handling 80MPx files would be a pain in the butt, especially if shot at 30fps or more. Noise performance would need to be equal to the R3 when down-sampled to consider it as an option.
> 
> ...


Why not just shoot CRAW for anything you are using high FPS for and RAW for lower FPS stills? I use CRAW for anything wildlife where I want high FPS (birds, mammals, etc.) and RAW for landscape, etc. The CRAW files are quite capable of post editing improvements.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Oct 4, 2022)

masterpix said:


> One will debate what is the "best" sensor size, on one hand, most people post things on the internet, or their computer screen which is in best 8K (2400*3600 pixels)? Thus asking why need for 50-60mpx while they can only see a fraction of it. Then you will say "crop", but again does one need to crop or just get closet to the object and fill the frame with the object, not copping it? Higher mpx means lower dynamic range, much more sensitivity to movements etc. I have a friend with the R6, I have the R5, and to be honest, for most pictures, there is no real difference between our pictures when we post them online. For sports and action photographers, speed of "action" is more important then higher mpx. the R1 is made for those people, not those taking higher mpx shots that needs lesser speed.


Cropping is an unfortunately reality of anyone taking wildlife/ bird images. And mpx are also important in fine art/landscape prints. I know it's a novel idea but maybe someone can make a pro body camera that can do it all. Then we wouldn't have to buy these cameras that are only good at select types of photography. Just because some people are satisfied with 24 mpx, that shouldn't be looked at as working for all.


----------



## lustyd (Oct 4, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> can make a pro body camera that can do it all


I can't imagine they can, different use-cases have different requirements and always will. The big bottom grip is useful if you want to take portrait pics, but otherwise it's excess bulk and weight. The fully articulating screen is useful for framing, unless you shoot movies when it makes eyes look creepy and a flip up is better. Full frame is great for various reasons, until you want a small and light lens.
I do wish they'd be more clear about the intended purpose of cameras and focus less on a "range" going artificially from "cheap" to "expensive". I could have easily bought a 1D or R3 this year but I chose the M6ii because it was what I needed and the big "better" cameras would have been terrible for what I need. 
A "do it all" camera is by definition compromised for all use-cases. Give me good specific options with compromised all rounder capability any day.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Oct 4, 2022)

cayenne said:


> A bit OT from the thread, but I dropped Adobe like a hot rock years back when they went to the rental model.
> 
> I'm currently using Capture One, and love it...the color control, IMHO can't be touched.
> But the catalog and library functions are a bit primitive and wonky.
> ...


Cap One is a great product. It's definitely a worthy competitor to Adobe. But the file management of Cap One seems awkward.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 5, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> Cap One is a great product. It's definitely a worthy competitor to Adobe. But the file management of Cap One seems awkward.


It is and that is my one complaint about C1....but working around and with it isn't rocket surgery.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 6, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> Cropping is an unfortunately reality of anyone taking wildlife/ bird images. And mpx are also important in fine art/landscape prints. I know it's a novel idea but maybe someone can make a pro body camera that can do it all. Then we wouldn't have to buy these cameras that are only good at select types of photography. Just because some people are satisfied with 24 mpx, that shouldn't be looked at as working for all.


Smile, I think that you are also willing to spend about 20K++ on a body.. Cause any camera is somewhat a compromise to either side of the table. All in all there is one restriction and that is, TIME. The time needed to read the image, put it in the card and there are forces, beyond us, that manage that time. Higher resolution, higher FPS, higher dynamic range (number of bits for each pixel), and others, each pulling to other side and limits the others. With the advance of electronics the lesser time needed for each of those activities, the first digial camears were.. 1MP sensor and were very limited in speed and such? Now you have 50MP with 20-30FPS... but still having 100MP for fashion and architecture, 60FPS for sports, dynamic range to shoot in the dark, and the IBIS to allow you hand held at 1/2 second... I am sure one day we will get there, but not as for today. Give me R1 50MP, 30FPS, 100-200,000 ISO packed with global shutter 10fstp IBIS, quad pixel AF and that it won't break my bank account.... It will make me happy for more than a few years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

Karm said:


> The global shutter would be pretty cool though, not gonna lie.
> 
> 
> Ah! That's very interesting. I hope they implement something similar for the R1.



Even the 7D Mark II and 5D Mark IV allowed the user to select the target frame rate for H/M/L burst modes. Of course those were with mechanical shutters. 

