# The Canon EOS R1 is coming, here are a few things to expect



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2021)

> While we still wait for the Canon EOS R3 to begin shipping, and witness a Nikon comeback with the exciting Z 9, there are obviously questions now on how Canon will respond with an EOS R1, which is all but guaranteed to be coming in 2022.
> When is the Canon EOS R1 coming?
> I have been told we should expect the Canon EOS R1 to begin shipping in Q4 of 2022. An announcement may come as early as Q3.
> Will the Canon EOS R1 have a global shutter?
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

Was there any mention of it having low res mode ~20 MP for High ISO sensitivity and a high res mode (~80 MP) for additional cropping capability? Something along the lines of a quad pixel array.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

Global shutter would have been a big differentiator. Lacking that, more MP will just bring it in line with Nikon and Sony offerings, unless it's way more MP (e.g. 80 MP). Unless there's a low-res binned mode as @john1970 suggests, with a much faster frame rate associated, it won't really be a jack of all trades, more like a 5Ds in a 1-series body. 

Hopefully we'll see Canon bring out orthogonal AF lines (cross-type AF) in the R1. 

I am still thinking we'll see an R5s that is 70-80 MP with low fps, and a longer wait for the R1 that will have ~30 MP, 40 fps with a really deep buffer, along with cross-type AF.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2021)

Not having cross type AF points is a very obvious step backward that is evident almost every time I shoot - not saying it's huge but I'm aware of it.

Jack


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 29, 2021)

R1 beware: Nikon's Z9 costs $5500 !
But I'm confident...


----------



## Rocksthaman (Oct 29, 2021)

Nikons price to performance is going to be tough to come close to. They also don’t have a cinema line to hold features for. If it’s $7000+, I just don’t know what more the R1 can be that’s $1500 better and also not “crippled” on the video side. 

Nikon has a chance to make a splash if they can get the camera shipped. They also need a third dial, that would drive me crazy.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2021)

_“A jack of all trades, and a master of none. Except that it will be a master of everything.”_

That really makes no sense.

But bring the R1 on with insanely high MP count.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Was there any mention of it having low res mode ~20 MP for High ISO sensitivity and a high res mode (~80 MP) for additional cropping capability? Something along the lines of a quad pixel array.


I think the days of low resolution = higher ISO sensitivity are pretty much over thanks to modern sensor technology. As as user of both the 1DX III and the R5, I see little to no difference in noise at high ISOs between the two. Resolution, does however, impact how fast you can push those megapixels through the pipeline along with editing speed once the files are downloaded.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2021)

As much as the possibility of an R1 in a year makes me second guess my R3 pre-order, the reality is that everything I need is going to be covered by my R5's 45 megapixels and the R3's 30 FPS. 

I think it's far more likely that my next camera body after the R3 will be the R5 Mark II, and whatever that brings with it. I know we probably won't see that for a few years, but after the R3 my biggest priority will be RF glass. I'd rather spend $9000 in a year or two on a new RF 300mm f/2.8 or RF 200-500mm F/4. 

That said, I think Canon is really going to bring the big guns on the R1, so I could be pleasantly surprised. It's hard to honestly even imagine what else I could want from a camera that the R5 or R3 doesn't already do.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The R1 will have to match the alpha-1 and the Z9 in both therms of MP and FPS. Bother camera set a high bar to match, or even improve. Global shutter could be the game changer.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 29, 2021)

I can't keep wondering how the R1 will compete against the $5500 Nikon Z9...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I can't keep wondering how the R1 will compete against the $5500 Nikon Z9...


I keep wondering why people think it needs to...


----------



## docsmith (Oct 29, 2021)

Canon wanting to reassure everyone that the R1 is coming sooner rather than later? 

The description makes me think 60 MP, 20 FPS, 8 GB buffer, and quad-pixel AF. Incremental advances to the different eye AFs, eye-control AF, etc.

That would be a killer camera. Personally, I'd prefer 30-36 MPs. But I'd absolutely consider an R1 with those specs.


----------



## amorse (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am still thinking we'll see an R5s that is 70-80 MP with low fps, and a longer wait for the R1 that will have ~30 MP, 40 fps with a really deep buffer, along with cross-type AF.


Speaking with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I have a hard time believing a higher resolution body is coming first, but boy would I be happy if you were right. I can't help but think an R1 would be a higher priority. With that said, there were rumours of the higher resolution body for so long that I can't help but wonder if it was put on hold much farther into its development process, and launching it sooner may just be easier to finish than finalizing an R1 at this moment.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Oct 29, 2021)

Jack of all trades, master of everything... is what a flagship should be.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Oct 29, 2021)

I've no doubt there are people that will never be satisfied with the number of pixels a camera's sensor has and will always want more. For me, 45mp on the R5 is a sweet spot. Anything bigger would just slow down my process. For those suggesting 60mp or higher, that's a lot of mp for full frame sensor, may as well move into medium format if that's a big requirement.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 29, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> As much as the possibility of an R1 in a year makes me second guess my R3 pre-order, the reality is that everything I need is going to be covered by my R5's 45 megapixels and the R3's 30 FPS.
> 
> I think it's far more likely that my next camera body after the R3 will be the R5 Mark II, and whatever that brings with it. I know we probably won't see that for a few years, but after the R3 my biggest priority will be RF glass. I'd rather spend $9000 in a year or two on a new RF 300mm f/2.8 or RF 200-500mm F/4.
> 
> That said, I think Canon is really going to bring the big guns on the R1, so I could be pleasantly surprised. It's hard to honestly even imagine what else I could want from a camera that the R5 or R3 doesn't already do.


R5 45MP, R3 stack sensor of 30FPS full uncompressed image, that is the bar for the R1.


----------



## woodman411 (Oct 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I can't keep wondering how the R1 will compete against the $5500 Nikon Z9...



Why? The Z9's major weakness among high performance bodies is not being able to do 30fps raw. Sorry, 30fps jpeg is a cop-out, and it seems 120fps 11mp is extremely niche. For the target audience of pro action photographers, to me the R3 is still much more capable than the Z9 because of the 30fps raw, despite the lower resolution which again, for the target audience, is not an issue.


----------



## bergstrom (Oct 29, 2021)

Why is canon overpricing this at $10k. Just have to wait for a proper RP replacement.


----------



## bellorusso (Oct 29, 2021)

I hope R1 will have triple card slots for three different card types and also maybe a mini-DVD slot, so no one would feel left out. Why follow Sony and Nikon with that nonsense with dual slots of the same type? What are they, insane?


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 29, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> I've no doubt there are people that will never be satisfied with the number of pixels a camera's sensor has and will always want more. For me, 45mp on the R5 is a sweet spot. Anything bigger would just slow down my process. For those suggesting 60mp or higher, that's a lot of mp for full frame sensor, may as well move into medium format if that's a big requirement.


The new M1 Max chips from apple should make easy work of it I hope as I’ll be upgrading soon.


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 29, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Why is canon overpricing this at $10k. Just have to wait for a proper RP replacement.


No one said it would cost that much.


----------



## jimmy623 (Oct 29, 2021)

Not sure if this is a popular opinion. I know R1 is gonna be the flagship and aiming at real pros but I would really love if R1 doesn't come with a battery grip by default like the Sony A1. I wouldn't mind much if the body is reasonably bigger than the R5 but a square camera like the R3 is just too big to carry.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Oct 29, 2021)

jimmy623 said:


> Not sure if this is a popular opinion. I know R1 is gonna be the flagship and aiming at real pros but I would really love if R1 doesn't come with a battery grip by default like the Sony A1. I wouldn't mind much if the body is reasonably bigger than the R5 but a square camera like the R3 is just too big to carry.


Not sure that's going to be a thing. The battery style of the pro line is not something that's going to fit in just the standard camera body.


----------



## slclick (Oct 29, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Why is canon overpricing this at $10k. Just have to wait for a proper RP replacement.


Try reading the article again


----------



## slclick (Oct 29, 2021)

jimmy623 said:


> Not sure if this is a popular opinion. I know R1 is gonna be the flagship and aiming at real pros but I would really love if R1 doesn't come with a battery grip by default like the Sony A1. I wouldn't mind much if the body is reasonably bigger than the R5 but a square camera like the R3 is just too big to carry.


Us larger handed folx have no issues. I understand if your mileage may vary


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


If it’s less likely to see global shutter development because of faster scan rates how does that affect flash sync speeds going forward? Will they be able to have a flash sync speed with faster readouts? As a portrait photographer that does a lot of mixing ambient daylight and flash, a high flash sync speed (like 1/2,000s +) is the only thing I wish for ) other than ever improved eye AF). 
If I could shoot wide open at f1.2 in bright sunlight with flash and not have rely on the compromise of HSS, HS, or ND filters which require large powerful strobes at close working distances to compensate that would be a major game changer and be a huge selling point. 
If you could do flash sync at any shutter speed you could totally get by with just the small portable Canon speed lights (which are excellent but I had to sell all 6 of mine and buy big mono lights because of the need for more power when mixing daylight and flash, which speed lights can’t handle. Or you could maximize the full power of those big mono lights rather than just requiring them to compensate for the loss of power, which in effect makes your mono lights drop to about the power of a couple speed lights once you add HSS, HS, or ND filters into the mix. 
come on Canon address the flash sync issue already and give us flash sync at any shutter speed (meaning the fastest speeds like 1/8000).


Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> Try reading the article again


I think you need to read it again. It says …”but I don’t think we’re going to see the return of $10,000 camera bodies” meaning more than likely it will not cost that much for a flagship camera going forward as that’s not viable anymore.


----------



## Alan B (Oct 29, 2021)

Awaits Jeff Cable with a "pre-production" at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics in February, to give us the Exif Data


----------



## ethanz (Oct 29, 2021)

bellorusso said:


> I hope R1 will have triple card slots for three different card types and also maybe a mini-DVD slot, so no one would feel left out. Why follow Sony and Nikon with that nonsense with dual slots of the same type? What are they, insane?


I had one of those Sony Mavica mini-cd cameras a long time ago. Interesting camera.


----------



## jimmy623 (Oct 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> Us larger handed folx have no issues. I understand if your mileage may vary


It's not that I don't have big enough hands to handle it. It's just smaller bodies have more flexibility. A battery grip can always be added to a smaller body if needed but can't say the same in reverse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

jimmy623 said:


> It's not that I don't have big enough hands to handle it. It's just smaller bodies have more flexibility. A battery grip can always be added to a smaller body if needed but can't say the same in reverse.


Ergonomics is very personal thing. I’ve used Canon battery grips on three different bodies before getting the 1DX. The integrated group is much more comfortable for me. The add-on grips bulge in front and back to accommodate transverse batteries whereas the 1-series bulges only in front. The vibration introduced can also be problematic when on a tripod, but removing and replacing the grip frequently is a PITA.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

If the R1 is really only a year away from release this does make me wonder if I should just keep my R5, rent a R3 when I need a second body and just wait for a R1. I anticipated that the R1 was at least two years away, but if this is correct it will be here sooner rather than later.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

Launching the R1 with mindblowing specs and 50mpix sensor ASAP is the only smart thing to do now…


Please take notice of this (my) point of view:

Canon made the biggest mistake ever to use a 24mpix sensor in their flagship whilst competition is already using 45 or 50mpix. A result of years and years of sleeping R&D department. Canon was top of the list, who could possibly beat them? Best camera’s, best lenses, what could go wrong? No need for mind blowing new development, just some ISO and FPS improvement and pro’s would upgrade their bodies once in every four years.

And then competition (Sony) caused some earthquakes in the camera scene.

That is why they suddenly called this camera the R3 instead of R1 and came up with some BS story about press and sports photographers needing smaller files to transfer. If that was the real case then they would have made an option for shooting Medium Raw (half size) and Full Raw. Believe me, the R3 ís the R1, but Canon got the surprise of their lives when Sony popped up with the A1 with 50mpix and then quickly named it R3.

Just common sense …


----------



## Rumours not rumors (Oct 29, 2021)

The shutter and mirror box mechanism represents a substantial chunk of the manufacturing cost of an EOS 1D X Mk III due to the complex mechanical design needed to make all those tiny parts stop and start over and over at an insane rate and to be durable enough to have a reasonable lifespan. Mirrorless already have the mirror box dumped and if the image sensor can perform the functions of the mechanical shutter so it too is eliminated, that significantly reduces the cost to build a beast and frees up a lot of space in the design. High speed shutter mechanisms also consume a lot of the overall power consumption. The day will come where no DSLR camera uses a shutter for exposure but for now it will only be those with state-of-the-art sensors which means no costs of replacing failed shutters that have flapped themselves to oblivion often at the most inconvenient time. Roll on technology.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

And think twice when buying the R3, by the time the R1 hits the market, nobody wants an R3 anymore. Maybe some hobby planespotter, but your 6000 euro investment will be shattered in just a year.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Launching the R1 with mindblowing specs and 50mpix sensor ASAP is the only smart thing to do now…
> 
> 
> Please take notice of this (my) point of view:
> ...



"Common sense" when you completely ignore the fact that Canon was the market disruptor in the first place. Canon launched the R5 at 20 fps, 45 megapixels for $2500 less than the A1 came out after the fact. Canon knew what they were doing when they made the R5. And they definitely knew that the R5 was the first shot across the bow of competitors in building high speed, high megapixel cameras.

The R3 was always built to be a response to the $4500 A9 sports camera, not to be an actual flagship camera. 

It's like saying that Sony has completely obliterated their own A9 by releasing the A1. That's just not the case whatsoever. There will be an A9 Mark III and it will continue to have a place in their line-up. There is a market for low MP, high FPS, high buffer cameras and will continue to be. Everyone in the market knew that this was the way things were going, and Canon knew that when they released an A1 competitor for 2500 bucks less before Sony even had the chance to announce their version of it.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> And think twice when buying the R3, by the time the R1 hits the market, nobody wants an R3 anymore. Maybe some hobby planespotter, but your 6000 euro investment will be shattered in just a year.


Hysterical to even say this when to this day Canon continues to sell the $6500 1DX Mark III brand new to countless people including major organizations.

I've had my 1dx mark II for almost six years now and yet I'll still be selling it for a significant amount once my R3 arrives. But sure. Keep trolling.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> I've no doubt there are people that will never be satisfied with the number of pixels a camera's sensor has and will always want more. For me, 45mp on the R5 is a sweet spot. Anything bigger would just slow down my process. For those suggesting 60mp or higher, that's a lot of mp for full frame sensor, may as well move into medium format if that's a big requirement.


Exactly … if Canon is smart, they put all the R3 specs into the R1, hook it up with a 45mpix sensor and launch this camera as F****** SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> "Common sense" when you completely ignore the fact that Canon was the market disruptor in the first place. Canon launched the R5 at 20 fps, 45 megapixels for $2500 less than the A1 came out after the fact. Canon knew what they were doing when they made the R5. And they definitely knew that the R5 was the first shot across the bow of competitors in building high speed, high megapixel cameras.
> 
> The R3 was always built to be a response to the $4500 A9 sports camera, not to be an actual flagship camera.
> 
> It's like saying that Sony has completely obliterated their own A9 by releasing the A1. That's just not the case whatsoever. There will be an A9 Mark III and it will continue to have a place in their line-up. There is a market for low MP, high FPS, high buffer cameras and will continue to be. Everyone in the market knew that this was the way things were going, and Canon knew that when they released an A1 competitor for 2500 bucks less before Sony even had the chance to announce their version of it.


Ok, you’ve got a point here, true.
The thing is, the R5 is not a Flagship camera with inbuilt battery grip and weathersealed body. Neither is the A1, so that’s not an argument. But why is Canon launching small bodies (R5) now that outperform the flagships (1Dx) ???


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

jimmy623 said:


> Not sure if this is a popular opinion. I know R1 is gonna be the flagship and aiming at real pros but I would really love if R1 doesn't come with a battery grip by default like the Sony A1. I wouldn't mind much if the body is reasonably bigger than the R5 but a square camera like the R3 is just too big to carry.


The R1 will be the EXACT body of the R3. No need to worry about that…


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Hysterical to even say this when to this day Canon continues to sell the $6500 1DX Mark III brand new to countless people including major organizations.
> 
> I've had my 1dx mark II for almost six years now and yet I'll still be selling it for a significant amount once my R3 arrives. But sure. Keep trolling.


Hahahaha… name me 3 major organizations that have bought 1Dx III bodies after the announcement of the R3.

So easy to call me a troll bro, if you read my posts you know I am using 1dx series myself.


----------



## Canfan (Oct 29, 2021)

Camera specs aside, would like to see a fingerprint sensor or some kinda security built into a pro camera for once like in cellphones, since this has been implemented theft has gone down. Insurance only does so much. Can’t be that hard ass it is already well established tech.

Being robbed at gunpoint or burglars following you home to your family just to get his hands on your R1 doesn’t sit right. Sure you can just hand it over and claim insurance but there is always a chance that they could pull the trigger for fun. 
think canon can play its part to protect its consumer base. Sony and others will no doubt follow.


----------



## slclick (Oct 29, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I think you need to read it again. It says …”but I don’t think we’re going to see the return of $10,000 camera bodies” meaning more than likely it will not cost that much for a flagship camera going forward as that’s not viable anymore.


You make me laugh corrector of correctors


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

Canfan said:


> Camera specs aside, would like to see a fingerprint sensor or some kinda security built into a pro camera for once like in cellphones, since this has been implemented theft has gone down. Insurance only does so much. Can’t be that hard ass it is already well established tech.


Built in security would be great. I would prefer a PIN that one has to enter every 30 days to unlock the camera. Secure enough to discourage stealing, but not in the way of being able to use the camera.


----------



## slclick (Oct 29, 2021)

jimmy623 said:


> It's not that I don't have big enough hands to handle it. It's just smaller bodies have more flexibility. A battery grip can always be added to a smaller body if needed but can't say the same in reverse.


There is no shortage of smaller cameras on the market. Unless a unicorn is the only camera with specs which can satisfy your personal shooting parameters.


----------



## jam05 (Oct 29, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> Nikons price to performance is going to be tough to come close to. They also don’t have a cinema line to hold features for. If it’s $7000+, I just don’t know what more the R1 can be that’s $1500 better and also not “crippled” on the video side.
> 
> Nikon has a chance to make a splash if they can get the camera shipped. They also need a third dial, that would drive me crazy.


Well, with all those video specs of the Z9 based on "external recording" it won't be hard to match. The R5 itself records internal as well as external.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> The R1 will be the EXACT body of the R3. No need to worry about that…


I would not be so sure on that one. I saw a few official Canon reps say that while the R3 has the same weather sealing as a 1 series camera it does not have the same build quality / construction. For example, I remember them explicitly stating that a vari-angle screen would never be on a 1-series camera because it is not robust enough. This might mean that Canon does a 1-series screen similar to the Nikon Z9 of Fuji GFX100S. I suspect the R1 might be marginally larger than a R3 and weigh a bit more as well. Don't get me wrong I like the weight savings of the R3 vs. 1Dx body.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> As much as the possibility of an R1 in a year makes me second guess my R3 pre-order, the reality is that everything I need is going to be covered by my R5's 45 megapixels and the R3's 30 FPS.
> 
> I think it's far more likely that my next camera body after the R3 will be the R5 Mark II, and whatever that brings with it. I know we probably won't see that for a few years, but after the R3 my biggest priority will be RF glass. I'd rather spend $9000 in a year or two on a new RF 300mm f/2.8 or RF 200-500mm F/4.
> 
> That said, I think Canon is really going to bring the big guns on the R1, so I could be pleasantly surprised. It's hard to honestly even imagine what else I could want from a camera that the R5 or R3 doesn't already do.