The lack of or more limited amount of user customization of burst rates with the R-series has been with electronic shutter burst rates, so we'll just have to wait and see what they can/will offer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Because we went through decades of film based cameras, obviously. Those days are over though, time to move on



Yeah, we've finally evolved past the desirability of landscape imaging!


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

DBounce said:


> My opinion is relevant because Canon wants my $$$$



What is truly relevant to Canon is whether they think they can generate more net profits on offering an $8K camera with slightly less capable video features, and selling more of them (because more stills oriented folks will be able to justify spending $8K) or whether they think they can generate more net profits on a $10K camera with slightly more capable video features, while selling fewer of them (because fewer stills oriented folks will be able to justify spending $10K).


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

unfocused said:


> C-raw



... or an even further evolution in that direction.

Not to mention that LOTS of sports shooters still use JPEG to get images out within minutes of capture. 

So the in-camera processing engine is still a huge piece of the puzzle.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It would need to be loss less though and cRaw is a lossy compression albeit pretty close to raw.
> I would prefer a oversampling format rather than compression algorithm.



Why would it need to be lossless? The distribution network for sports images is nowhere near lossless.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 7, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> ... or an even further evolution in that direction.
> 
> Not to mention that LOTS of sports shooters still use JPEG to get images out within minutes of capture.
> 
> So the in-camera processing engine is still a huge piece of the puzzle.


I really hope the R1 fixes the issue where enabling HEIC images will disable all the nice EVF features, like high refresh rate. Maybe it will trigger Adobe and DxO to allow export to HEIC as well


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is one of the reasons why I hate video in general. The aspect ratio of 16:9 is just nonsense. What was wrong with 4:3 for example? Movies are mostly about humans and human are taller than wide. The same is true for skyscrapers, trees, a bottle of beer and many other things. Usually the sides of a video are filled with unimportant stuff anyway.



Right On!


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

unfocused said:


> But are they? We don't really know what the target audience of the R1 is. Seems unlikely though that Canon thinks that even a majority of people who bought the R3 will turn around and immediately buy the R1.
> 
> Perhaps you only meant to share your "wish list" of what you personally would like in an R1. Nothing wrong with that, but it would have saved you some criticism, not only from me but from a number of others on this forum, if you had been more clear.



It's been my understanding for quite a while, which could turn out to be wrong, uhm... less correct than I originally thought, that the R3 is the camera primarily aimed at the sports/reportage market, like the 1D series before 2012, and the R1 will be the camera primarily aimed at the high res (studio, fashion, product, landscape) market, like the 1Ds series was prior to 2012. I think I've expressed that opinion more than once over the past couple of years in this forum. Maybe the α1 has forced Canon to alter that somewhat, though?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

sanj said:


> I googled and learnt the word 'pernickety'. Nice. Will use it often in future. Thanks. I will have a British friend pronounce it for me. What fun!



Apparently us uncultured Americans have been misspelling and mispronouncing it as 'persnickety' for more than a century, now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2022)

Pixel said:


> Getty is not. Canon all the way. AP is all Sony. So not sure what you're talking about.



A friend who shoots for a Gannett owned local newspaper (and who also provides national Gannett coverage for the major college football team in his local paper's hometown) recently had his Canon gear (most of which had been around since before Gannett purchased the newspaper) replaced with Nikon, being told the long-term plan was to go with Sony.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 7, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> A friend who shoots for a Gannett owned local newspaper (and who also provides national Gannett coverage for the major college football team in his local paper's hometown) recently had his Canon gear (most of which had been around since before Gannett purchased the newspaper) replaced with Nikon, being told the long-term plan was to go with Sony.


A Nikon flagship camera + 800mm rig is roughly 1/2 the cost (13k) of canon equivalent (23k) right now. If I'm a Gannett photo desk manager and I want to buy a 800mm f/5.6 or f/6.3, I have a choice of buying just a new lens for Canon or a new Nikon lens + a Nikon flagship body with 2x the resolution for $3,000 less. It's not an irrational decision.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> It's been my understanding for quite a while, which could turn out to be wrong, uhm... less correct than I originally thought, that the R3 is the camera primarily aimed at the sports/reportage market, like the 1D series before 2012, and the R1 will be the camera primarily aimed at the high res (studio, fashion, product, landscape) market, like the 1Ds series was prior to 2012. I think I've expressed that opinion more than once over the past couple of years in this forum. Maybe the α1 has forced Canon to alter that somewhat, though?


My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2022)

unfocused said:


> My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.


If true, Canon needs to know what features those buyers in the 'high end enthusiast market' want. They probably have a good idea of that already, based on product registration data.

Plus, they've asked me directly.


----------



## Johnw (Oct 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.



Or it could be a mix, as in they are counting on some regular pro customers to upgrade just because it’s the latest flagship, but maybe they are considering some features that would appeal more to the enthusiast market as well.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 8, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Or it could be a mix, as in they are counting on some regular pro customers to upgrade just because it’s the latest flagship, but maybe they are considering some features that would appeal more to the enthusiast market as well.


Yes, of course. It will be a great tool for pros. It is just that the professional market for 1 series bodies keeps shrinking and the R3 offers everything that most professional sports and press photographers need.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.



Well, I'd also say that it seems the vast majority of the active commenters here are enthusiasts or part-time pros. There aren't really that many full time professionals here who are making a full-time living shooting, particularly at anywhere near a level that could justify what we expect the R1 to cost. 

Freelancers will probably find either the R5 (studio/fashion/landscape/product/etc.) or the R3 (sports/reportage) good enough at lower cost. Other than Goldwing, are there any agency photographers or staffers active here that have company equipment provided? Those guys are too busy scrambling for a living to spend much time on here.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 8, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> A Nikon flagship camera + 800mm rig is roughly 1/2 the cost (13k) of canon equivalent (23k) right now. If I'm a Gannett photo desk manager and I want to buy a 800mm f/5.6 or f/6.3, I have a choice of buying just a new lens for Canon or a new Nikon lens + a Nikon flagship body with 2x the resolution for $3,000 less. It's not an irrational decision.



My impression was that it was a transfer of existing company assets from another location that had more gear than staffers, not a new purchase. They sold to a used dealer (MBP or KEH?) his Canon gear and also cleaned out the other old Canon gear still in the photo department's equipment closet from when they had 3-4 staffers instead of only one. A few months back he did shoot with some Sony demo gear for a few weeks before sending it back to Sony. If I remember the conversation correctly from when he was testing the Sony gear, the long term plan is to standardize everyone to Sony and sell the Nikon stuff once the Sony stuff in the pipeline is delivered. I didn't ask if that was Gannett nationwide/worldwide, or only everyone under his regional editor.

He didn't have any 800mm lenses before and if he does now I haven't seen him lugging one around. I see him on TV every weekend during college football season. As of 3-4 years ago his longest lens was a 1990s vintage 400/2.8 II (non-IS) + 1.4X when needed. (That's before his paper was bought by Gannett.) I don't know if he's got a Nikon 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 now (and likely a Nikon 1.4X). I don't know the Nikon gear well enough to tell from seeing him on the sideline on TV when someone scores a TD right in front of him. College football, basketball, gymnastics, volleyball, and softball don't really call for an 800mm. He got by with the 400/2.8 + 1.4X for baseball. For most of his non-sports local reportage he's always been more of a 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 kind of shooter. (Though he did occasionally play around with stuff like an EF 8-15mm L he found in a desk drawer in his new office a few years back not long after he left the paper he had been at for 30 years in my hometown and moved to the college town where he's been for the last 7 years.)


----------



## mpwolken (Oct 8, 2022)

My theory is that it will have a unique viewfinder, probably based on a pellicle mirror in combination with a transparent LED overlay.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> My opinion, also expressed more than once over the past couple of years, is that with the shrinking professional market, the R1 is likely to be aimed at the high end enthusiast market. That is the market that is growing and is also most insulated from economic downturns. Not a scientific survey by any means, but if you look at the people who seem to be expressing the most interest in the R1 on this forum alone, maybe only one or two have an actual professional use for such a camera, while the rest just want it because if it has a "1" in the name it has to be the best. Canon doesn't care about the motivation of the buyers, they just care if they have the money to spend.


What you describe has already happened...
The $9000 Leica M11 and its $3000 plus lenses is certainly rather aimed at enthusiasts than at pros. Sadly, also at collectors. This seems to be a stable, even expanding market. Customers who simply want (and can afford) the very best.
You may also take a look at the bicycle market. $13000 have begun to seem acceptable for high-end enduros. 10 years ago, $6000 or less were paid for the expensive ones.
And I also agree with you on the importance -for Canon cameras- of the number "1".
But it's not my aim to say that these customers can't be excellent photographers as well.
PS: I want the M11...