Keep spending your money on R5 and R3, and soon R5 mark II, whatever rocks your boat bro! I’ll wait for just the perfect all-in-one camera. Let’s hope the R1 will come in 2022 and that it will be affordable.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I would not be so sure on that one. I saw a few official Canon reps say that while the R3 has the same weather sealing as a 1 series camera it does not have the same build quality / construction. For example, I remember them explicitly stating that a vari-angle screen would never be on a 1-series camera because it is not robust enough. This might mean that Canon does a 1-series screen similar to the Nikon Z9 of Fuji GFX100S. I suspect the R1 might be marginally larger than a R3 and weigh a bit more as well. Don't get me wrong I like the weight savings of the R3 vs. 1Dx body.


Sure, it might have a fixed screen instead of this weird not exactly straight vari-angle thing on the R3. But what I mean is: THE BODY IS HERE ALREADY, JUST PUT A DECENT SENSOR IN IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE!


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

bellorusso said:


> I hope R1 will have triple card slots for three different card types and also maybe a mini-DVD slot, so no one would feel left out. Why follow Sony and Nikon with that nonsense with dual slots of the same type? What are they, insane?


I hope it has 4 card slots and some space to store my post-it notes and if possible a cup holder on the side.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep wondering why people think it needs to...


I can imagine young professional photographers who have not yet heavily invested into a system or brand being tempted by Nikon's attractive pricing.


----------



## John Wilde (Oct 29, 2021)

Sony makes such old-fashioned cameras. 

The don't have Eye Control Autofocus like the R3.

The don't have a shutterless camera like the the Z9.

So sad.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> I've no doubt there are people that will never be satisfied with the number of pixels a camera's sensor has and will always want more. For me, 45mp on the R5 is a sweet spot. Anything bigger would just slow down my process. For those suggesting 60mp or higher, that's a lot of mp for full frame sensor, may as well move into medium format if that's a big requirement.


Sure, a 45mpix sensor is fine! But just put a PRO BODY around it!!!!!


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Sure, it might have a fixed screen instead of this weird not exactly straight vari-angle thing on the R3. But what I mean is: THE BODY IS HERE ALREADY, JUST PUT A DECENT SENSOR IN IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE!


I second that opinion!! Currently use a R5 and am considering just renting a second R5 when I need it until the R1 is released.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

Just waiting for the Neuroanatomist to reply to all my great posts…


----------



## D Prime (Oct 29, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> For those suggesting 60mp or higher, that's a lot of mp for full frame sensor, may as well move into medium format if that's a big requirement.



The GFX line doesn't have the lenses I want. (And I tried a zillion EF-GFX adapters with the 100S that I rented -- none of them worked.) The "full sized" medium-format vendors don't have the lenses or good IS or framerate, and most of those camera bodies are _well_ outside my price range.

At this point, I'm waiting for some vendor to show up with a 90MP+ camera with a (35mm-equivalent) 600mm f/4 lens or 400mm f/2.8 + 1.4X teleconverter, with good MTF, that has a reasonable (5fps+) framerate, and which I can shoot hand-held in full sunlight. Basically, a field-of-view upgrade to my R5/800mm f/5.6 setup.

Right now, it looks like that'll be Sony's a7R V in a few years, but Fuji could (finally) build a 600mm f/4 GFX lens or Canon could (finally) release an R5S. Or Nikon could come out of left field with a high MP body -- their rumored Z mount 400mm f/2.8 with built-in 1.4X teleconverter would be a really nice pairing with a high-MP body.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Global shutter would have been a big differentiator. Lacking that, more MP will just bring it in line with Nikon and Sony offerings, unless it's way more MP (e.g. 80 MP). Unless there's a low-res binned mode as @john1970 suggests, with a much faster frame rate associated, it won't really be a jack of all trades, more like a 5Ds in a 1-series body.
> 
> Hopefully we'll see Canon bring out orthogonal AF lines (cross-type AF) in the R1.
> 
> I am still thinking we'll see an R5s that is 70-80 MP with low fps, and a longer wait for the R1 that will have ~30 MP, 40 fps with a really deep buffer, along with cross-type AF.



I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


----------



## entoman (Oct 29, 2021)

My opinion, FWIW:

By the time the R1 is launched, a year from now if we’re lucky, market forces and revised pricing from the manufacturers will probably result in the price of the R3 dropping below $5000 and the R5 will be well below $3000. The Sony A1 will be down to $4200 and the Nikon Z9 will be hovering at about $5200.

Consequently I’d hope and expect that the R1 would at a maximum be $6500. If it isn’t, it’ll be a hard sell for Canon - not necessarily because people will switch brands, but because they can’t afford or can’t justify crazy prices, given that most of the target market will already be using very high performing gear.

R1 specification?:

Ultra-fast readout stacked CMOS.
Resolution will hopefully be switchable between circa 22/45/90 MP via quad-pixel technology.
Eye-control AF, and advanced AI subject recognition and tracking, with the camera being able to recognise the subject-type without the user having to select animals/cars/people etc.
Ultra hi-res EVF with “natural” option and zero blackout, regardless of AF mode or burst speed.
User selectable maximum burst speeds of 5, 10, 20, 40, 80fps.
Gripped and with more powerful battery than R3.
Will I buy it? Nope. I’ll wait for the R5 Mkii and hope that some of the R3/R1 technology filters down.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


That suggests some significant compromises on frame rate. It also suggests Canon is going back to the old 1D / 1Ds split, with the part of the 1D being played by the R3.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That suggests some significant compromises on frame rate. It also suggests Canon is going back to the old 1D / 1Ds split, with the part of the 1D being played by the R3.


That is what I am think as well. Ugh... I really hope that they offer some form of pixel binning, but only time will tell. If 80 MP I would suspect that the upper limit on frame rate would be ~15 fps, but then again I could be wrong. If the new camera has the next generation Digic processor maybe it will be able to move 80 MP of data at 20 fps to the buffer and then buffer to CFE cards at 1.5 GB / sec. That is pushing the CFE type B to the limit.

I do wonder how fast cameras will move data in the future, but I did just order a WD SSD drive that writes data at 5.3 GB/sec!


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 29, 2021)

Are we heading for 15 months of R1 rumoring from now on?


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 29, 2021)

woodman411 said:


> Why? The Z9's major weakness among high performance bodies is not being able to do 30fps raw. Sorry, 30fps jpeg is a cop-out, and it seems 120fps 11mp is extremely niche. For the target audience of pro action photographers, to me the R3 is still much more capable than the Z9 because of the 30fps raw, despite the lower resolution which again, for the target audience, is not an issue.


I bet this was a design decision to get the cost down. Most high speed shooters are doing sports, and have deadlines within MINUTES of the end of an event. Jeff Cable, the guy of R3 test fame at the olympics, had to have all his photos sorted, processed and transferred within 15minutes of an event. No time for RAW processing anyway. 

Brian


----------



## h2so4 (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Keep spending your money on R5 and R3, and soon R5 mark II, whatever rocks your boat bro! I’ll wait for just the perfect all-in-one camera. Let’s hope the R1 will come in 2022 and that it will be affordable.


If you wait for the perfect camera to come along you will never buy anything. All cameras are a collection of compromises.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 29, 2021)

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Canon has got to be unhappy about Nikon's aggressive pricing scheme. 

So many semi-random thoughts:

I would not be surprised to see an R1 come it at the same price as the 1Dx III. They probably wanted to price it much higher, but I'm guessing they'll take another look at the numbers now that they know what Nikon is doing. Traditionally the two flagships have mirrored each other. But, they also usually come out within a few months of each other as well.

I think it's smart of Canon to wait another year before releasing the R1. Gives them time to get feedback from the R3 and tweak things like eye-control autofocus, which seems to be the main spec advantage the R3 will have over both Sony and Nikon.

Interesting that Nikon has dropped the mechanical shutter. I was surprised that electronic shutter is the default mode of the R3, so I guess Nikon decided to go all in.

In my ideal world, Canon would provide R3 owners with regular firmware upgrades to tweak eye-control and add value to the body. It which would also give them a handy test bed for the R1.

Will Canon deliberately shift its R1 release cycle to a year or so after Nikon, giving them the opportunity to offer new features that the previous Nikon model doesn't have?

Will the R3 remain in the lineup over the long term, or will it be a one-off? If it is a permanent addition, will the R3 be to the R1 what the R6 is to the R5?

Is the market large enough to support both an R3 and an R1? I suspect it might be if the R3 becomes the "bargain" camera for workings sports photographers and photojournalists in secondary markets, while the R1 gets targeted to well-healed enthusiasts and to photographers in elite sports markets like @GoldWing.

Regardless, it will be fun to see how all this plays out.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Are we heading for 15 months of R1 rumoring from now on?


Yes.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 29, 2021)

God let’s hope they release more f/11 lenses with the R1!!!

A 50mm f/11 or 24-70 f/11 would be incredible! And would really set them apart from Sony & Nikons outdated “fast glass.”


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> God let’s hope they release more f/11 lenses with the R1!!!
> 
> A 50mm f/11 or 24-70 f/11 would be incredible! And would really set them apart from Sony & Nikons outdated “fast glass.”


Do Sony or Nikon have an 800mm lens costing under $1K? Do they have a native MILC 800mm lens at any price?


----------



## Chig (Oct 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Are we heading for 15 months of R1 rumoring from now on?


3 years is more likely until it turns up just before Paris 2024 Olympics with I predict:

at most 30mp
40-50 fps
global electronic shutter
no mechanical shutter


----------



## Chig (Oct 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


You know for a fact Mr rumour guy ?


----------



## mpmark (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Was there any mention of it having low res mode ~20 MP for High ISO sensitivity and a high res mode (~80 MP) for additional cropping capability? Something along the lines of a quad pixel array.


I highly doubt it will be 80mp, t quips make sense to come in at 50mp based on the competition.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 30, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


At least double???? At 60 MB x 20 fps = 1200 MB/sec. 8 GB (my guess, but it would fit with a "1" series performance) buffer is 130 images. Most CFe Type B cards are writing in camera at ~500 MB/sec, so that is 16 sec to clear the buffer. If you start going more than double Neuro's 30 MP, those numbers start getting crazy fast (memory for buffer depth, time to clear buffer, etc). Unless 60.2 MP...then..ok.... Otherwise, CFe Type B will need to get closer to their spec or we are looking at CFe Type C cards (which aren't even released yet).

edit…unless we are going to see a more significant transition to CRAW.


----------



## Otara (Oct 30, 2021)

New dual-eye acquisition device external interface system (DEAD-EIS) allows AF selection and settings adjustment simultaneously. Some practice may be necessary, migraine medication available as standard extra.


----------



## JamesG25 (Oct 30, 2021)

docsmith said:


> At least double???? At 60 MB x 20 fps = 1200 MB/sec. 8 GB (my guess, but it would fit with a "1" series performance) buffer is 130 images. Most CFe Type B cards are writing in camera at ~500 MB/sec, so that is 16 sec to clear the buffer. If you start going more than double Neuro's 30 MP, those numbers start getting crazy fast (memory for buffer depth, time to clear buffer, etc). Unless 60.2 MP...then..ok.... Otherwise, CFe Type B will need to get closer to their spec or we are looking at CFe Type C cards (which aren't even released yet).
> 
> edit…unless we are going to see a more significant transition to CRAW.


I agree with your point that the perfect camera is really having an R5 and an R3 and picking the right tool for the job. I recognize that means $10000 in bodies but I actually think having 2 fantastic bodies is preferable to having one $7000-8000 R1 body


----------



## AEWest (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Exactly … if Canon is smart, they put all the R3 specs into the R1, hook it up with a 45mpix sensor and launch this camera as F****** SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!


I believe the R1 needs to be more than a higher mp R3. Something different. More of a studio camera first. 16 bit files to battle Fuji medium format , 80 mp, pixel binned to 20 mp at 20 fps for occasional sports work.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 30, 2021)

docsmith said:


> At least double???? At 60 MB x 20 fps = 1200 MB/sec. 8 GB (my guess, but it would fit with a "1" series performance) buffer is 130 images. Most CFe Type B cards are writing in camera at ~500 MB/sec, so that is 16 sec to clear the buffer. If you start going more than double Neuro's 30 MP, those numbers start getting crazy fast (memory for buffer depth, time to clear buffer, etc). Unless 60.2 MP...then..ok.... Otherwise, CFe Type B will need to get closer to their spec or we are looking at CFe Type C cards (which aren't even released yet).
> 
> edit…unless we are going to see a more significant transition to CRAW.


I think that canon’s flagship wouldn’t have their top speed based on lossy compressed formats. No problems as an option of course.
Hopefully less asterisks  
Dual digix is possible based on previous 1DX or possibly going for a new system in chip with significant shared buffer memory .
Canon hasn’t formally approved any cfe cards running at 500Mb/s write speed for the 1DXiii/R5. Only the higher speed ones are listed although most users say that the smaller sandisk cards are ok.
Bit depth at the higher speeds will dictate the max write speed needed. Could be 80mp raw @ 10fps and over sampled 20mp at 40fps. Best of both worlds if 14 bit depth is maintained. 
Would users accept oversampled being equivalent or better than raw?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Are we heading for 15 months of R1 rumoring from now on?


Yes, it's part of the marketing strategy to make the announcements early, trickle feed specifications over a prolonged period, build up the hype as much as possible to and drive up the amount of pre-orders from customers who are willing to buy something they've never seen and which hasn't been tested by anyone. Standard marketing practice...


----------



## landon (Oct 30, 2021)

"One could say that such a camera could be the long-rumoured “EOS R5s”, but I haven’t heard anything about such a camera in a long time. Canon may feel the market is fine with 45mp at that price point and that people that want more, are going to be willing to pay more."

So if pro wants more than 45mp, will need to wait for R1. There will not be R5s.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


If true, then what I've suspected for awhile is probably true as well. 

The 1 series is transitioning from a tool for photojournalists and sports photographers to a aspirational body for enthusiasts. Makes sense, since the photojournalism/sports market is dying and enthusiasts are now driving camera company earnings. Canon has to follow the money.

Of course there will be a handful of top tier users that may still buy the R1 for professional use, but for the bulk of people shooting sports or news for a living, a more modest R3 makes sense.


----------



## Chig (Oct 30, 2021)

Not sure why so many people think the R1 will be coming earlier than the next summer Olympics in 2024 or that it will be high mp resolution, perhaps it's wish fulfilment on their part ?
Perhaps it's thought that Canon must compete with:

The amateurish overpriced Alpha 1 "flagship" from Sony which has 50mp but it's also got their rubbish ergonomics and laughable user interface and very similar specs to the much cheaper R5
The Nikon Z9 which has good ergonomics and U.I. but specs very similar to the R5 and nearly as good autofocus as Sony and Canon and seems to be an excellent camera but really are Canon (or Sony) users going to sell their gear and switch to Nikon ?
I think there's a specialised market for a high resolution Canon body and Canon will probably make a high mp version of the R5 to meet the needs of those hoping for such a camera but this won't be their flagship R1 which will be another sports/photo-journalised high speed rugged body of medium resolution.

Personally I'd like Canon to make an R2 camera based on the R3 with high resolution for wildlife but I doubt it'll happen even though it may be a good seller

We'll just have to wait to see what the R1 turns out like but I doubt it'll be soon.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I hope it has 4 card slots and some space to store my post-it notes and if possible a cup holder on the side.


And ice maker would be nice. It could also help solve overheating problems.


----------



## Chig (Oct 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> And ice maker would be nice. It could also help solve overheating problems.


Special USA version with cup holders and a gun rack ?


----------



## masterpix (Oct 30, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


As for global shutter, it is not just readout speed, it is also to "stop motion" and reduce "rolling shutter" effects, which will make motion capture something that we've never seen before.


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2021)

This post saying nothing meaninful.


----------



## GoldWing (Oct 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Canon has got to be unhappy about Nikon's aggressive pricing scheme.
> 
> So many semi-random thoughts:
> 
> ...


Canon needs to double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII. That's it.

What's scary now if you're a Canon shop is competing for "New business"

You walk into an editor's office with 1DXMKIII files. Your competitor with equally talented photographers walks in with Z9 files.

Based purely on IQ, which agency gets the contract?

For a 85MP R1 our agency would pay the 10,000 for each one of our photographers to have access to multiple copies as well as glass optimal for the platform.

Will the few million in revenue from our agency make Canon double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII, we don't think so... However, It would assure Canon's dominance. Nikon will not sit by anymore


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> However, It would assure Canon's dominance. Nikon will not sit by anymore


Lol.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> This post saying nothing meaninful.


The R1 being "all but guaranteed to be coming in 2022" isn't meaningful?


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2021)

Jethro said:


> The R1 being "all but guaranteed to be coming in 2022" isn't meaningful?


The post does not say that.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 30, 2021)

Sorry, what post are you talking about?


----------



## dcsimages (Oct 30, 2021)

I'd like to see an R5II in a R3 style body, but that's just me I guess.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

E


Chig said:


> Not sure why so many people think the R1 will be coming earlier than the next summer Olympics in 2024 or that it will be high mp resolution, perhaps it's wish fulfilment on their part ?
> Perhaps it's thought that Canon must compete with:
> 
> The amateurish overpriced Alpha 1 "flagship" from Sony which has 50mp but it's also got their rubbish ergonomics and laughable user interface and very similar specs to the much cheaper R5
> ...



EXACTLY! Just take the R3 body and put the R5 sensor inside and name it R2.

But Canon: PLEASE GIVE US A HIGH RES PRO BODY NOW!!!!!!


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

h2so4 said:


> If you wait for the perfect camera to come along you will never buy anything. All cameras are a collection of compromises.


No way, the 1dx was a perfect camera at that time..


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe the R1 needs to be more than a higher mp R3. Something different. More of a studio camera first. 16 bit files to battle Fuji medium format , 80 mp, pixel binned to 20 mp at 20 fps for occasional sports work.



Name it the R2 then, but fill that GAP of pro body high res sensor NOW! Tens of thousands of photographers are waiting for this camera. R3 body R5 sensor. I would buy two of the shelves without a doubt. And a bunch of RF glass too.


----------



## RickWagoner (Oct 30, 2021)

Don't see the R1 coming so soon as it would destroy everything else in their line with every bell and whistle tech of today can do. R5S will come late next year at a higher price point just slightly with higher MP, deeper buffer, and better video features as way improved cooling. At the same time the R5 will get a lower price point also. It may lead the way into a R3S later 2023, slightly higher price point with slightly better specs. R1 will come in the 2024 Games. Tech that will end up in this camera is not ready to hit production but Canon has their patents and testers out now R&Ding them now.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 30, 2021)

dcsimages said:


> I'd like to see an R5II in a R3 style body, but that's just me I guess.


No, you are not alone!


----------



## Quackator (Oct 30, 2021)

While global shutter would be my "order now!" command,
higher Canon ranks burst this bubble recently, as they told me
"we do have, and we master global shutter sensors, but this 
doesn't work with the current implementation of AF".

Machine vision sensors and C700 GS were mentioned.

Market chances of a global shutter camera without AF are
seen as dub par. I agree.


----------



## dilbert (Oct 30, 2021)

Why doesn't Canon's marketing department just make an official press release rather than use a rumors website?



Cyborx said:


> Are we heading for 15 months of R1 rumoring from now on?


Yes.



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


Well then quit with the marketing release rumors and post real rumors.



woodman411 said:


> The Z9's major weakness among high performance bodies is not being able to do 30fps raw. Sorry, 30fps jpeg is a cop-out,


I'm pretty sure Nikon have done their research and don't consider this a weakness, nor do those that need the 30fps.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> No, you are not alone!


Exactly. That is what EVERBODY wants, so it probably is not going to happen.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

R5 in an R3 body. That is what we want. Name it R2, name it spaceship VULVA69X mark1000, BUT MAKE THE DAMN CAMERA!


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2021)

Jethro said:


> Sorry, what post are you talking about?


This. Sir.


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> No way, the 1dx was a perfect camera at that time..


No camera is perfect. And no human being is either (I am told this three times a day by my wife with her finger pointing at me.)


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Exactly. That is what EVERBODY wants, so it probably is not going to happen.


No, I don't want it. It would be an awesome camera, but not $2500 more awesome than my R5, which I think would be the amount of money needed after trading in my R5 for the R3-with-R5-sensor.


----------



## Bonich (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I hope it has 4 card slots and some space to store my post-it notes and if possible a cup holder on the side.


I like the cupholder on the side.
Even better the espresso machine on the other side.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe the R1 needs to be more than a higher mp R3. Something different. More of a studio camera first. 16 bit files to battle Fuji medium format , 80 mp, pixel binned to 20 mp at 20 fps for occasional sports work.


Sounds like an R5s. Studio camera users don't need extremely rugged bodies. Consider the 5D2 and 1Ds3 situation.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 30, 2021)

For me a high resolution R1 camera (60+ MP) without a lower resolution mode would be questionable. If the R1 is going to be a rugged jack of all trades I would suspect it would have to offer a high res and low res mode on sensor to meet that objective. If global shutter is out I suspect an even faster readout speed than the R3 similar to A1 or even faster?


----------



## scyrene (Oct 30, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> Jack of all trades, master of everything... is what a flagship should be.


1. Why? 2. Has it ever been the case before? 3. Is that even possible?


----------



## John Wilde (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Are we heading for 15 months of R1 rumoring from now on?


There are still rumors of an APS-C R, which have been going on since 2018.


----------



## Berowne (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> I hope it has 4 card slots and some space to store my post-it notes and if possible a cup holder on the side.


I would not buy a R1, if it doesnt have a beer can holder.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 30, 2021)

slclick said:


> Us larger handed folx have no issues. I understand if your mileage may vary


I have small ish hands and still much prefer a bulky gripped body despite the extra weight. I think they’re more confidence inspiring and feel tougher. And I don’t drive, so I am my own Sherpa.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 30, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I believe the R1 needs to be more than a higher mp R3. Something different. More of a studio camera first. 16 bit files to battle Fuji medium format , 80 mp, pixel binned to 20 mp at 20 fps for occasional sports work.


I hope you are correct. Rumors from Q1 2021 suggested 85 MP @ 20 fps or 21 MP @ 40 fps and quad-pixel AF technology. Those would be two features that would differentiate the R1 from other FF systems.


----------



## Bonich (Oct 30, 2021)

mpmark said:


> I highly doubt it will be 80mp, t quips make sense to come in at 50mp based on the competition.


Tradeoff FPS vs MPX:
- Max MPX & 16 bit color depth is more a R5S/R5II thing than a R1 thing. 30.3 MPX with all the specs of the R3 Sensor will do the job (so, no 8k vid).
- Max FPS is crucial by holding full AF performance, 14 bit color depth and uncompressed RAW. Min the 30 PPS provided by R3. By far more relevance are 50 FPS than 50 MPX

Alternative: Will the time be ready providing a Sensor with two modes:
- FPS-mode: 20 MPX, 50 FPS, 14bit uncompressed RAW
- MPX-mode: 80 MPX, 10 FPS, 16bit uncompressed RAW


----------



## StevenA (Oct 30, 2021)

Camera advances these days have removed the requirement for talent. Got enough cash and you too can claim to be a world class photographer.

My daughter is traveling around the world with a film camera and is enjoying the learning experience. And in that way I envy her.


----------



## dilbert (Oct 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> There are still rumors of an APS-C R, which have been going on since 2018.


This "story" by Canon rumors is a marketing release by Canon to stop people defecting to Nikon. There will be a continued stream of such "rumors" over the next 18 months sbout the R1 to keep people interested in Canon and to stop them defecting.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 30, 2021)

dilbert said:


> This "story" by Canon rumors is a marketing release by Canon to stop people defecting to Nikon. There will be a continued stream of such "rumors" over the next 18 months sbout the R1 to keep people interested in Canon and to stop them defecting.


LOL


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

dilbert said:


> This "story" by Canon rumors is a marketing release by Canon to stop people defecting to Nikon. There will be a continued stream of such "rumors" over the next 18 months sbout the R1 to keep people interested in Canon and to stop them defecting.


A small percentage of people “defected” from Canon to Sony at one stage, but that was largely because Canon didn’t have a full-frame IBIS-equipped MILC. Those who did “defect” usually added a Sony body to their existing kit, and were, initially at least, using adapted Canon EF glass on them.

The position today is very different. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have exceedingly good cameras, with little to differentiate them in terms of image quality or performance. The differences between them are largely ergonomic.

Consequently, the number of people who feel any need or desire to “defect” is very small, particularly as the overwhelming majority of people who are in the market for any high-end camera, will already have substantial investment in lenses, extenders, flashguns etc.


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> There are still rumors of an APS-C R, which have been going on since 2018.


I believe there is a lot of truth in those rumours. Most likely, Canon have had an APS-C RF camera in development for some time, but have been waiting to see how viable the market is, before committing to finalising design. Now that Nikon, Sony and Panasonic all have APS-C models on the market, I think Canon will join them and release such a model within the next few months. Demand is highest for FF, but there are a hell of a lot of sports and wildlife photographers who would absolutely leap at the chance of acquiring a pro-grade Canon sports/action APS-C body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2021)

The more things change, the more @dilbert stays @dilbert.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 30, 2021)

StevenA said:


> Camera advances these days have removed the requirement for talent. Got enough cash and you too can claim to be a world class photographer.
> 
> My daughter is traveling around the world with a film camera and is enjoying the learning experience. And in that way I envy her.


You can technically claim anything you want until the client asks for a demo reel or a sample of your work. That will quickly humble most people regardless of how many tens of thousands of gear they have. But some people do buy camera gear as a form of conspicuous consumption among their fellow peers, and obviously it isn't a direct reflection of their skill levels either. Even then, I think everyone has their own valid reasons. Some people like to collect cameras and never planned to pursue a trade in this field and simply like having the "best" for bragging rights, etc.

The real darker side to this is people using their gear to mislead people for their actual motivations. Me and a few peers ran photo and lighting workshops many years ago and a lot of people would show up with the newest and most expensive gear. Naturally we would assume they were at some level in the trade, but it was evident after peeking at some rear screens that a particular few had more perverse motivations. Their high end taste in camera gear somehow lent credence to their lack of talent and darker intent.

I think a better statement would be that "camera advances haven't removed the requirement for talent, but has given more headroom for those with talent to do more or better than what they were using previously."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> I believe there is a lot of truth in those rumours. Most likely, Canon have had an APS-C RF camera in development for some time, but have been waiting to see how viable the market is, before committing to finalising design. Now that Nikon, Sony and Panasonic all have APS-C models on the market, I think Canon will join them and release such a model within the next few months. Demand is highest for FF, but there are a hell of a lot of sports and wildlife photographers who would absolutely leap at the chance of acquiring a pro-grade Canon sports/action APS-C body.


Canon has had APS-C MILCs since 2012. Sony and Fuji have had them as long or longer. Only Nikon ‘now has them’.

The ‘mid-range’ and ‘high-end’ APS-C MILC market is most likely nearly identical to the ‘mid-range’ and ‘high-end’ APS-C DSLR market’ Canon knows that market very, very well. What ever happened to the 7DIII, anyway?


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> A small percentage of people “defected” from Canon to Sony at one stage, but that was largely because Canon didn’t have a full-frame IBIS-equipped MILC. Those who did “defect” usually added a Sony body to their existing kit, and were, initially at least, using adapted Canon EF glass on them.
> 
> The position today is very different. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have exceedingly good cameras, with little to differentiate them in terms of image quality or performance. The differences between them are largely ergonomic.
> 
> Consequently, the number of people who feel any need or desire to “defect” is very small, particularly as the overwhelming majority of people who are in the market for any high-end camera, will already have substantial investment in lenses, extenders, flashguns etc.



You are talking literally about me in your opening statement. I literally added a Sony body to my Canon kit and adapted EF glass on it. I later didn't want the handicap of adapters (The Metabones adapter was plenty buggy) and added a few native Sony lenses. That eventually led to another Sony body and making the decision to add a working native trinity lens set to my Sony kit. That worked out well so I got rid of my Canon bodies and kept my Canon glass for video work. After some time, I decided having to maintain two sets of lenses was a PITA, so I added a Sony cinema body and let go of the rest of my Canon lenses.

If Canon had jumped into the fold much earlier, I might have taken a different approach. I even tried Canon once more with the 5DIV and C200, but it didn't pan out. I took a risk with Sony even after their various format failures and in the future may reconsider Canon again but these new releases of late have become much more iterative than really offering something new. Like you mentioned, the differences are largely ergonomic and while Sony was pretty bad from the start, they have taken plenty of notes and have made strides in this area. 

These days it seems China and DJI with its strange 4D Ronin seems to be much more interesting in general than some of these newest releases and rumors.


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has had APS-C MILCs since 2012. Sony and Fuji have had them as long or longer. Only Nikon ‘now has them’.



Very true, but I was specifically referring to an RF mount camera…



neuroanatomist said:


> The ‘mid-range’ and ‘high-end’ APS-C MILC market is most likely nearly identical to the ‘mid-range’ and ‘high-end’ APS-C DSLR market’ Canon knows that market very, very well. What ever happened to the 7DIII, anyway?


Canon attempted to redress the loss of the 7DMkii by simultaneously launching the M6 Mkii and 90D, but neither were “pro-grade” and few would be brave enough to take them into hostile weather or subject them to the kind of abuse that a 7DMkii would shrug off.

What many wildlife and sports photographers want, is an APS-C RF mount ungripped body that is as tough as an R3 or 1DXii, has at least 20fps, twin card slots, state-of-art AF, and around 28-32MP (noting that an R5 image cropped to APS-C is only 17MP).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 30, 2021)

One thing to expect: a $7000 price tag


----------



## AEWest (Oct 30, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Tradeoff FPS vs MPX:
> - Max MPX & 16 bit color depth is more a R5S/R5II thing than a R1 thing. 30.3 MPX with all the specs of the R3 Sensor will do the job (so, no 8k vid).
> - Max FPS is crucial by holding full AF performance, 14 bit color depth and uncompressed RAW. Min the 30 PPS provided by R3. By far more relevance are 50 FPS than 50 MPX
> 
> ...


Canon should introduce the very high MP and 16 bit feature in a 1 series camera. Why put these in a $4K camera when you can put it in a $6K camera?


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Canon should introduce the very high MP and 16 bit feature in a 1 series camera. Why put these in a $4K camera when you can put it in a $6K camera?


Canon already tried that with the 1Ds series, which stopped selling "enough" when the 5D2 was introduced. Nikon tried it with the D3X. There was no D3Xs refresh or D4X replacement. The next high MP Nikon was the D800, in a cheaper body. Customer demand does have something to do with all this.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do Sony or Nikon have an 800mm lens costing under $1K? Do they have a native MILC 800mm lens at any price?


Gee I wonder why?


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> This post saying nothing meaninful.


Reminds me of pages that say “This page is intentionally blank.”


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2021)

I will wait for the more automated R2D2 model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Canon attempted to redress the loss of the 7DMkii by simultaneously launching the M6 Mkii and 90D, but neither were “pro-grade” and few would be brave enough to take them into hostile weather or subject them to the kind of abuse that a 7DMkii would shrug off.
> 
> What many wildlife and sports photographers want, is an APS-C RF mount ungripped body that is as tough as an R3 or 1DXii, has at least 20fps, twin card slots, state-of-art AF, and around 28-32MP (noting that an R5 image cropped to APS-C is only 17MP).


Canon could have ‘redressed the loss of the 7DII’ by simply releasing a 7DIII. They chose not to do so. What does that suggest to you concerning Canon’s viewpoint about ‘what many wildlife and sports photographers want’ and, more importantly from Canon’s perspective, _how many_ wildlife and sports photographers would buy such a camera?

Internet forums aren’t reality. Canon can read forums (they have one of their own, in fact), but they also have data on what people actually buy. Yet they didn’t release a 7DIII. So either Canon is stupid, or the desires expressed on Internet forums don’t represent actual sales. I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon could have ‘redressed the loss of the 7DII’ by simply releasing a 7DIII. They chose not to do so. What does that suggest to you concerning Canon’s viewpoint about ‘what many wildlife and sports photographers want’ and, more importantly from Canon’s perspective, _how many_ wildlife and sports photographers would buy such a camera?
> 
> Internet forums aren’t reality. Canon can read forums (they have one of their own, in fact), but they also have data on what people actually buy. Yet they didn’t release a 7DIII. So either Canon is stupid, or the desires expressed on Internet forums don’t represent actual sales. I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.


I’m often initially mystified why camera manufacturers behave in a particular way, but time usually reveals good reasoning on their part.

Many people screamed for a replacement for the Nikon D300, many people (not quite as many...) screamed for a replacement for the Sony a700, and many screamed for a replacement for the Canon 7DMkii. Our cries went unheard, because each of those manufacturers had decided that instead of an iterative upgrade, they needed to develop an entirely new range of full frame products. But having done so, if the demand is there, they then turn some attention to launching APS versions, for those who want more reach per mm, and various other advantages of APS.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 30, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> As much as the possibility of an R1 in a year makes me second guess my R3 pre-order, the reality is that everything I need is going to be covered by my R5's 45 megapixels and the R3's 30 FPS.
> 
> I think it's far more likely that my next camera body after the R3 will be the R5 Mark II, and whatever that brings with it. I know we probably won't see that for a few years, but after the R3 my biggest priority will be RF glass. I'd rather spend $9000 in a year or two on a new RF 300mm f/2.8 or RF 200-500mm F/4.
> 
> That said, I think Canon is really going to bring the big guns on the R1, so I could be pleasantly surprised. It's hard to honestly even imagine what else I could want from a camera that the R5 or R3 doesn't already do.


Honest question, when does it all stop? That what you have gives you the pictures you want? Is there ever satisfaction?


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Honest question, when does it all stop? That what you have gives you the pictures you want? Is there ever satisfaction?


I'm still shooting with the 5D3 and 7D that I bought in 2012. I will admit to buying a 5DS on the day that Canon dropped the price by 65% but that was mostly so I could stop twitching. The temptation was just too much.


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> What does that suggest to you concerning Canon’s viewpoint about ‘what many wildlife and sports photographers want’ and, more importantly from Canon’s perspective, _how many_ wildlife and sports photographers would buy such a camera?


The starting point for such an estimate would be the number of 7D and 7DMkii units sold. Both were very popular cameras. Then they’d factor in that there is a great deal of demand for a modernised i.e. high-performance RF mount version, and that would give them an indication of how high the demand actually is.

Canon of course do not rely on internet forums alone as a guide to what people are asking for - they are certainly in touch with reviewers such as those on dpreview etc, who pick up on the internet feedback, but they also get feedback via their own surveys and direct feedback from professionals.

Manufacturers can’t survive indefinitely by producing iterative upgrades, especially as it became increasingly obvious in DSLR days, that it took a jump of 2 or 3 iterations for photographers to gain any really significant improvements. Canon etc know that in order to significantly boost sales, they need to periodically make more radical changes, hence mirrorless cameras, and new mounts to sell new lenses.

Canon knows best. And I think that Canon knows that a high performance APS pro-grade body will be a very profitable addition to their range. Time will tell.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 30, 2021)

To me, the Z9 is close enough to the R5 to give no regret for switch to Canon.
I’d wish in an R5 in an R3 housing, plus a few updates. Which sounds a lot like the hypothetical R1.


----------



## Talys (Oct 30, 2021)

bellorusso said:


> I hope R1 will have triple card slots for three different card types and also maybe a mini-DVD slot, so no one would feel left out. Why follow Sony and Nikon with that nonsense with dual slots of the same type? What are they, insane?


This is to appeal to the legions who have lost data to a faulty CFE card ::eyeroll::

I want my camera to have 6 slots and support for RAID 0, 1 and 0/1 arrays of CFE cards please. And to be able to hot swap any card and have the data replaced from the redundant set.


----------



## GoldWing (Oct 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If true, then what I've suspected for awhile is probably true as well.
> 
> The 1 series is transitioning from a tool for photojournalists and sports photographers to a aspirational body for enthusiasts. Makes sense, since the photojournalism/sports market is dying and enthusiasts are now driving camera company earnings. Canon has to follow the money.
> 
> Of course there will be a handful of top tier users that may still buy the R1 for professional use, but for the bulk of people shooting sports or news for a living, a more modest R3 makes sense.


The R1 will not differ from any other camera when a professional makes a business decision.

Nor will an Enthusiast differ in what changes their motivations.

The difference with a camera like the R1 is the potential for a greater number of photographers across multiple genres to see it as an optimal tool.

This is why the Z9 is receiving such accolades.

"If" the R1 does indeed double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII it could become one of the best selling cameras in history.

What will be required is what Canon has proven they can do already.

We are getting into blurred lines as photographers have typecast and pigieon


RickWagoner said:


> Don't see the R1 coming so soon as it would destroy everything else in their line with every bell and whistle tech of today can do. R5S will come late next year at a higher price point just slightly with higher MP, deeper buffer, and better video features as way improved cooling. At the same time the R5 will get a lower price point also. It may lead the way into a R3S later 2023, slightly higher price point with slightly better specs. R1 will come in the 2024 Games. Tech that will end up in this camera is not ready to hit production but Canon has their patents and testers out now R&Ding them now.


If Canon waits until 2024.... Nikon will take away a sizable chunk of business. The Z9 was just the first shot across Canon's bow. Nikon will have even higher resolution camera than the Z9 by then to beat Canon's R1 to the market. Canon played "hold back" and it has caught up with them. They release the 1DXMKIII, then R5 with no incremental increase in resolution from the 1DXMKII to the 1DXMKIII..... Then a 20 something MP R3??? Canon deserves to have some of their market share lost to Nikon for what they did!


----------



## john1970 (Oct 30, 2021)

With regards, to the need for a APS-C camera in a professional grade body, would not a high MP body in APS-C mode meet that demand ? If Canon designs the R1 as a high MP body with on-demand pixel binning one could in theory have three cameras in one:

1) A high MP full frame body (e.g. 80 MP)
2) A low MP full frame body (e.g. 20 MP)
3) APS-C crop of option 1 which is ~30 MP 

That sounds like a jack-of-all-trades camera to me especially if it fits into a R3 sized body at ~1 kg weight. I personally, would rather buy one body that does all three of the above scenarios for $7K than three separate bodies.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> One thing to expect: a $7000 price tag


9000 makes more sense if you look at Canon’s heavily overpriced showreel so far.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> LOL


Makes sense to me!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 30, 2021)

slclick said:


> Us larger handed folx have no issues. I understand if your mileage may vary


Don't they make extenders for the guys with short, uh, fingers??