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> And I also agree with you on the importance -for Canon cameras- of the number "1".
> But it's not my aim to say that these customers can't be excellent photographers as well.
> PS: I want the M11...



On the other hand, I'm* definitely *the weak link in my partnership with my R5.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 12, 2022)

SteveC said:


> On the other hand, I'm* definitely *the weak link in my partnership with my R5.


Don't you worry, you're not alone.


----------



## Pixel (Oct 13, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> A friend who shoots for a Gannett owned local newspaper (and who also provides national Gannett coverage for the major college football team in his local paper's hometown) recently had his Canon gear (most of which had been around since before Gannett purchased the newspaper) replaced with Nikon, being told the long-term plan was to go with Sony.


Yes, Gannet has been in the transition to Sony for some time now. The Nikon replacements probably were hand me downs from papers already moved to Sony. That's what they're doing around here. When the Indy Star moved to Sony the smaller Gannet papers around the state got their old Canon equipment. Eventually all Gannet papers will all be Sony.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 16, 2022)

One quote the Canon Rumors recently posted was that the R1 will be “jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything.”

Along those lines ,I hypothesize that Canon is working on a BSI stacked sensor along the same lines of the sensor found in the Leica M11. The Leica M11 sensor can output full frame RAW files at either 60 MP/36MP/18MP. I think it would be quite remarkable if Canon did 80 MP/48MP/24 MP range. At the low end the resolution would match the R3. In the middle resolution you could basically have a pixel binned 8K output and for those with the need you would also have 80 MP resolution. 

Lastly, this entire post is speculation and my math could be off. Have fun, but looks like 2023 and 2024 are going to be expensive years.


----------



## JohnC (Oct 17, 2022)

john1970 said:


> One quote the Canon Rumors recently posted was that the R1 will be “jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything.”
> 
> Along those lines ,I hypothesize that Canon is working on a BSI stacked sensor along the same lines of the sensor found in the Leica M11. The Leica M11 sensor can output full frame RAW files at either 60 MP/36MP/18MP. I think it would be quite remarkable if Canon did 80 MP/48MP/24 MP range. At the low end the resolution would match the R3. In the middle resolution you could basically have a pixel binned 8K output and for those with the need you would also have 80 MP resolution.
> 
> Lastly, this entire post is speculation and my math could be off. Have fun, but looks like 2023 and 2024 are going to be expensive years.


This is the direction I think they are moving as well, although you stated it far better than I have. 

I do wonder about the 1 series form factor for studio and especially landscape. It tends to be larger than needed for those use cases.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 17, 2022)

john1970 said:


> One quote the Canon Rumors recently posted was that the R1 will be “jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything.”
> 
> Along those lines ,I hypothesize that Canon is working on a BSI stacked sensor along the same lines of the sensor found in the Leica M11. The Leica M11 sensor can output full frame RAW files at either 60 MP/36MP/18MP. I think it would be quite remarkable if Canon did 80 MP/48MP/24 MP range. At the low end the resolution would match the R3. In the middle resolution you could basically have a pixel binned 8K output and for those with the need you would also have 80 MP resolution.
> 
> Lastly, this entire post is speculation and my math could be off. Have fun, but looks like 2023 and 2024 are going to be expensive years.


80/48/24 does not make sense as raw modes, unless 48 and 24 are cropping modes.
For a binning mode, 2x in both horizontal and vertical would make sense, so 80/20/5. Everything else would require a interpolation between neighbouring pixels and would get big frowns from the purists.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 17, 2022)

kaihp said:


> 80/48/24 does not make sense as raw modes, unless 48 and 24 are cropping modes.
> For a binning mode, 2x in both horizontal and vertical would make sense, so 80/20/5. Everything else would require an interpolation between neighbouring pixels and would get big frowns from the purists.


A lot of people still believe mRAW and sRAW are actually RAW and not debayered, downscaled TIFFs. So the purists would need to be informed purists


----------



## kaihp (Oct 17, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> A lot of people still believe mRAW and sRAW are actually RAW and not debayered, downscaled TIFFs. So the purists would need to be informed purists


Uninformed purists are the worst purists


----------