----------



## StevenA (Oct 30, 2021)

jayphotoworks said:


> You can technically claim anything you want until the client asks for a demo reel or a sample of your work. That will quickly humble most people regardless of how many tens of thousands of gear they have. But some people do buy camera gear as a form of conspicuous consumption among their fellow peers, and obviously it isn't a direct reflection of their skill levels either. Even then, I think everyone has their own valid reasons. Some people like to collect cameras and never planned to pursue a trade in this field and simply like having the "best" for bragging rights, etc.
> 
> The real darker side to this is people using their gear to mislead people for their actual motivations. Me and a few peers ran photo and lighting workshops many years ago and a lot of people would show up with the newest and most expensive gear. Naturally we would assume they were at some level in the trade, but it was evident after peeking at some rear screens that a particular few had more perverse motivations. Their high end taste in camera gear somehow lent credence to their lack of talent and darker intent.
> 
> I think a better statement would be that "camera advances haven't removed the requirement for talent, but has given more headroom for those with talent to do more or better than what they were using previously."



A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> The starting point for such an estimate would be the number of 7D and 7DMkii units sold. Both were very popular cameras.


Can you share the unit sales numbers for those models? ‘Very popular’ is a meaningless term. Which was ‘more popular’, the 7-series or the 5-series?



entoman said:


> Then they’d factor in that there is a great deal of demand for a modernised i.e. high-performance RF mount version, and that would give them an indication of how high the demand actually is.


How do you know there is, “…is a great deal of demand,” for such a camera. Read a few posts on the internet? Talked to a few people?



entoman said:


> Canon knows best. And I think that Canon knows that a high performance APS pro-grade body will be a very profitable addition to their range. Time will tell.


Indeed. An APS-C RF camera has been rumored since the R came out, and we haven’t seen one yet. Which brings us back to, If the segment was ‘very profitable’ why was there ‘the loss of the 7DII’ in the first place?


----------



## jam05 (Oct 30, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> Nikons price to performance is going to be tough to come close to. They also don’t have a cinema line to hold features for. If it’s $7000+, I just don’t know what more the R1 can be that’s $1500 better and also not “crippled” on the video side.
> 
> Nikon has a chance to make a splash if they can get the camera shipped. They also need a third dial, that would drive me crazy.


They need a lot of cinsumers willing to start all over with different lense. By the time the Z9 ships in any quantity it will be a bit obsolete technology wise.


----------



## jam05 (Oct 30, 2021)

StevenA said:


> A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?


Photography is an element of the arts. No different than a painter. What personally motivates others is none of our business. Same as any other art form.


----------



## jam05 (Oct 30, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Canon wanting to reassure everyone that the R1 is coming sooner rather than later?
> 
> The description makes me think 60 MP, 20 FPS, 8 GB buffer, and quad-pixel AF. Incremental advances to the different eye AFs, eye-control AF, etc.
> 
> That would be a killer camera. Personally, I'd prefer 30-36 MPs. But I'd absolutely consider an R1 with those specs.


Because translated and posted on a rumor site make it an official Canon statement?


----------



## dilbert (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> The position today is very different. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have exceedingly good cameras, with little to differentiate them in terms of image quality or performance. The differences between them are largely ergonomic.



Price seems to be an interesting point of difference.



entoman said:


> Consequently, the number of people who feel any need or desire to “defect” is very small, particularly as the overwhelming majority of people who are in the market for any high-end camera, will already have substantial investment in lenses, extenders, flashguns etc.



This story didn't launch before the Z9, only after. Not at all a coincidence in that, is there? I mean this story is content free in terms of what was new but its presentation is 0% rumor, 100% marketing. Look, you're probably right about defections but why else do we get marketing-rumor stories like this? Just to drive ad-click revenue?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> This is why the Z9 is receiving such accolades.


Accolades ≠ sales.



GoldWing said:


> They release the 1DXMKIII, then R5 with no incremental increase in resolution from the 1DXMKII to the 1DXMKIII..... Then a 20 something MP R3???


Indeed. So it seems either you don’t understand the ILC market, or the multibillion-dollar global company that dominates the ILC market doesn’t understand that market. Hmmmm, that’s a tough call. 



GoldWing said:


> Canon deserves to have some of their market share lost to Nikon for what they did!


But will they? Nikon must make substantial gains just to make up what they’ve lost to Sony and Canon in just the last year. A $5,500 camera isn’t going to sell enough units to even make a tiny dent in that growing gap.

I think your vitriolic internet posts will have to serve as punishment enough. LOL.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 30, 2021)

StevenA said:


> A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?


That is a single type of photography in a single type of setting. Even if the novice's shots are chosen because of the R5's burst and keeper rate, what about the artist at home doing still art photography? Will the novice even know where to start with lighting and composition regardless of the equipment used? What if I told both the pro and novice at the NFL game they only had 25 shots to get what they needed to submit. Would you feel the same or differently about your proposed blind test?

In addition, being a pro is a business and a mindset. You work for your client and consider things they don't know they need ahead of time. A pro shooting live events probably has a good backup methodology and equipment redundancy plans. They probably have the requisite memberships to access the pro tent at the said NFL game and have other credentials for shooting on elevated platforms, etc. Even if the photographer shoots stills at home, they probably have experience on the types of canvas and media need to be showcase the photos the customer wants or needs among other things.

If someone's motivation is to simply to acquire cameras as a collector or to even enjoy the feeling of operating a shutter regardless of what they capture, all the more power to them. On the other hand, if that person spends a lot of money and feels they are a pro tomorrow, two things will happen. They will first have a rather rude awakening and probably make a bunch of mistakes, BUT those mistakes will become experience and they WILL learn how to be a pro and basically fulfill their own aspirations. We all started somewhere..


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 30, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I know for a fact that it wont be in and around 30mp, it will be at least double that.


It'd be nice if they put the pixel density of the 90D/M6II into a full frame sensor and made that the R1. Just imagine the bump in sensor performance over the 90D if it was also a stacked BS Illuminated sensor. ~83MP... Huzzah.


----------



## Chig (Oct 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> R5 in an R3 body. That is what we want. Name it R2, name it spaceship VULVA69X mark1000, BUT MAKE THE DAMN CAMERA!


If they call it Vulva69X it would be even harder to convince my wife to let me order one


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Just to state the obvious, but it may help channel speculation into one of several streams:
> 
> *The R1 will either be:
> 
> ...


WHY ARE YOU YELLING?


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2021)

StevenA said:


> A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?


I suppose you think you are making a point, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is supposed to be.

Does your "novice" have any photographic experience? Have they been given a chance to use and learn the functions of the R5? Does your professional have a motor drive and bulk film? Does the film camera have autofocus? Is the professional photographer a sports photographer or a portrait photographer? What's the criteria for the photographs (Is it to take the best action photographs or the most interesting photographs)? What lens selection do they each have access to? Who is judging these photos, a sports editor or an art critic?

If you think you have a point here, just say what it is, instead of creating a silly hypothetical.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> I believe there is a lot of truth in those rumours. Most likely, Canon have had an APS-C RF camera in development for some time, but have been waiting to see how viable the market is, before committing to finalising design. Now that Nikon, Sony and Panasonic all have APS-C models on the market, I think Canon will join them and release such a model within the next few months. Demand is highest for FF, but there are a hell of a lot of sports and wildlife photographers who would absolutely leap at the chance of acquiring a pro-grade Canon sports/action APS-C body.


Maybe. But I think you might be overly optimistic about your timing. 

And, as has been debated to death on this forum, the likelihood of a successful APS-C body hinges on whether or not it would be significantly less expensive than a comparable full frame camera that can be cropped to approximately the same resolution. I was once a target buyer for a 7DIII, but since buying an R5 and using it in crop mode, I've found my interest in buying an APS-C-only body has shrunk significantly. Not zero, but not particularly high either. I wonder how many potential 7DIII buyers are now in my shoes.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2021)

jam05 said:


> They need a lot of consumers willing to start all over with different lenses. By the time the Z9 ships in any quantity it will be a bit obsolete technology wise.


I think you should have stopped with the first sentence.


----------



## Otara (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can you share the unit sales numbers for those models? ‘Very popular’ is a meaningless term. Which was ‘more popular’, the 7-series or the 5-series?
> 
> 
> How do you know there is, “…is a great deal of demand,” for such a camera. Read a few posts on the internet? Talked to a few people?
> ...


My suspicion is its problem was being a pocket rocket, ie it didnt lead on to all that many lens sales and it wasnt that profitable overall, even if it sold a lot.

The only lens thats being sold that matches well under a big white would be the 100-500mm and I suspect they arent having trouble selling that. The general solution they seem to be offering is higher apertures and longer reach rather than going crop ie 800mm and TC's - and weight reduction.


----------



## Otara (Oct 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Maybe. But I think you might be overly optimistic about your timing.
> 
> And, as has been debated to death on this forum, the likelihood of a successful APS-C body hinges on whether or not it would be significantly less expensive than a comparable full frame camera that can be cropped to approximately the same resolution. I was once a target buyer for a 7DIII, but since buying an R5 and using it in crop mode, I've found my interest in buying an APS-C-only body has shrunk significantly. Not zero, but not particularly high either. I wonder how many potential 7DIII buyers are now in my shoes.


Very different price points but yes, same. Im sure a remaining group people would love to be able to buy an APS-C to replace a 7D II, but it may not be that large once you remove the people who went for R5/R6 or got a 90D instead, changed brands etc, and they probably arent expected to buy the highend RF glass to go with it to make it worthwhile for Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

Otara said:


> The only lens thats being sold that matches well under a big white would be the 100-500mm and I suspect they arent having trouble selling that. The general solution they seem to be offering is higher apertures and longer reach rather than going crop ie 800mm and TC's - and weight reduction.


For those who want the ‘affordable reach’ that is a selling point of APS-C, an RP and the 800/11 provides it.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those who want the ‘affordable reach’ that is a selling point of APS-C, an RP and the 800/11 provides it.


It seems like for the pro-sumer/dedicated hobbyist they are pushing for extra reach on lenses (which are slower at the long end) and better high ISO performance to get the 'reach'. Getting folks off APSc this way could be looked at like a gateway to higher end lenses and bodies, since there is no "RF-s" lenses to be left behind. So maybe that is their strategy? I'm just thinking out loud. 

I do think well see APSc in a lower end body though. These will be for people who won't know or care about the difference in crop factor, etc. They just want entry level pricing. 

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I do think well see APSc in a lower end body though. These will be for people who won't know or care about the difference in crop factor, etc. They just want entry level pricing.


That’s the EOS M line.


----------



## sanj (Oct 31, 2021)

StevenA said:


> A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?


But. The professional will have a much easier time with the R5 and will miss fewer shots. And the novice will find that the camera helps him a lot to compensate for him being a novice.


----------



## Otara (Oct 31, 2021)

sanj said:


> But. The professional will have a much easier time with the R5 and will miss fewer shots. And the novice will find that the camera helps him a lot to compensate for him being a novice.


 There was a video where they did this with an amateur and a professional for portraits with different cameras etc, and the amateur did rather better than expected. The disparity in experience shows in different ways than it might have in the past.


----------



## Cyborx (Oct 31, 2021)

This rumor has been put online only to keep the attention away from the Nikon Z9.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Maybe. But I think you might be overly optimistic about your timing.
> 
> And, as has been debated to death on this forum, the likelihood of a successful APS-C body hinges on whether or not it would be significantly less expensive than a comparable full frame camera that can be cropped to approximately the same resolution. I was once a target buyer for a 7DIII, but since buying an R5 and using it in crop mode, I've found my interest in buying an APS-C-only body has shrunk significantly. Not zero, but not particularly high either. I wonder how many potential 7DIII buyers are now in my shoes.


I went from a 7D+M to an RP+M6II and now R5+M6II, my big wish is smaller bodies for both the RF and M mount, e.g. an M200 sized body, but with eye-AF in servo mode and an RP sized body, but with a usable electronic shutter and full-width 4k.

The R5 covers everything I did with the 7D and @AlanF has shown that if I want more reach on my 100-500 I should get the RF 2x extender. And that extender, while expensive, will be a lot cheaper than an APS-C RF camera aimed at the 7D folk. I don't expect an R6-with-M6II-sensor to be cheaper than the regular R6.


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 31, 2021)

One week APS-C rumor, the other week R1. 
Repet, profit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those who want the ‘affordable reach’ that is a selling point of APS-C, an RP and the 800/11 provides it.


That is a point I kept making in Neuro's absence, its was a lonely call but still spot on. A very good case can be made for the R6 and 800 f11 too.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Maybe. But I think you might be overly optimistic about your timing.
> 
> And, as has been debated to death on this forum, the likelihood of a successful APS-C body hinges on whether or not it would be significantly less expensive than a comparable full frame camera that can be cropped to approximately the same resolution. I was once a target buyer for a 7DIII, but since buying an R5 and using it in crop mode, I've found my interest in buying an APS-C-only body has shrunk significantly. Not zero, but not particularly high either. I wonder how many potential 7DIII buyers are now in my shoes.


The demand that I sense for an APS-C camera in RF mount doesn’t stem primarily from a desire for a cheap body, as that is already catered for by the R6 and lower FF models. Rather it stems from a desire for extra reach and the subsequent ability to shoot with shorter, lighter and far less expensive **lenses** to get the same angle of view.

Canon already have a *33MP* APS-C sensor. Compare that to the rather measly *17MP* that results from cropping a 45MP image down to APS-C size.

I’m an ex-7DMkii owner, who like yourself now has the R5. My view is that an “R7” with a 28MP or higher sensor would be the ideal second body to my R5, and a better fit for my requirements than an R3, R1 or high-res “R5s”. Obviously I can’t quantify how many others feel likewise.

Nikon, Panasonic, Sony and Fujifilm all have what I’d classify as “prosumer” APS MILCs. Canon only have the oddball M series, with its incomplete set of lenses. To compete better in the APS market, they really need something with unique qualities - that to me suggests a high performance, high-res, pro-grade RF model.

As for the timing of a possible R7, I’m a glass half-full guy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> The demand that I sense for an APS-C camera in RF mount doesn’t stem primarily from a desire for a cheap body, as that is already catered for by the R6 and lower FF models. Rather it stems from a desire for extra reach and the subsequent ability to shoot with shorter, lighter and far less expensive **lenses** to get the same angle of view.
> 
> Canon already have a *33MP* APS-C sensor. Compare that to the rather measly *17MP* that results from cropping a 45MP image down to APS-C size.


The demand that you personally feel, fine. But if your feelings represent a small minority of buyers, they are irrelevant to Canon. The fate of the 7-series is good evidence that your desires are not representative of a large market segment.

On the subject of less expensive lenses, what APS-C lens would give you 800mm for $900, or 1600mm for $1400?


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The demand that you personally feel, fine. But if your feelings represent a small minority of buyers, they are irrelevant to Canon. The fate of the 7-series is good evidence that your desires are not representative of a large market segment.


How exactly do you know that my feelings represent "a small minority of buyers"?

Please cite your data...

The “fate of the 7D series” does not provide good evidence - it merely demonstrates that Canon, at the time, saw *more* profitability in alternative lines, and believed that a fundamental change (i.e. RF MILCs) was needed, rather than an incremental upgrade.

And part of that fundamental change to RF MILCs will, sooner or later, result in an APS-C body. It’s just a question of when.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 31, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> The R1 will not differ from any other camera when a professional makes a business decision.
> 
> Nor will an Enthusiast differ in what changes their motivations.
> 
> ...


Yeah, well... no 1 series body is ever going to be the best selling camera in history. Ever. The Kodak Instamatic will always beat a 1 series. Come on, man.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 31, 2021)

StevenA said:


> A professional photographer is given a film camera and a novice is given an R5. Both are told to shoot at an NFL football game and present their photos in a blind test. A third individual is asked to choose the photos they think were taken by the professional. Which photos do you suppose have the best chance of being chosen?


Well, the guy who took the photos standing on his head gets my vote. What kind of nutty, fantasy, silly "what if ism" is this? This imaginary fantasy is supposed to prove a point? Know what? I'd imagine the number of professionals who know how to dial in a film camera, and then actually develop and print, has dwindled to an extremely small number of individuals in the last few years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> How exactly do you know that my feelings represent "a small minority of buyers"?
> 
> Please cite your data...
> 
> ...


After the 7DII, Canon came out with the 80D then the 90D (and many other APS-C and FF DSLRs). If there was no technical reason to not develop a 7DIII, there must have been a strategic reason. Either too small a market segment, or Canon wanting those buyers to go FF. 

You could be right about the broad desire for a high-end APS-C MILC from Canon. But the strategic decision on the 7DIII remains. I’d suggest the very existence of the 600/11 and 800/11 indicates Canon wants reach-seeking buyers to get a FF camera.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

jayphotoworks said:


> You can technically claim anything you want until the client asks for a demo reel or a sample of your work. That will quickly humble most people regardless of how many tens of thousands of gear they have. But some people do buy camera gear as a form of conspicuous consumption among their fellow peers, and obviously it isn't a direct reflection of their skill levels either. Even then, I think everyone has their own valid reasons. Some people like to collect cameras and never planned to pursue a trade in this field and simply like having the "best" for bragging rights, etc.
> 
> I think a better statement would be that "camera advances haven't removed the requirement for talent, but has given more headroom for those with talent to do more or better than what they were using previously."


In most cases it’s not about “bragging rights”, but a belief that a better camera will enable the owner to take better photographs. Of course, that is nonsense, but there’s no harm in a mediocre photographer owning a piece of expensive high end equipment. There is a joy to be had from owning high quality equipment, and if you can afford it, why not?

The truth is that *most* of us are mediocre photographers. Better equipment is a pleasure to own and operate, but those of us who have aspirations to achieve a higher standard of photography, will gain far more by studying the work of others, and learning from the plethora of excellent YouTube tutorials available on all aspects and genres of photography.


----------



## GoldWing (Oct 31, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, well... no 1 series body is ever going to be the best selling camera in history. Ever. The Kodak Instamatic will always beat a 1 series. Come on, man.


If that instamatic is the best professional camera you've ever owned.... You've done a great job with it... Hang in there for another 50 years!!!   Best to you!!!


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> After the 7DII, Canon came out with the 80D then the 90D (and many other APS-C and FF DSLRs). If there was no technical reason to not develop a 7DIII, there must have been a strategic reason. Either too small a market segment, or Canon wanting those buyers to go FF.
> 
> You could be right about the broad desire for a high-end APS-C MILC from Canon. But the strategic decision on the 7DIII remains. I’d suggest the very existence of the 600/11 and 800/11 indicates Canon wants reach-seeking buyers to get a FF camera.


The strategic decision to end the 7D series was of course a wise one, even though it was very frustrating to many wildlife and sports DSLR users.

Canon exists to make money, and having seen how Sony was progressing with FF MILCs, they began to phase out DSLRs while developing RF MILCs.

Likewise I feel they are watching the sales figures of APS MILCs from Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and Fujifilm, and gauging when and whether to launch their own RF body. My guess is that they have a design and a few prototypes in existence, and that if they decide to go ahead with an RF MILC, it would only take a short time to get it into production.

At least that is my fervent hope.


----------



## Fischer (Oct 31, 2021)

Painful if there's no high-megapixel "R" in the works. Canon has said it was coming previously. Was looking at 2022 as 99% likely.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Painful if there's no high-megapixel "R" in the works. Canon has said it was coming previously. Was looking at 2022 as 99% likely.


45MP is already “too much” for most purposes,

...but if the R1 has quad-pixels, you might have the option of combining the sub-pixels to produce images of either 90MP, 45MP or 22MP.
You could choose the hi-res 90MP option for detail at the expense of increased image noise, or the 22MP option for low light/high ISO work.

How many pixels do you think you need, and how much are you willing to pay for them?
With the R5 currently at just over $3000, and the R3 at $6000, the R1 could easily cost £7500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> The strategic decision to end the 7D series was of course a wise one, even though it was very frustrating to many wildlife and sports DSLR users.
> 
> Canon exists to make money, and having seen how Sony was progressing with FF MILCs, they began to phase out DSLRs while developing RF MILCs.
> 
> ...


As you say, time will tell. Canon’s profits substantially from lens sales, it seems in their best interest to sell FF cameras to those who want more reach, requiring them to buy longer lenses and/or TCs. That’s why I don’t think we’ll see any more ‘high-end’ APS-C bodies.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> 45MP is already “too much” for most purposes,
> 
> ...but if the R1 has quad-pixels, you might have the option of combining the sub-pixels to produce images of either 90MP, 45MP or 22MP.
> You could choose the hi-res 90MP option for detail at the expense of increased image noise, or the 22MP option for low light/high ISO work.
> ...



Personally, if the R1 has selectable resolutions via pixel binning of 90/45/22 MP I would be thrilled. You would basically have multiple cameras in a single body. Of course, I would expect other features as well such as state-of-the-art AF (quad-pixel?), class-leading buffer and fps, utmost durability. I appreciate the R5 for the resolution and the R3 for the speed and integrated grip; would be ideal to have a single body that combined them and I suspect the R1 is going to deliver that promise. With that said, if I had to choose between the R5 and R3 I would go with a R3 because for 90+% of my photography 24 MP is more than enough.


----------



## StevenA (Oct 31, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, the guy who took the photos standing on his head gets my vote. What kind of nutty, fantasy, silly "what if ism" is this? This imaginary fantasy is supposed to prove a point? Know what? I'd imagine the number of professionals who know how to dial in a film camera, and then actually develop and print, has dwindled to an extremely small number of individuals in the last few years.


If you had gone back to my original post on the subject it probably makes more sense. But I'm not going to start from the beginning just to bring you up to speed. Especially when I was responding to someone else.


----------



## StevenA (Oct 31, 2021)

sanj said:


> But. The professional will have a much easier time with the R5 and will miss fewer shots. And the novice will find that the camera helps him a lot to compensate for him being a novice.



That was pretty much my original point. Cameras have come so far that the lines between a novice and professional are being blurred and the skill factor is being negated. 

Professionals back in the days of film were a special breed. Today, not so much, and the 'magic' is being lost. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the subject of less expensive lenses, what APS-C lens would give you 800mm for $900, or 1600mm for $1400?


Haha!, I own the 800mm F11, and while it’s usable enough in bright sunlight, it’s next to useless for moving subjects in overcast conditions. The high ISO performance of the R5 is substantially better than the 5DS, but the degree of noise obvious in defocused backgrounds is unacceptable to me over ISO 2000.

I can only assume that your suggestion of using it with a 2x extender to reach 1600mm was a joke - you do realise that it then becomes an F22 lens?

Restricting the 800mm to F11 was a marketing decision designed to keep the size/weight low and the price below the $1000 threshold, but IMO it was a poor choice for *users*. If it had been 800mm F8 it probably would still have been light enough to hand hold and still easily transportable due to the telescoping design, but it would be a great deal more usable under a wider range of lighting conditions.

Canon, as I’ve stated before, exist to make money, and they’re better at it than any other brand, but *what is best for Canon isn’t always what is best for Canon customers*.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> Haha!, I own the 800mm F11, and while it’s usable enough in bright sunlight, it’s next to useless for moving subjects in overcast conditions. The high ISO performance of the R5 is substantially better than the 5DS, but the degree of noise obvious in defocused backgrounds is unacceptable to me over ISO 2000.
> 
> I can only assume that your suggestion of using it with a 2x extender to reach 1600mm was a joke - you do realise that it then becomes an F22 lens?
> 
> ...


I agree with your findings on the 800 mm f11. For sunlight conditions it was great, but for anything with motion and overcast conditions it was useless for me as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> Haha!, I own the 800mm F11, and while it’s usable enough in bright sunlight, it’s next to useless for moving subjects in overcast conditions. The high ISO performance of the R5 is substantially better than the 5DS, but the degree of noise obvious in defocused backgrounds is unacceptable to me over ISO 2000.
> 
> I can only assume that your suggestion of using it with a 2x extender to reach 1600mm was a joke - you do realise that it then becomes an F22 lens?
> 
> ...


Then Canon would like you to buy the RF 100-500L and the RF 2x TC. And if that’s not bright enough, they’ll happily sell you an RF 600/4L to use with your 2x TC.

Incidentally, I had the 7D and 100-400L, and the 1D X and 600/4L, and the latter combination delivered far better results.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then Canon would like you to buy the RF 100-500L and the RF 2x TC. And if that’s not bright enough, they’ll happily sell you an RF 600/4L to use with your 2x TC.


Yes, I’m aware of those options, but both, especially the 600mm F4 cost far more money than I’m willing to spend. Very few people are willing or able to run to a 600mm F4, or even a 100-500mm and 2x extender.

Canon have succeeded in producing a nice selection of “budget” RF lenses including the 600mm F11, but it’s literally going from one extreme to the other, price-wise.

I think a fixed-aperture “telescopic” RF 800mm F8 would have been a much better choice - still easy to handhold and transport, much more usable, and well under $2000 would I think be perfectly achievable.

I’ll be taking my 800mm F11 to Kenya for a birding trip later this week. In bright sub-tropical sunlight it will be fine, but here in the UK it’s virtually unusable in anything but the brightest weather.

You seem over-keen to defend Canon at all costs, rather than looking realistically at what alternative or additional choices they could make, for the benefit of those who buy their products.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> Haha!, I own the 800mm F11, and while it’s usable enough in bright sunlight, it’s next to useless for moving subjects in overcast conditions. The high ISO performance of the R5 is substantially better than the 5DS, but the degree of noise obvious in defocused backgrounds is unacceptable to me over ISO 2000.
> 
> I can only assume that your suggestion of using it with a 2x extender to reach 1600mm was a joke - you do realise that it then becomes an F22 lens?
> 
> ...


Try some decent noise reduction software. iso2000 is nothing for the R5: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/

And here are a couple of shots I took in very shady areas last month with the R5. The Nuthatch is at iso 2500 and exposure increased by 2.5ev in RAW, so equivalent to greater than iso 10,000, and the bank vole also at iso 2500 and by 2 ev so equivalent to iso 10,000. The Nuthatch is a crop, not reduced in size. The Vole is reduced by ~20% for uploading.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> You seem over-keen to defend Canon at all costs, rather than looking realistically at what alternative or additional choices they could make, for the benefit of those who buy their products.


Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.

I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2021)

StevenA said:


> ...Cameras have come so far that the lines between a novice and professional are being blurred and the skill factor is being negated.
> 
> Professionals back in the days of film were a special breed. Today, not so much, and the 'magic' is being lost. Just my 2 cents.


Reminds me of Pierre Bourdieu's renowned 1965 sociological study of photographers. The professionals' complaint at the time was that technology was ruining their profession and making it too easy for amateurs to compete. Nearly 60 years later and the same arguments are repeated.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> ...The high ISO performance of the R5 is substantially better than the 5DS, but the degree of noise obvious in defocused backgrounds is unacceptable to me over ISO 2000...





AlanF said:


> Try some decent noise reduction software. iso2000 is nothing for the R5: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/


Especially if the complaint is noise in "defocused backgrounds." That's an easy fix in either Camera Raw or Lightroom, especially with the latest version and its masking tools.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of _believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers_.
> 
> I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.


You’ve misquoted me. What I said was that they **could** make alternative or different choices, for the benefit of their customers.

Canon actually *wants* feedback, *including negative feedback*, and I’m happy to continue providing my own perspective via their questionnaires, direct correspondence, and comments on relevant websites. I would encourage others to do the same, so Canon have a representative view.

They make excellent products, but that doesn’t mean that we all have to accept what’s thrown at us, and it doesn’t mean that we can’t offer suggestions for alternatives or improvements.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Especially if the complaint is noise in "defocused backgrounds." That's an easy fix in either Camera Raw or Lightroom, especially with the latest version and its masking tools.


I use the latest LR Classic version and take full advantage of AI subject selection to mask defocused backgrounds and apply noise reduction locally. I still find ISO2000 to be my limit of acceptability for images that are moderately cropped. I freely admit that I’m a pixel-peeper!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> I’ll be taking my 800mm F11 to Kenya for a birding trip later this week. In bright sub-tropical sunlight it will be fine, but here in the UK it’s virtually unusable in anything but the brightest weather.
> 
> You seem over-keen to defend Canon at all costs, rather than looking realistically at what alternative or additional choices they could make, for the benefit of those who buy their products.


Have a great trip, and I hope you have had at least 2 jabs! I'm too cautious about travelling but Kenya does have a very low infection rate.

ps, your signature has become excessively long and is taking up a lot of space.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> You’ve misquoted me. What I said was that they **could** make alternative or different choices, for the benefit of their customers.


Sure, and they **could** sell the R3 for $100, too. That would definitely benefit their customers. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. 



entoman said:


> Canon actually *wants* feedback, *including negative feedback*, and I’m happy to continue providing my own perspective via their questionnaires, direct correspondence, and comments on relevant websites.


I’m sure they heard plenty of feedback requesting a 7DIII and criticizing the ‘loss of the 7DII’. But…they chose not to make a 7DIII.


----------



## Finn (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Global shutter would have been a big differentiator.


Global shutters suffer from decreased dynamic range. It makes much more sense to use a stacked sensor with very fast readout to achieve stats like the Nikon Z9. I think the sweet spot is 45MP for a fast sports camera like this. Gives plenty of room to crop to clean up edges and still have 20MP+ for the final output. More than enough for editorials and more.

Most likely to happen:

45MP-ish stacked, BSI FF sensor
R3 style body
Great buffer w/ dual CFX-B cards
Ballpark of 30FPS RAW with eShutter (12-bit or 14-bit?)
Very expensive
Less likely but still possible:

No mechanical shutter (clear benefits for durability & repairability & lifetime runtime cost)
Quad-pixel technology.
super-high megapixel sensor (higher MP makes more sense for a R5S body)
Any kind of advanced video beyond what R5 provides (Protect Canon 'C' line)

Nikon did a very good job with the Z9. It is a true hybrid mirrorless camera. The only faults are perhaps with the EVF, but it has very attractive pro level features in both video and photo modes including internal ProRes/RAW.

I would love to see future R5 or R1 camera with quad-pixel and DGO in video modes with a FF sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Global shutters suffer from decreased dynamic range.


Yes, the Red Komodo has a global shutter and suffers from a horribly decreased 16+ stops of dynamic range.


----------



## Finn (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, the Red Komodo has a global shutter and suffers from a horribly decreased 16+ stops of dynamic range.
> 
> View attachment 201040


Not at certain SNRs. Canon says C70 gets 16 stops. It doesn’t in the real world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Not at certain SNRs. Canon says C70 gets 16 stops. It doesn’t in the real world.


Sure, and Sony Exmor didn’t deliver 15-stops in the real world, either. But thanks for the irrelevant tangential deflection of the point.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s the EOS M line.


I love my EOS M. But I don't think that line will be around much longer. We'll be consolidated to the RF mount, and lenses like the rumored 18-XX mm, 16mm prime, and even 24-240 that are good on FF with heavy correction, but would be great on APSc will be the cheap, lightweight offerings to go with the APSc bodies. 

BTW...i don't gamble because I'm always wrong. So don't run off to Vegas and bet the farm on this one...


----------



## StevenA (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.
> 
> I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.



I know I'm coming into the middle of this so I could be taking this out of context. But I'm curious about your statement that one must be naive to believe Canon does things for the benefit of their customers. Since, if asked, I'm convinced canon would have no choice but to say 'yes' to that question, and when pressed they would refer to their wide ranging product lines and sales success to validate it. What proof are you relying on to make such a statement?


----------



## stevelee (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> The strategic decision to end the 7D series was of course a wise one, even though it was very frustrating to many wildlife and sports DSLR users.
> 
> Canon exists to make money, and having seen how Sony was progressing with FF MILCs, they began to phase out DSLRs while developing RF MILCs.
> 
> ...


If a 7D or 7D II was the right tool for the job given a person’s budget, why not just keep using it? It’s not like it suddenly quit doing what you wanted it to. I can appreciate GAS as much as the next guy, and the idea will sound weird to folks on a board dedicated to rumors about the coming latest and greatest, I realize. 

My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football. Unless sales of pictures to other parents is too lucrative to give up, many of those owners suddenly have no long term special need for it once the son graduates.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 31, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If a 7D or 7D II was the right tool for the job given a person’s budget, why not just keep using it? It’s not like it suddenly quit doing what you wanted it to. I can appreciate GAS as much as the next guy, and the idea will sound weird to folks on a board dedicated to rumors about the coming latest and greatest, I realize.
> 
> My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football. Unless sales of pictures to other parents is too lucrative to give up, many of those owners suddenly have no long term special need for it once the son graduates.


It isn't just football or just sons. I've seen it with hockey, go-karts, volleyball, soccer, track, rugby and whitewater kayaking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football.


I recently sold my EF 70-300L to just such a person, to mount on the used 7DII he bought from someone else.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

StevenA said:


> I know I'm coming into the middle of this so I could be taking this out of context. But I'm curious about your statement that one must be naive to believe Canon does things for the benefit of their customers. Since, if asked, I'm convinced canon would have no choice but to say 'yes' to that question, and when pressed they would refer to their wide ranging product lines and sales success to validate it. What proof are you relying on to make such a statement?


Basic business acumen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I love my EOS M. But I don't think that line will be around much longer. We'll be consolidated to the RF mount, and lenses like the rumored 18-XX mm, 16mm prime, and even 24-240 that are good on FF with heavy correction, but would be great on APSc will be the cheap, lightweight offerings to go with the APSc bodies.


The M line is very popular, particularly domestically (for Canon). I do not believe Canon will simply kill it off, or roll it into the R series. I would not read too much into the fact that there have not been updates to the line recently. The same is true for their DSLRs, and there are some on this forum who seem to believe those are dead for that same reason. But APS-C cameras comprise nearly 90% of the ILC market, and DSLR comprise about 43% of the ILC market. Canon would be foolish to abandon such a large chunk of the market, and they are anything but foolish. The Rebel/Kiss lines (with and without mirrors) will be with us for quite some time.


----------



## Finn (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, and Sony Exmor didn’t deliver 15-stops in the real world, either. But thanks for the irrelevant tangential deflection of the point.


LOL, yeah hmm. Deflection? Have a nice day.








RED KOMODO 6K Lab Test – Dynamic Range and Latitude Test - UPDATED | CineD


Lab test of the RED KOMODO 6K including dynamic range (waveforms and IMATEST) and latitude (over- and underexposure).




www.cined.com


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, I’m aware of those options, but both, especially the 600mm F4 cost far more money than I’m willing to spend. Very few people are willing or able to run to a 600mm F4, or even a 100-500mm and 2x extender.
> 
> Canon have succeeded in producing a nice selection of “budget” RF lenses including the 600mm F11, but it’s literally going from one extreme to the other, price-wise.
> 
> I think a fixed-aperture “telescopic” RF 800mm F8 would have been a much better choice - still easy to handhold and transport, much more usable, and well under $2000 would I think be perfectly achievable.


The summary is that Canon provides 3 different price points for super tele focal lengths.
All of them released in native R mount in the past 3 years plus the existing EF versions.
But.... you believe a 4th one would fit your (and many others') needs.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 31, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I love my EOS M. But I don't think that line will be around much longer. We'll be consolidated to the RF mount, and lenses like the rumored 18-XX mm, 16mm prime, and even 24-240 that are good on FF with heavy correction, but would be great on APSc will be the cheap, lightweight offerings to go with the APSc bodies.


EOS M will be around for some time to come.... clearly a cash cow for Canon with little R&D to amortise now.
R Mount - even with the RP - is still a price segment above M not to mention the native lens range being substantially larger.
Replacement/cheaper RP has been rumoured for some time but still won't get down to M50 kit for USD650 or M200 kit for USD550 or M6 body for USD430.
Canon has been very busy with R bodies/RF lenses in the last couple of years and still more to come even in the face of parts shortages. EOS M may still get some more love in the future


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looking realistically? That’s ironic considering the naïveté of believing that Canon makes choices for the benefit of their customers.
> 
> I’m keen to live in the real world, but that happens to be the one where Canon makes choices to benefit their bottom line. They want as much of your money as they can convince you to part with.





StevenA said:


> I know I'm coming into the middle of this so I could be taking this out of context. But I'm curious about your statement that one must be naïve to believe Canon does things for the benefit of their customers. Since, if asked, I'm convinced canon would have no choice but to say 'yes' to that question, and when pressed they would refer to their wide ranging product lines and sales success to validate it. What proof are you relying on to make such a statement?





neuroanatomist said:


> Basic business acumen.


Actually no. You've never heard of enlightened self-interest? The invisible hand? or the more spiritual "It is but Allah [God] Who makes the prices low and high?"

Anyone who reduces every business decision to simple greed, is the one being naïve. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to buy Canon. Canon has to compete in the marketplace and they do so by offering products that satisfy their customers. The challenge with any mass produced product is to make a product that will satisfy most customers on most fronts. 

On an individual basis, no one gets exactly what they want. But in the aggregate, customers get enough of what they want to convince them to buy the product. Canon and every other successful company constantly make choices to benefit their customers. But, no company can benefit their customers if they don't stay in business, which means they have to make a profit, offer returns that attract investment and pay their employees enough to keep them motivated and working to keep the company profitable.

We can debate all we want about whether or not a specific product decision is a wise business decision for Canon, but suggesting that smart business decisions and looking out for the interests of their customers are mutually exclusive or even contradictory just shows a lack of understanding of how business works.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 31, 2021)

I think most of us have worked for large organisations whose 'Mission Statement' or 'Purpose' has been the betterment of mankind in one way or another. In reality (and without tyrying to be overly cynical on a Monday morning) they are all in business to maximise profit. Of course, to do so, they have to maximise the extent to which their 'brand' (the anthropomorphism of their strategy to their collective customer base) reflects their target demographic. Their products / services have to align with what their customers (past and future) want. Canon is no different, and they want to (i) maintain their current market dominance in most segments, and (ii) within their existing base, eventually upsell users to the shiny new RF mount and associated lenses. 

So, I think of course Canon have regard to what their customer base (as a whole) wants, and they'll do that based on better data on those 'wants' than any of us have, but in the end the decisions they make are still based on maximising profit.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 31, 2021)

pic said:


> Regardless: a body with a vertical grip and video modes is a notoriously bad idea. Look at all the phone videos being shot in vertical mode. Let's not give them more tools to shoot video the wrong way. The world does not need more tiktok videos.


It's not the wrong way if you're also viewing them on a vertically-oriented phone screen


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 31, 2021)

Awesome what these camera companies are developing. But, please work on something for landscape photographers. Sure an R5 is great for that as well as video. But, paying $3900 or whatever it is overkill for a 45MP camera unless video is that important. People say video does not cost extra, but I question that. Software does not create the video alone, there is hardware also. How can I justify paying $900 more for a R5 over a Z7 II to do landscape photography. That is not meant as a put down to Canon, just wishing they would have an addition model more geared toward landscape. I am sure Canon knows their customer base and what they are doing and find their future in younger buyers as opposed to us old farts that have not so much of an interest in video and less money to invest in new gear. if I sound disgruntled, no, I am really not, it is an exciting time!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Anyone who reduces every business decision to simple greed, is the one being naïve. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to buy Canon. Canon has to compete in the marketplace and they do so by offering products that satisfy their customers.


Their goal is profit. It may take satisfied customers buying their merchandise to generate that profit, but don’t kid yourself – the goal is profit, not satisfied customers. If sales don’t generate enough profit, operating expenses are reduced (and that includes workers, because their satisfaction isn’t the goal, either).

But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna.

_Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something._
—The Dread Pirate Roberts​


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 1, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Awesome what these camera companies are developing. But, please work on something for landscape photographers. Sure an R5 is great for that as well as video. But, paying $3900 or whatever it is overkill for a 45MP camera unless video is that important. People say video does not cost extra, but I question that. Software does not create the video alone, there is hardware also. How can I justify paying $900 more for a R5 over a Z7 II to do landscape photography. That is not meant as a put down to Canon, just wishing they would have an addition model more geared toward landscape. I am sure Canon knows their customer base and what they are doing and find their future in younger buyers as opposed to us old farts that have not so much of an interest in video and less money to invest in new gear. if I sound disgruntled, no, I am really not, it is an exciting time!


Since video writing to card is streaming there would be additional heat spreader etc for hardware. Potentially, the CFe card could have been replaced with dual SD card a la R6 if video was left out. 
45mp was deliberate and specific for 8k and 4kHQ so the R5 was designed from the outset to be first to market and the stills was just a great bonus  
Once the video SW was written then it would be reasonably portable to other devices but needed to be developed first. Note that the EVF is basically taking the video stream anyway.

So, yes, it would have been possible to release a landscape orientated body and saved some money but USD900? Not sure about that. The 5D was always marketed as the jack of all trades model and it certainly hits that segment well.

What would be your ideal Canon body lineup and associated price point? Don't forget to include a high mp body (assumed to be more expensive than R5), the R1, R7 and R/RP replacements.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Their goal is profit. It may take satisfied customers buying their merchandise to generate that profit, but don’t kid yourself – the goal is profit, not satisfied customers. If sales don’t generate enough profit, operating expenses are reduced (and that includes workers, because their satisfaction isn’t the goal, either).
> 
> But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna.
> 
> ...


Sometimes, being the smart guy you obviously are, your desire to disagree and put down everyone else overrides that intelligence. You can take an obviously correct statement or idea and push it to its limits, so that you can make fun of it.

Yes, profit is the goal. Despite your attempt to make it so, the goal will not be reached without satisfied customers. If there are not enough satisfied customers, than lowering operating costs will not be enough to overcome the loss of customers if they are not enough satisfied customers.

I have always been glad that you have been - more than anyone else - willing to combat the trolls and the ignorant, but your desire to put down everyone else - even when they are right - is becoming quite tiresome. 

Much as you would hate to hear it - being the obviously smart guy that you are - it makes you come across as just as big an idiot as the trolls and ignorant that you have been combating all these years.

Of course, you will find some way to make fun of my comments and try very hard to make me seem stupid. So be it. Kinda sad when you think about it.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The M line is very popular, particularly domestically (for Canon). I do not believe Canon will simply kill it off, or roll it into the R series. I would not read too much into the fact that there have not been updates to the line recently. The same is true for their DSLRs, and there are some on this forum who seem to believe those are dead for that same reason. But APS-C cameras comprise nearly 90% of the ILC market, and DSLR comprise about 43% of the ILC market. Canon would be foolish to abandon such a large chunk of the market, and they are anything but foolish. The Rebel/Kiss lines (with and without mirrors) will be with us for quite some time.


From what I read here and elsewhere, a large percentage of purchasers of Rebels and M-line cameras never buy another lens. So developing a whole array of lenses for those mounts is not likely to be a big priority. They need native wide-angle lenses and a normal range zoom. For longer lenses there is the whole array of EF lenses that fit and act even longer than on FF.

I realize I am an exception. I bought a Rebel some years ago, and it also came with a not-so-hot telephoto for an extra $100. I took some good pictures with it, but mainly it convinced me that I needed a better Rebel, so I got a T3i. It worked well for me for years. Researching tests of that telephoto posted on the web, I found that it could be pretty decent at f/11 when zoomed to 300mm. I am still proud of the pictures of the total solar eclipse I took with it.


----------



## StevenA (Nov 1, 2021)

"But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna."

I'm having problems understanding this logic. Given Canon's prominence in the world I think they would find motivation from people enjoying their gear.

Boiled down to its simplest essence a company MUST strive for happy customers if they wish to survive. In fact, in virtually all of Canon's marketing materials they are showcasing people using their products and being happy about it. What kind of sense would it make to feature a photographer berating their latest achievements?

Canon wants to sell stuff to make money. Canon must make their customers happy to do it. The two are interdependent.

What am I missing here?


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Their goal is profit. It may take satisfied customers buying their merchandise to generate that profit, but don’t kid yourself – the goal is profit, not satisfied customers. If sales don’t generate enough profit, operating expenses are reduced (and that includes workers, because their satisfaction isn’t the goal, either).
> 
> But you’re free to believe they’re motivation is a world full of happy photographers, Pollyanna.
> 
> ...


You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)

As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)
> 
> As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.


I think I’m just farther down the cynical path than you.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)
> 
> As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.


I thinks there's a little more to it than that though.

_"the best path to profit is to provide _create demand for products that people don't need_ customers with products they want to buy. It's a simple symbiotic t_op-down relationship that exploits vulnerable human emotions_. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years _originated in the 13th - 16th century and we're still trying to determine whether it's a sustainable or viable ideology_. That's because it is based on _an aspect of _human nature _known as greed."

There, I fixed it! 

I'd prefer to take my sword fighting lessons from The Princess Bride rather than Adam Smith though. 

Not starting a political debate here! My response is part tongue in cheek, part acknowledging that people hold different world views when it comes to subjective political ideologies...


----------



## Fischer (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> 45MP is already “too much” for most purposes,


45 MP is "too little" for me having shot with more already. I understand you do not know what to do with more pixels - so did you ever upgrade from 8 MPIX?


----------



## landon (Nov 1, 2021)

I don't do photos. But things I like about the Z9, is the swivel mechanism, and the price.

Perhaps Canon can adapt the S1H swivel screen for the R1. Maybe with ND filters. $7,000?
Does this mean, there will be no R5C? Only advantage would be the ND filters.


----------



## AEWest (Nov 1, 2021)

landon said:


> I don't do photos. But things I like about the Z9, is the swivel mechanism, and the price.
> 
> Perhaps Canon can adapt the S1H swivel screen for the R1. Maybe with ND filters. $7,000?
> Does this mean, there will be no R5C? Only advantage would be the ND filters.


If you only shoot video, wouldn't a dedicated video camera like a C70 or higher be better for your purposes rather than a hybrid stills/video camera?


----------



## landon (Nov 1, 2021)

AEWest said:


> If you only shoot video, wouldn't a dedicated video camera like a C70 or higher be better for your purposes rather than a hybrid stills/video camera?


I would like a smaller hand held one than the C70. R5C (FF) would be a good size. 

I was just suggesting how the R1 could outdo the Z9. A flushed S1H swivel screen would be great for hybrid shooters.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 1, 2021)

Canfan said:


> Camera specs aside, would like to see a fingerprint sensor or some kinda security built into a pro camera for once like in cellphones, since this has been implemented theft has gone down. Insurance only does so much. Can’t be that hard ass it is already well established tech.
> 
> Being robbed at gunpoint or burglars following you home to your family just to get his hands on your R1 doesn’t sit right. Sure you can just hand it over and claim insurance but there is always a chance that they could pull the trigger for fun.
> think canon can play its part to protect its consumer base. Sony and others will no doubt follow.


I tend to carry my concealed handgun with me when out with my $$$ cameras.
Until there are mechanisms such as you suggest, that's the best extra insurance I can come up with so far.

C


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 1, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Was there any mention of it having low res mode ~20 MP for High ISO sensitivity and a high res mode (~80 MP) for additional cropping capability? Something along the lines of a quad pixel array.


The camera will allow you to adjust your ISO, File Size, and Frame Speed as you desire manually or in "presets" or "button assignments" You can go as big or small as you like. You can also have custom preset LED button assignments for the same.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 1, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Personally, if the R1 has selectable resolutions via pixel binning of 90/45/22 MP I would be thrilled.


Considering that going from 90MP-> 45MP would require Canon to bin sqrt(2) pixels in each direction, I have a hard time seeing this coming.
A straight linear 2:1 downsampling in each direction, going from 90MP to 22.5MP would be much more likely, IMHO. Sorry to spoil the party.

You could do a 3:2 downsampling filter where the "middle" sample was distributed to the "left" and "right" samples, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had serious detrimental side effects from an optical and sharpness perspective.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 1, 2021)

My contribution to this pissing contest. I read the first edition in the 1980s and it was nothing less than life changing.






The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition: Robert Axelrod, Richard Dawkins: 9780465005642: Amazon.com: Books


Buy The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders



www.amazon.com


----------



## StevenA (Nov 1, 2021)

Canfan said:


> Camera specs aside, would like to see a fingerprint sensor or some kinda security built into a pro camera for once like in cellphones, since this has been implemented theft has gone down. Insurance only does so much. Can’t be that hard ass it is already well established tech.
> 
> Being robbed at gunpoint or burglars following you home to your family just to get his hands on your R1 doesn’t sit right. Sure you can just hand it over and claim insurance but there is always a chance that they could pull the trigger for fun.
> think canon can play its part to protect its consumer base. Sony and others will no doubt follow.



The reason phone manufacturers implemented such tech is because there was an obvious need. Before they implement that tech in cameras I'd like to see the stats on how many people are being robbed of their high-end equipment at gun point. If it's warranted, then sure, add it in. I'm sure they'd charge us decent $ for it too.

I'm not convinced there are a lot of people out there that know a $5,000 camera on sight. And then how many of those are willing to commit armed robbery/murder.

That said, if Canon implemented it and added another $100 to the price it wouldn't hurt their sales any.


----------



## Mike9129 (Nov 1, 2021)

I see a lot of people saying canon need X and Y to compete with the Nikon z9 or the Sony A1.

The truth is that the R5 is pretty much there at the races as it is. 45mp, 8k video, 20fps etc etc etc. 
Yeah there is that overheating thing for video shooters, but realistically I think youd be more than a little wrong to say Canon has no answer to these cameras even as it is. 

Personally Im delighted that Nikon has gone ahead and released a camera that offers a nice level of functionality for what could be considered a knock down price. It will mean the other two (sony/cannon) will have to avoid massive price jumps for what they consider flagship cameras in their own lineups if nothing other than marketing reasons. 

It makes whatever will come next from all 3 of them much more exciting because theyre genuinely all very close to the same level for the first time pretty much since mirrorless cameras became the defacto camera that youd want to buy at the high end.

Either way, I think for the R1 it means we will be seeing more MP and more FPS with higher DR and ISO performance. How much of each we shall see, but its hard to argue that the current crop of cameras are so much more capable than previous generations that every improvement from here on out will probably be felt less and less regardless of what they are with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions (global shutter for example).

just my 2c


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, and they **could** sell the R3 for $100, too. That would definitely benefit their customers. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.


Now you’re just being silly.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Have a great trip, and I hope you have had at least 2 jabs! I'm too cautious about travelling but Kenya does have a very low infection rate.
> 
> ps, your signature has become excessively long and is taking up a lot of space.


Thanks, I’ve had 3 jabs. Looking forward to the birding, but only going for a week, as if I get Covid (again) I’d feel safer being treated at home. I’ll be going back again in December though, leading a butterfly photography tour.

I’ll see what I can do to abbreviate my rather long signature, although it should automatically hide everything apart from the top line…


----------



## john1970 (Nov 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Considering that going from 90MP-> 45MP would require Canon to bin sqrt(2) pixels in each direction, I have a hard time seeing this coming.
> A straight linear 2:1 downsampling in each direction, going from 90MP to 22.5MP would be much more likely, IMHO. Sorry to spoil the party.
> 
> You could do a 3:2 downsampling filter where the "middle" sample was distributed to the "left" and "right" samples, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had serious detrimental side effects from an optical and sharpness perspective.


Agree that four-fold binning makes the most sense, but I would still think they could downsample the sensor like what they do for video. The R3 downsamples 6K to 4K and the new Sony a7 downsamples 7K to 4K. Just brainstorming and am curious if something like this could be done. Might already to similar to what is already done for mRAW and sRAW? I don't know the answer.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Thanks, I’ve had 3 jabs. Looking forward to the birding, but only going for a week, as if I get Covid (again) I’d feel safer being treated at home. I’ll be going back again in December though, leading a butterfly photography tour.
> 
> I’ll see what I can do to abbreviate my rather long signature, although it should automatically hide everything apart from the top line…


 If you have had covid and have had jabs, you should be pretty close to bomb proof. The only slight worry is getting an asymptomatic infection but testing positive before getting on to a return flight. But, you would probably have to catch that on the flight out in a weeks return trip. Have a safe trip.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If a 7D or 7D II was the right tool for the job given a person’s budget, why not just keep using it? It’s not like it suddenly quit doing what you wanted it to. I can appreciate GAS as much as the next guy, and the idea will sound weird to folks on a board dedicated to rumors about the coming latest and greatest, I realize.


I sold my 7DMkii a long time ago because the sensor wasn’t good enough at high ISO settings. If they’d introduced a Mkiii version with a better sensor (like the one in the 90D) I would have bought it. Like many others, I waited and waited, but eventually decided that the only way to get better high ISO performance was to go full frame. That is no longer quite so necessary, as sensor quality and high ISO performance has increased dramatically in recent years, making APS-C attractive for the extra reach it provides.

I’m as guilty as anyone of G.A.S, and new technology, that after all is why we are all here on a rumours site, but I only buy a new camera if I feel that it offers something that will genuinely improve my photography. Hence I’m not tempted by the R3 or Z9 although I could afford to get either. My main camera will for the foreseeable future be my R5, but I would have no hesitation in buying a pro-grade APS body as backup second body, to get me extra reach, which would be valuable for my wildlife photography. I hope that answers your questions.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> I’ll see what I can do to abbreviate my rather long signature, although it should automatically hide everything apart from the top line…


Works exactly like that for me on Firefox.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The summary is that Canon provides 3 different price points for super tele focal lengths.
> All of them released in native R mount in the past 3 years plus the existing EF versions.
> But.... you believe a 4th one would fit your (and many others') needs.


Three? Oh really? There are only two RF 800mm lenses and two RF 600mm lenses, at opposite extremes price-wise.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that there might be a market for something in-between.

Personally I’d like a 800mm F8 and a 180mm F5.6 macro.
I dare say there are other lenses that you and others would like to be added.
You are free to put forward your own suggestions…


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Three? Oh really? There are only two RF 800mm lenses and two RF 600mm lenses, at opposite extremes price-wise.
> It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that there might be a market for something in-between.
> 
> Personally I’d like a 800mm F8 and a 180mm F5.6 macro.
> ...


+1 on the slow-ish 180mm 1:1 macro lens!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Three? Oh really? There are only two RF 800mm lenses and two RF 600mm lenses, at opposite extremes price-wise.
> It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that there might be a market for something in-between.
> 
> Personally I’d like a 800mm F8 and a 180mm F5.6 macro.
> ...


"Supertelephoto" generally includes lenses of 400mm and longer, so there are the RF 600 / 800 in the low price range, the 100-500L in the mid range, and the 400/2.8 and 600/4 at the top end.

You can get a 700mm f/10 with the 100-500 + 1.4x for US$3300. Seems like mid-range to me.

An 800/8 would have a 100mm entrance pupil, same as the 400/4 and 200/2, and an RF lens in that size range would likely be >$7000 – would you consider that a mid-range lens? Many would not.


----------



## alexKan (Nov 1, 2021)

I;m a canon user for 10 years, I love Canon DSLR , it offer a good user menu, many choices of lens both Canon and 3-rd party lens.
I believe what canon really need is to increase it's user market.
Like Sony , it has a more choice on the low end market, they are important for market growth in future. 
Canon low end market , EOS RP is actually a mirrorless version of a 5-year old 6D mark II .
Beside than the over-priced lens and body, Canon EOS R lack 3-rd party lens from Tamron and Sigma lens. 
All of these push me away from Canon, .... /....\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

alexKan said:


> I believe what canon really need is to increase it's user market.
> Like Sony , it has a more choice on the low end market, they are important for market growth in future.


I believe you need to check the facts.

Canon holds ~50% of the ILC market, which is more than Sony and Nikon combined. Last year, Canon gained more market share than Sony.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 1, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Exactly. That is what EVERBODY wants, so it probably is not going to happen.


Speak for yourself. You are not EVERYBODY.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2021)

alexKan said:


> I believe what canon really need is to increase it's user market.
> Like Sony , it has a more choice on the low end market, they are important for market growth in future.





neuroanatomist said:


> I believe you need to check the facts.
> 
> Canon holds ~50% of the ILC market, which is more than Sony and Nikon combined. Last year, Canon gained more market share than Sony.


I think he is talking about growing the market, not further dividing up the shrinking existing market. Canon dominates the shrinking market but a market that is both shrinking and aging out is not a good strategy for the long term. Canon is certainly making a strong play for the lucrative enthusiast market, which is good for the short term. But eventually, we will die or become too old to carry around big cameras. 

However, I don't think just offering lower cost cameras as @alexKan seems to suggest, is the solution. Competitive low cost cameras are one strategy, but that's not going to save the industry. On the other hand, the new dual lens fisheye seems to me to be the first product in a long time that might actually grow the market. So yeah, Canon does need to increase its user market. But, doing so won't be easy since most people are content with cellphone cameras and cellphone cameras keep getting better.


----------



## dilbert (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.



If you've watched "A Brilliant Mind" (a movie about American mathemetician, Nobel Lauraete in Economics, John Nash), then there are apparently cases where Adam Smith's theories don't produce the best outcome. I don't know how accurate the movie is in this regard nor if thoses cases apply here.



unfocused said:


> But eventually, we will die or become too old to carry around big cameras.



Long live the Canon M-series!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I think he is talking about growing the market, not further dividing up the shrinking existing market.
> 
> <…>
> 
> But, doing so won't be easy since most people are content with cellphone cameras and cellphone cameras keep getting better.


That’s like trying to catch smoke with your hands. Smartphone genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going back in.

The realization point for me was over a decade ago when my 2.5-year-old, who had been using an iPad mostly for educational games for a few months, didn’t like what was on TV so she toddled up to the flatscreen and proceeded to swipe her fingertips across the surface in an attempt to change the channel.


----------



## chasingrealness (Nov 1, 2021)

I’m not going to lie, all these new cameras are making me greedy for things I never knew I wanted. I feel like Adam in the garden wondering wtf was in that Apple that made me realize I’ve been naked my whole life.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> "Supertelephoto" generally includes lenses of 400mm and longer, so there are the RF 600 / 800 in the low price range, the 100-500L in the mid range, and the 400/2.8 and 600/4 at the top end.
> 
> You can get a 700mm f/10 with the 100-500 + 1.4x for US$3300. Seems like mid-range to me.
> 
> An 800/8 would have a 100mm entrance pupil, same as the 400/4 and 200/2, and an RF lens in that size range would likely be >$7000 – would you consider that a mid-range lens? Many would not.


The combination of 100-500mm and 1.4x is the closest, at 700mm/F10 that Canon has got to making 800mm/F8. But it’s 100mm short of the 800mm target, and two-thirds of a stop less light than the 800m/F8 that I’ve suggested. That zoom and extender combination is also IMO beyond what most people are able or willing to pay.

I think you fail to appreciate who Canon’s “telescopic” fixed aperture 600mm and 800mm lenses are aimed at. I’d dare to suggest that the largest user group by far are amateur birders, and I’d also suggest that in probably 95% of use cases, they would be using your suggested zoom/extender combination at maximum focal length and full aperture, which isn’t the way to get the best performance out of the glass.

As regards your observation that an 800mm/F8 would have an entry pupil of 100mm, that is obviously the case, but that is only 25% greater than the diameter of the 800mm/F11, and IMO such a lens could still be relatively lightweight, hand-holdable and affordable.

I’m puzzled that a person who repeatedly claims that Canon can and will produce a full frame body for $800, believes that Canon are incapable of producing a fixed-aperture telescopic RF800mm/F8 at under $2000. I clearly have more faith in Canon’s abilities than you do, despite your near-evangelical belief that Canon provides absolutely everything that anyone could possibly want.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Three? Oh really? There are only two RF 800mm lenses and two RF 600mm lenses, at opposite extremes price-wise.
> It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that there might be a market for something in-between.
> 
> Personally I’d like a 800mm F8 and a 180mm F5.6 macro.
> ...


There was also the RF100-500mm + 1.4TC that was in your discussions as middle price point. I am sure that you would like another eg a 200-500m f6.1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> The combination of 100-500mm and 1.4x is the closest, at 700mm/F10 that Canon has got to making 800mm/F8. But it’s 100mm short of the 800mm target, and two-thirds of a stop less light than the 800m/F8 that I’ve suggested. That zoom and extender combination is also IMO beyond what most people are able or willing to pay.
> 
> I think you fail to appreciate who Canon’s “telescopic” fixed aperture 600mm and 800mm lenses are aimed at. I’d dare to suggest that the largest user group by far are amateur birders, and I’d also suggest that in probably 95% of use cases, they would be using your suggested zoom/extender combination at maximum focal length and full aperture, which isn’t the way to get the best performance out of the glass.
> 
> ...


I understand perfectly well that the 600/11 and 800/11 are aimed at birders. Based on AlanF's testing, the 100-500 + 1.4x is excellent at maximum focal length and full aperture. Having said that, he also found that the 800/11 outresolved the 100-500 + 1.4x.

I understand your desire for as many choices as possible. An 800/11 for $900, an 800/8 for $1999, how about they also make an 800/9 for $1500 and an 800/10 for $1123.46. Or better yet, 1/3-stop increments going up by $100 each? Of course, I'm being facetious.

But in all honesty, the 800/11 is a very good lens, albeit a slow one. In general, adding an extra stop of light adds significant cost, especially at long focal lengths where the front element diameter is a limiting factor. Even if they can make an 800/8 for <$2K, I doubt they will. If by 'fixed aperture' you mean a catadioptric lens, then certainly they can make an 800/8 mirror lens, and it could be even cheaper than the 800/11. But heck, if you want one of those and maximum reach, you should consider this:



https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-1300-2600mm-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001VDLZIG



Please don't put words in my mouth, it's insulting. I have never suggested that, "Canon provides absolutely everything that anyone could possibly want." Canon is a business. Their goal is to make profit.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide enough customers with products they want to buy at a price that maximises the profit:cost ratio. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)
> 
> As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.



I would modify that as shown in red. If you deifne 'keeping customers happy' as making a gazillion different models to match each and every need, then that would be stupid. The profit:cost ratio is not only how much it costs to make a model but about how many production lines can you have running at any one time, each with its own costs for R&D, supply chains and manufacturing. IMO one reason Sony has so far been able to keep so many different models, some of them technically obsolete, is because most of their bodies are almost templates which until recently mean less-than maximal ergonomics simply to reduce manufacturing costs.

I think Neuro's issue is that when entoman (among others) take their own personal preferences and then cherry pick (with confirmation bias) comments from random people on the internet to state that their preferences are those that the market want, and that Canon therefore have to make these products or risk losing massive profits, or even (shock, horror!) tumble down in market share because they are ignorant of a potentially massively profitable product. Do they really believe Canon is ignorant of the varying desires?
Personally, I would be surprised if Canon do not have on the drawing board an APS-C successor to the 7Dii, but the fact it has been so long since the 7Dii was released without update would suggest they know what is going on. And the fact that Nikon have not updated the very highly regarded D500 would support this decision. They need to look at if they put resources to 7Diii those are resources they are not putting to their main models. Sure, they could make profits on a R7 (o 7Diii) but will it mean making less profits on developing/selling FF mirrorless models? That is where Canon is interested in its profits, not on 'what [some] customers want'.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I understand perfectly well that the 600/11 and 800/11 are aimed at birders. Based on AlanF's testing, the 100-500 + 1.4x is excellent at maximum focal length and full aperture. Having said that, he also found that the 800/11 outresolved the 100-500 + 1.4x.
> 
> I understand your desire for as many choices as possible. An 800/11 for $900, an 800/8 for $1999, how about they also make an 800/9 for $1500 and an 800/10 for $1123.46. Or better yet, 1/3-stop increments going up by $100 each? Of course, I'm being facetious.
> 
> ...


Note that I’m at all times referring to a “telescopic” lens, and *not* a catadioptric - the latter are entirely unsuitable for bird photography due to the ugly do-nut bokeh which occurs on defocused backgrounds such as highlights on water.

The 800mm F11 is a very good lens, but it is extremely limited in application. When I use it in midday sunlight in Africa I’ll be able to shoot at 1/2000, F11, ISO 500 - a very usable combination. On a bright sunny day in late winter or early spring in the UK (prime bird photography season), that drops at least 2 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/1000, F11, ISO 1000-2000. On an overcast day that drops another 3-4 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/500 or 1/250, F11, ISO 4000.

Canon lenses and bodies have excellent stabilisation, so I can just about get away with 1/250 with the 800mm on a beanbag in a hide. But even apparently static birds are often rapidly bobbing their heads or turning from side to side, necessitating a shutter speed of 1/1000 or thereabouts.

Even one extra stop of light makes a *huge* difference, enabling a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO.

People on a modest budget, buying lenses for birding will be looking at the 600mm and 800mm. Most will probably choose the 600mm as they don’t see a significant benefit in getting an 800mm with the same limiting F11 aperture.

I don’t for a moment think that Canon will add an 800mm F8 to their range now, but IMO the gap in terms of aperture and cost between it and the 800mm F11 is too close, and an 800mm F8 at around $2000 would have been a better proposition for Canon and its customers, and might possibly have even been a bigger seller than the 800mm F11.

Anyway I think our debate on this subject has probably gone on long enough, so I’ll end here and wish you a good night.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> I think Neuro's issue is that when entoman (among others) take their own personal preferences and then cherry pick (with confirmation bias) comments from random people on the internet to state that their preferences are those that the market want, and that Canon therefore have to make these products or risk losing massive profits, or even (shock, horror!) tumble down in market share because they are ignorant of a potentially massively profitable product. Do they really believe Canon is ignorant of the varying desires?


^^This.

It’s lamentably common for people to believe their personal desires are representative of a significant number / majority of others, with no actual evidence to support that belief. Comments on a forum populated by those who are essentially like-minded (self-identified members of a site dedicated to the latest photo gear) is an effective form of confirmation bias…but it’s still bias.

Canon, as a for-profit manufacturer, must be objective. There will be a business case and an ROI projection on every product. They will look more at what customers have bought than what customers say they want. 

It’s hard for people to accept reality.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> IMO one reason Sony has so far been able to keep so many different models, some of them technically obsolete, is because most of their bodies are almost templates which until recently mean less-than maximal ergonomics simply to reduce manufacturing costs.


That is a VERY good point.

Canon tend IMO to produce too many body configurations (e.g. R6 and R5 could have had identical bodies with top plate display), although I understand their logic of offering a choice of body styles, as in the case of 90D and M6 Mkii.

Nikon and Panasonic chose instead to use identical bodies for their Z6/Z7 and S1/S1R bodies respectively, which must have reduced their manufacturing costs.

Sony and Canon have wildly different philosophies regarding design continuity, model retention and marketing, and it’s difficult to know how these impact their sales, as there are so many other factors involved.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> That is a VERY good point.
> 
> Canon tend IMO to produce too many body configurations (e.g. R6 and R5 could have had identical bodies with top plate display), although I understand their logic of offering a choice of body styles, as in the case of 90D and M6 Mkii.
> 
> Nikon and Panasonic chose instead to use identical bodies for their Z6/Z7 and S1/S1R bodies respectively, which must have reduced their manufacturing costs.


If I am not mistaken, Canon did exactly this with the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR.

The 5D4 is fairly close to the 5D3, but not the same.


----------



## entoman (Nov 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> If I am not mistaken, Canon did exactly this with the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR.
> 
> The 5D4 is fairly close to the 5D3, but not the same.


As far as I can recall, the 5DMkiii and 5DS were very similar apart from a few minor button swaps.

The 5DS and 5DSR were essentially the same camera with just the AA filtering absent in the latter.

The 5DS and 5DMkiv have the same basic design but use different body shells and some of the buttons etc were swapped about.

I had no issues switching back and forth between my 5DS and 5DMkiv - the differences were very slight and often I wasn’t sure which one I had in my hand.

The differences between the R5 and R6 are more substantial due to the different methods of switching modes. Most people probably use the same mode for everything (Av seems to be the most popular), but people who habitually switch between different custom modes according to subject, might find the differences between the 2 bodies annoying, if they happen to use both.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 1, 2021)

alexKan said:


> I;m a canon user for 10 years, I love Canon DSLR , it offer a good user menu, many choices of lens both Canon and 3-rd party lens.
> I believe what canon really need is to increase it's user market.
> Like Sony , it has a more choice on the low end market, they are important for market growth in future.
> Canon low end market , EOS RP is actually a mirrorless version of a 5-year old 6D mark II .
> ...


Arguably no full frame camera is low end. But also, low end implies reusing parts from older bodies, because it saves money. You can't have low end and cutting edge. Also it's not Canon's fault third parties haven't released RF lenses.


----------



## John Wilde (Nov 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The M line is very popular, particularly domestically (for Canon). I do not believe Canon will simply kill it off, or roll it into the R series. I would not read too much into the fact that there have not been updates to the line recently. The same is true for their DSLRs, and there are some on this forum who seem to believe those are dead for that same reason. But APS-C cameras comprise nearly 90% of the ILC market, and DSLR comprise about 43% of the ILC market. Canon would be foolish to abandon such a large chunk of the market, and they are anything but foolish. The Rebel/Kiss lines (with and without mirrors) will be with us for quite some time.



"Amid challenging conditions surrounding parts procurement, we focused on the production and supply of high-end products and lenses,..." 
- Canon financial document.

When parts become more widely available they can work in new lower-end products, like M.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 1, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Also it's not Canon's fault third parties haven't released RF lenses.


Really? I believe that Canon is forcing third parties to reverse engineer the protocols, which the CEO of Sigma has said is time consuming and expensive.


----------



## garrev (Nov 1, 2021)

StevenA said:


> Camera advances these days have removed the requirement for talent. Got enough cash and you too can claim to be a world class photographer.
> 
> My daughter is traveling around the world with a film camera and is enjoying the learning experience. And in that way I envy her.


I'm not sure where you're coming from Steven, but you have just discounted and written off the years and years of practice, training, experimenting, visionary talents and skills, climbing on your belly through thorns to get the shot, determination, and plain hard work many have dedicated to perfecting their craft and creating images no one - I mean NO ONE - else could replicate. Just ask your daughter and she'll make you eat your words.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> When parts become more widely available they can work in new lower-end products, like M.


What maybe can be used in lower-end products is the firmware, the sensor and the image processing chip(s).



entoman said:


> As far as I can recall, the 5DMkiii and 5DS were very similar apart from a few minor button swaps.


I own both a 5D3 and a 5Ds. The only button change was the order of the functions controlled by two of the buttons in front of the top panel display. The functions are the same but the order is reversed. Other than that, the buttons are the same. The menus are very similar, differences mostly dealing with cropping and reduced resolution jpg modes in the 5Ds. However, one big difference to me is that the algorithm for setting shutter speed in AV and P with Auto ISO is better in the 5Ds. I'd pay money to put that in my 5D3 and 7D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> Note that I’m at all times referring to a “telescopic” lens, and *not* a catadioptric - the latter are entirely unsuitable for bird photography due to the ugly do-nut bokeh which occurs on defocused backgrounds such as highlights on water.


Understood and agreed.


entoman said:


> On an overcast day that drops another 3-4 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/500 or 1/250, F11, ISO 4000.


With good RAW conversion software, I find that excellent results are possible at ISO 4000. But everyone has their personal threshold.



entoman said:


> Even one extra stop of light makes a *huge* difference, enabling a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO.


Often makes a *huge* difference in cost, too.



entoman said:


> People on a modest budget, buying lenses for birding will be looking at the 600mm and 800mm. Most will probably choose the 600mm as they don’t see a significant benefit in getting an 800mm with the same limiting F11 aperture.


I would think people would more likely choose the longer focal length since it doesn’t mean sacrificing f/number. Birders often state that you can’t have too long a lens, why would they choose a shorter one, unless the extra $200 prices it out of reach, or they are compromising between birds and larger subjects? Or maybe a just a typo on your part?”, and you meant they’d choose the 800/11?



entoman said:


> …an 800mm F8 at around $2000 would have been a better proposition for Canon and its customers, and might possibly have even been a bigger seller than the 800mm F11.


This is exactly the issue @Mikehit echoed. You personally want an RF 800/8, or a top-spec APS-C RF mount camera, or whatever. So, of course it would have been (or, would be) a better choice for Canon to have made (make), and would sell way more than the product Canon actually did (will) make. The implication is obviously that you believe you understand the market better than Canon.

My requests for evidence or data to support claims that forum members know more about the ILC market than Canon are rhetorical – we both know that none of us have any real market research data. We both know that Canon does have such data. Knowing that, you and others still play woulda shoulda coulda. It puzzles me why otherwise intelligent people seem completely able to ignore facts and reality when they want something. I suppose that’s just human nature.



entoman said:


> Anyway I think our debate on this subject has probably gone on long enough, so I’ll end here and wish you a good night.


Sleep well.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 2, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Really? I believe that Canon is forcing third parties to reverse engineer the protocols, which the CEO of Sigma has said is time consuming and expensive.


I don’t get this complaint. As far as I know, Canon has always required third party lens makers to reverse engineer their lenses. It never stopped competitors before, why is it now some insurmountable obstacle?

If other companies are sharing their proprietary information it’s not because they are generous. It’s because they have determined it will increase their profits. If Canon is not doing so, then they have decided it doesn’t benefit them. That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for people to grasp.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 2, 2021)

kaihp said:


> If I am not mistaken, Canon did exactly this with the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR.
> 
> The 5D4 is fairly close to the 5D3, but not the same.


The 5Diii/iv/S/SR were physically close enough that Ikelite could produce one underwater housing to fit all four. There is a small difference with the video switch which was painful though.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don’t get this complaint. As far as I know, Canon has always required third party lens makers to reverse engineer their lenses. It never stopped competitors before, why is it now some insurmountable obstacle?
> 
> If other companies are sharing their proprietary information it’s not because they are generous. It’s because they have determined it will increase their profits. If Canon is not doing so, then they have decided it doesn’t benefit them. That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for people to grasp.


In comparison, Sony, the M43 group and the L-mount group are supposedly all fairly forthcoming in providing information. What do you think constitutes keeping third parties from making lenses, going to court to prevent it or maybe having their R&D facilities blown up?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> The 800mm F11 is a very good lens, but it is extremely limited in application. When I use it in midday sunlight in Africa I’ll be able to shoot at 1/2000, F11, ISO 500 - a very usable combination. On a bright sunny day in late winter or early spring in the UK (prime bird photography season), that drops at least 2 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/1000, F11, ISO 1000-2000. On an overcast day that drops another 3-4 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/500 or 1/250, F11, ISO 4000.


Fwiw as I've said many times on this forum I shot (birds in overcast Britain) at f/10 a lot in the past decade, and it was fine. Close enough to f/11 to be relevant. And I was using older bodies. ISO 2000 is nothing. Depends on the situation a bit but I'd go as high as 12800 and get good results. The narrative "f/11 is unusable except in the brightest sunshine" is just wrong.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Really? I believe that Canon is forcing third parties to reverse engineer the protocols, which the CEO of Sigma has said is time consuming and expensive.


Wasn't that always the case? They have no obligation to share proprietary information to allow rival companies to undercut them, do they?

Edit: I see unfocused already dealt with this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If other companies are sharing their proprietary information it’s not because they are generous. It’s because they have determined it will increase their profits.


I thought it was because they want it to make the customers happy and satisfied by giving them lots of different lens choices.


----------



## tron (Nov 2, 2021)

@entoman: I would also like a 800mm f/8 L IS too but the $2K price is way OFF.

800 at f/8 has the same front element as a 400mm f/4 so we are talking >$6K as a price.


----------



## entoman (Nov 2, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Fwiw as I've said many times on this forum I shot (birds in overcast Britain) at f/10 a lot in the past decade, and it was fine. Close enough to f/11 to be relevant. And I was using older bodies. ISO 2000 is nothing. Depends on the situation a bit but I'd go as high as 12800 and get good results. The narrative "f/11 is unusable except in the brightest sunshine" is just wrong.


It’s not “wrong”, it’s all about thresholds of acceptability, which vary from person to person, and are affected by the output size, the distance the image is viewed from, individual eyesight, ISO level, the nature of the light, and various other factors. What one person finds acceptable, another may not.

Friends look at my photographs and can’t understand why I groan about them being noisy or lacking fine detail at high ISO, but if an image doesn’t satisfy *me*, it gets dumped.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2021)

Thresholds of acceptability, now there is a catchall phrase that is a boring get out of jail card in any discussion. Post what you find 'acceptable' or not then everybody has a reference point.

Some people here have posted remarkably good results from the 7D II at 10,000iso at the pixel level. Without an example of 'acceptability' any mention of it rings very hollow.


----------



## entoman (Nov 2, 2021)

tron said:


> @entoman: I would also like a 800mm f/8 L IS too but the $2K price is way OFF.
> 
> 800 at f/8 has the same front element as a 400mm f/4 so we are talking >$6K as a price.


“Telescopic” designs such as the 600mm F11, 800mm F11 are simpler than conventional primes.

They are not designed to have the same weather-sealing as an L lens, or to endure the same levels of abuse.

They are not supplied with rotating tripod rings, lens hoods or protective cases.

They are therefore a lot cheaper to manufacture and can be sold for affordable prices, as demonstrated by the two existing F11 lenses.

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Nov 2, 2021)

garrev said:


> I'm not sure where you're coming from Steven, but you have just discounted and written off the years and years of practice, training, experimenting, visionary talents and skills, climbing on your belly through thorns to get the shot, determination, and plain hard work many have dedicated to perfecting their craft and creating images no one - I mean NO ONE - else could replicate. Just ask your daughter and she'll make you eat your words.


100%

The job of a camera and almost all other equipment related to capturing an image should be to get out of the way as much as possible. When you no longer have to stress about a photo being in focus, exposed correctly or if it will be too noisey you can actually just focus on the important stuff! i.e. the creativity, your lighting, your composition etc. etc.


----------



## David_D (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.


Since nobody has pointed this out already, I am probably wrong, but in your 1-stop faster lens the front element has a 1.4x larger diameter, 2x larger surface area and 2.8x greater volume. That means the cost of the material is 2.8 times higher. Also, the defect rate will be much higher (probably related to polishing SA, but could be volume, e.g. a bubble). I would also imagine a wider aperture would lead to a more complex optical design. Depending on what proportion of the cost is the material, how large the defect rate is and extra design complications, I would guess the manufacturing cost to be more than 2x, probably nearer 3 maybe even more.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I thought it was because they want it to make the customers happy and satisfied by giving them lots of different lens choices.


I know you are just being sarcastic and probably think this is relevant to our previous discussion, but yes, it is about what the companies think they need to do to keep customers happy. 

Canon's choice not to open source its lens information has never stopped any third party manufacturer from offering lenses in Canon EF mount and I suspect it won't stop them in the future with RF mounts. 

We don't know why some third parties have not offered RF mount lenses. It may have more to do with their perception of the market than with the challenges of reverse engineering. I've pointed out before that in the EF days, third party lens makers could simply add a different mount to the exact same lens. We don't know if that is possible with mirrorless. If it isn't, then third party lens makers have to take into consideration the additional costs of designing a lens for a specific brand of camera and how many they will have to sell to recover their costs. Reverse engineering is a part of that cost, but it is not the only cost and may not even be a major cost. 

Point is, Canon is doing what they believe is best to give their customers what they want and other companies are doing what they think is best to give customers what they want. Assigning other motives comes from a lack of information about the inner workings of each camera company and lens manufacturer.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.


Using that logic, an 800mm f8 should be about half the cost of an 800 f5.6 or $6,500.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 2, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Honest question, when does it all stop? That what you have gives you the pictures you want? Is there ever satisfaction?


LOL...I dunno if it ever truly "stops"....GAS is a powerful thing....more powerful than the force.

For canon, I'm still chugging along with my 5D3 and all the EF glass I have for it. In the meantime, I had been dabbling with medium format film...Hasselblad and a host of other cameras, even a big old 6x17 monster.
While the R's were just getting started, I was eyeballing them, but I happened upon a couple of deals just too good to pass by and I acquired new digital that was "unique"....I got a GFX100 Digital MF camera and a couple of lenses, and also fell into a Leica M10 Monochrom. Both of these offer something very unique over run of the mill FF digital sensors.

So, at this point, I'm looking back HARD at Canon RF gear...I've got my pennies saved for a R5 and could pull the trigger now.

However, I"m standing by and saving still, as that there appears to be so much in motion. The R3 is an interesting beast, but won't satisfy me MP wise...I want something a bit more.
With word of an R1 coming late next year, I figure I can stand by to see what that is looking like, while I keep saving my pennies.

The R5 is VERY tempting, but right now, while I want it, I have enough gear I'm actively using that scratches the GAS itch, but I'm watching.

So, no, it never truly ends, but some times it pauses to see what the next best thing that does check the most boxes is going to be.

And also, with most things in life, especially electronic things, I rarely buy into the 1.0 version. I like to let those early adopters beta test those and since that is out of the way, I'm starting to get more interested.

Anyway, that's my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Nov 2, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Just to state the obvious, but it may help channel speculation into one of several streams:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


Actually, there is now also the GFX100S that has the same 102MP sensor, just a bit cheaper EVF, and it is a nice smaller form factor for $5999.

Just FYI.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I thought it was because they want it to make the customers happy and satisfied by giving them lots of different lens choices.


I've forgotten who, but an economist once said that all buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial. In reality, (potential) buyers are able to like or dislike Canon for any reason they want, including the color of the wedding dress of the CEO's daughter.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 2, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Actually, there is now also the GFX100S that has the same 102MP sensor, just a bit cheaper EVF, and it is a nice smaller form factor for $5999.
> 
> Just FYI.


Yes, that is my real temptation right now. With a couple lenses that would hit just over $10K which is quite affordable to me right now, not having been anywhere or done much since mid-March of last year. If I really thought I’d get into landscapes to that much greater a degree, I would have already ordered it. If it were instantly available, it might have already been an impulse purchase. So far nothing in the R line has tempted me. With the 100S, I’d still use my 6D2 for a lot of things anyway. But the 100S would be enough of an upgrade to give up the OVF at least part of the time. A 5D V would likely be ordered really fast, but none of us expect that. If the 5D IV drops below $2,000 again and I don’t buy the 100S, it might be the impulse purchase. For now it seems headed the other way. There are plenty of better cameras these days than the 6D2, but I am thinking about what would actually improve my photography enough to spend thousands of dollars, or at the very least lead me to new and different realms of shooting.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> It’s not “wrong”, it’s all about thresholds of acceptability, which vary from person to person, and are affected by the output size, the distance the image is viewed from, individual eyesight, ISO level, the nature of the light, and various other factors. What one person finds acceptable, another may not.
> 
> Friends look at my photographs and can’t understand why I groan about them being noisy or lacking fine detail at high ISO, but if an image doesn’t satisfy *me*, it gets dumped.



Everyone's threshold is different of course! What's wrong is to promulgate it as a general truth. It's like the old narrative about the 5Ds/R that they're "unusable at high ISO" which a lot of people still believe despite clear evidence that they were no worse than lower res sensors of the same generation _normalised_. When someone claims "X is unusable" without caveats I have to chime in when my experience has been different.

You've admitted to being a pixel peeper and that's your prerogative, but telling people a given lens (in this case) can only be used in certain circumstances is misleading, when most people view photographs as a whole image, and don't pixel peep.


----------



## rbr (Nov 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Using that logic, an 800mm f8 should be about half the cost of an 800 f5.6 or $6,500.


An 800 f8 would probably be even more than that in today's market. After all they're selling a 500mm f7.1 for $2700. We're talking about a real lens here with a diaphragm, a rotating tripod collar and full time manual focusing. The RF 800 f11 is a fun walk around lens, but not really a serious tool, at least not to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> They are not designed to have the same weather-sealing as an L lens, or to endure the same levels of abuse.
> 
> They are not supplied with rotating tripod rings, lens hoods or protective cases.


How many people would pay $2000 for a consumer-grade lens?



entoman said:


> Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.


If your guess is correct, and you’re also correct in your belief that it would sell better than an 800/11, then why did Canon make the 800/11 instead?

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume Canon does not believe that your guesses and beliefs are accurate. It’s also reasonable to assume that Canon knows more about lens design, production costs, and marketing than we do.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If your guess is correct, and you’re also correct in your belief that it would sell better than an 800/11, then why did Canon make the 800/11 instead?



To amplify this, I very much doubt the cost of a lens scales linearly with the area of the front element (which is what a "stop" of aperture correlates to). It probably goes up a great deal faster than that.


----------



## tron (Nov 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> To amplify this, I very much doubt the cost of a lens scales linearly with the area of the front element (which is what a "stop" of aperture correlates to). It probably goes up a great deal faster than that.


Exactly what I was saying to entoman. Even with no "fancy" L-glass, etc, I would estimate $4K. And for that amount of money we would want L quality so there is the $6K estimate.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 2, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Honest question, when does it all stop? That what you have gives you the pictures you want? Is there ever satisfaction?


The 5Ds, and the lenses I purchased around the same time (kit overhaul), has all but killed GAS for me. It just works, and I can saturate my largest prints with detail. I'm interested in the new stuff that's coming out, but I do not feel a _need_ to save up and buy it.

I'm sure that will change with something. Perhaps with an even higher resolution body, or with some RF lens Canon releases. There are a couple more EF lenses I want, but otherwise I just wish I had the time/money to travel more and really use my current kit.


----------



## entoman (Nov 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Using that logic, an 800mm f8 should be about half the cost of an 800 f5.6 or $6,500.


The 800mm F5.6 is a highly corrected professional L series lens, ultra-durable, weather-sealed and with substantial AF motors as well as far more complex optics and a full range of apertures. It also is supplied with a rotating tripod foot, a lens hood, and a flight case, all of which adds considerably to the cost.

My suggested 800mm F8 would as I’ve already explained, be a simple, fixed aperture lens, built to the same modest standard as the 800mm F11, i.e. cheaper materials all round, no weather sealing, no iris mechanism, less complex electronics, much weaker AF motor, no rotating tripod foot, no lens hood and no case.

I don’t for one second accept that Canon couldn’t produce and sell such a lens for twice the cost of the similarly constructed 800mm F11, but it’s entirely academic as they undoubtedly have greater priorities for forthcoming RF lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> The 800mm F5.6 is a highly corrected professional L series lens, ultra-durable, weather-sealed and with substantial AF motors as well as far more complex optics and a full range of apertures. It also is supplied with a rotating tripod foot, a lens hood, and a flight case, all of which adds considerably to the cost.
> 
> My suggested 800mm F8 would as I’ve already explained, be a simple, fixed aperture lens, built to the same modest standard as the 800mm F11, i.e. cheaper materials all round, no weather sealing, no iris mechanism, less complex electronics, much weaker AF motor, no rotating tripod foot, no lens hood and no case.
> 
> I don’t for one second accept that Canon couldn’t produce and sell such a lens for twice the cost of the similarly constructed 800mm F11, but it’s entirely academic as they undoubtedly have greater priorities for forthcoming RF lenses.


Two data points. One you like so you are keeping it. One you don't like, so you are excluding it. 

Your response seems to fall into the "don't confuse me with the facts" category. We can all speculate about a lens we would like to have and then pick an arbitrary price point for our dream lens. Unfortunately, Canon has to deal with reality not wishful thinking.


----------



## BBarn (Nov 2, 2021)

Nothing like some serious competition to shift a company's marketing. Essentially nothing specific reported about the R1 until the Z1 announcement. Now the trickle of information begins. Look for Canon to be the one dribbling out information over the next *year* in hopes of stemming a shift in sales. A $5500 Z1 could also mean some pricing adjustments are on the horizon.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 2, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> The 5Ds, and the lenses I purchased around the same time (kit overhaul), has all but killed GAS for me. It just works, and I can saturate my largest prints with detail. I'm interested in the new stuff that's coming out, but I do not feel a _need_ to save up and buy it.
> 
> I'm sure that will change with something. Perhaps with an even higher resolution body, or with some RF lens Canon releases. There are a couple more EF lenses I want, but otherwise I just wish I had the time/money to travel more and really use my current kit.





mpmark said:


> Honest question, when does it all stop? That what you have gives you the pictures you want? Is there ever satisfaction?


We must be getting closer to the limit. FPS - diminishing return. 
What difference would 60FPS make over 30FPS except more headaches sorting through images. 
45MP - I'm sure I'd take 100MP but also a diminishing return.
ISO performance - one of the great improvements in the last 10 years but must be coming to a ceiling.
Focussing I would think is one area that could be improved upon, it could be more intelligent and precise but its pretty good already.
The R5 , Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 are getting pretty close to everything anyone would need.
The R1 might just take the biscuit.


----------



## styoda (Nov 2, 2021)

Wonder if it will the the R2 ?


----------



## entoman (Nov 2, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Everyone's threshold is different of course! What's wrong is to promulgate it as a general truth. It's like the old narrative about the 5Ds/R that they're "unusable at high ISO" which a lot of people still believe despite clear evidence that they were no worse than lower res sensors of the same generation _normalised_. When someone claims "X is unusable" without caveats I have to chime in when my experience has been different.
> 
> You've admitted to being a pixel peeper and that's your prerogative, but telling people a given lens (in this case) can only be used in certain circumstances is misleading, when most people view photographs as a whole image, and don't pixel peep.


Almost everything that is said on this and other forums, either by myself or by others, is *opinion*, and the suggestions that I and most others make are mostly about what we *personally* would like to see happen.

Is it honestly necessary to punctuate every sentence with “IMHO” or to state “this is what I want but YMMV” on a forum that deals mostly with rumours and rarely with facts?

Some suggestions or opinions will be more popular than others, and I like to think that there’s a possibility that some of the more popular ones get fed back to manufacturers by the reviewers who pick up on internet feedback.

If none of us make suggestions, or point out perceived or actual flaws, how are the manufacturers going to become aware of our needs or desires?

As for my suggestion for a 800mm F8, I’m clearly outvoted on that subject, which is absolutely fine. I don’t come here to win wars, just to express opinions or offer suggestions.


----------



## tron (Nov 2, 2021)

I just realized that I kind of have a 800mm f/8 lens in the form of a 400mm DO 4L II and EF 2XIII and EOS EF-R converter. 
The quality seems OK but not as good as the quality of the 500mm 4L IS II EF 2XIII combo.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 2, 2021)

tron said:


> I just realized that I kind of have a 800mm f/8 lens in the form of a 400mm DO 4L II and EF 2XIII and EOS EF-R converter.
> The quality seems OK but not as good as the quality of the 500mm 4L IS II EF 2XIII combo.


I wonder why the 400 mm DO f4 + EF 2x III extender is not as good as the 500 mm f4 + EF2x III extender?


----------



## john1970 (Nov 2, 2021)

I have a question. According to the rumors, it mentions that Canon is waiting on feedback from the R3 to finalize the specifications on the R1. 

*If this statement is true, how realistic is it that Canon can roll out a R1 camera in Q4 2022 while incorporating feedback from the R3 camera that was only released a year earlier especially if the updates required hardware changes? *


----------



## unfocused (Nov 3, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I have a question. According to the rumors, it mentions that Canon is waiting on feedback from the R3 to finalize the specifications on the R1.
> 
> *If this statement is true, how realistic is it that Canon can roll out a R1 camera in Q4 2022 while incorporating feedback from the R3 camera that was only released a year earlier especially if the updates required hardware changes? *


I have no idea. But, that won't stop speculation. My personal speculation would be that if the R1 is planned for a year from now, all the key hardware decisions have been made. It might be possible to incorporate software improvements. In my mind the logical areas to concentrate on would be autofocus algorithms and eye-controlled autofocus improvements. I don't think it would require months and months of testing to get feedback from sports and action professionals on whether or not eye-control focus is working and what would make it more usable. Similarly, they could be tweaking the "machine learning" of the autofocus system to make it more accurate. 

Just to give you an example that is fresh in my mind. I'm typing this while downloading photos from a wrestling match. I decided to use the R5 because I felt the drawbacks of the R5 vs. the 1DxIII would be less important for wrestling and I figured the facial recognition software would be helpful for wrestling. One thing I found though was that the facial recognition software seemed to have a hard time finding Black wrestlers' faces. That's the kind of thing that I think Canon might be able to improve on with software before the release of the R1. (It will be interesting to see if it is better when the R3 arrives). 

Just speculation on my part, but I would guess that all the major hardware decisions have been made if the camera is truly planned for 2022. But, there are probably improvements that they can make after they get the R3 in the hands of working pros and start getting feedback.


----------



## TedYork (Nov 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Global shutter would have been a big differentiator. Lacking that, more MP will just bring it in line with Nikon and Sony offerings, unless it's way more MP (e.g. 80 MP). Unless there's a low-res binned mode as @john1970 suggests, with a much faster frame rate associated, it won't really be a jack of all trades, more like a 5Ds in a 1-series body.
> 
> Hopefully we'll see Canon bring out orthogonal AF lines (cross-type AF) in the R1.
> 
> I am still thinking we'll see an R5s that is 70-80 MP with low fps, and a longer wait for the R1 that will have ~30 MP, 40 fps with a really deep buffer, along with cross-type AF.


I'd like to see 16bit files myself!


----------



## maulanawale (Nov 3, 2021)

entoman said:


> Almost everything that is said on this and other forums, either by myself or by others, is *opinion*, and the suggestions that I and most others make are mostly about what we *personally* would like to see happen.
> 
> Is it honestly necessary to punctuate every sentence with “IMHO” or to state “this is what I want but YMMV” on a forum that deals mostly with rumours and rarely with facts?
> 
> ...


I know the point of "you're not the market", "you're not everyone" is made here _ad nauseam _and I get it, but at the same time (apart from the wildest of ideas), are we really that unique? I think it's safe to assume that if you'd want an 800 F8 ( me too btw) more people would too. Also the assumption that manufacturers are omniscient entities with the most up to date data can be a bit naive, that goes hand in hand with the assumption that they always play it safe. As much as they create what people want, they also know how to create the necessity (some call it hype) for products never before imagined (the F11 primes come to mind) and gamble in hopes of leapfrogging the competition. 

Using the F11 primes as an example, considering its target audience (lower budget, amateurs, etc), it's hard to imagine they were clamouring for a constant (small) aperture, "weirdly" designed, ISO thirsty lens and alas, they're selling well. Of course some will say that because I can't imagine it doesn't mean the clamour wasn't there, but similar things were done in the past (catadioptric) and never caught on, so the element of gamble was there, and the success comes from doing it better this time around (i.e., no donuts and AF) not from doing what people want, but what they will want if we make it.


"Is it honestly necessary to punctuate every sentence with “IMHO” or to state “this is what I want but YMMV” on a forum that deals mostly with rumours and rarely with facts?"

Shouldn't be, common sense and all that but. . .


----------



## kaihp (Nov 3, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> Shouldn't be, common sense and all that but. . .


There's the saying that "Common Sense _isn't_ so common"


----------



## dilbert (Nov 3, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I have no idea. But, that won't stop speculation. My personal speculation would be that if the R1 is planned for a year from now, all the key hardware decisions have been made. It might be possible to incorporate software improvements. In my mind the logical areas to concentrate on would be autofocus algorithms and eye-controlled autofocus improvements. I don't think it would require months and months of testing to get feedback from sports and action professionals on whether or not eye-control focus is working and what would make it more usable. Similarly, they could be tweaking the "machine learning" of the autofocus system to make it more accurate.



Think about what that means. For example it means:
- collecting all of the feedback
- putting all that feedback into a database
- reading through it all and marking it up or annotating it
- spending time in meetings with people to categorise feedback further
- meetings to work out what can be addressed and what can't
- spending time to work on those changes, test them internally before going back to "betas"

There's months of elapsed time there.



unfocused said:


> Just to give you an example that is fresh in my mind. I'm typing this while downloading photos from a wrestling match. I decided to use the R5 because I felt the drawbacks of the R5 vs. the 1DxIII would be less important for wrestling and I figured the facial recognition software would be helpful for wrestling. One thing I found though was that the facial recognition software seemed to have a hard time finding Black wrestlers' faces. That's the kind of thing that I think Canon might be able to improve on with software before the release of the R1. (It will be interesting to see if it is better when the R3 arrives).



That's not surprising to hear. For a long time TV and movies failed to properly show skin tones of people of color because the equipment simply wasn't designed with them in mind. I would have hoped we'd have moved on sufficiently from that but I guess not. I won't say Canon is racist but they clearly should have been able to get their algorithms to recognise the faces of people from all over the world. Lets hope there's a firmware update.



unfocused said:


> Just speculation on my part, but I would guess that all the major hardware decisions have been made if the camera is truly planned for 2022.



Depends on what you mean by "major". In terms of the sensor, absolutely. What else would fit as major? USB interface? HDMI interface? Card slots?


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 3, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I have a question. According to the rumors, it mentions that Canon is waiting on feedback from the R3 to finalize the specifications on the R1.
> 
> *If this statement is true, how realistic is it that Canon can roll out a R1 camera in Q4 2022 while incorporating feedback from the R3 camera that was only released a year earlier especially if the updates required hardware changes? *


Very unrealistic!! If the R1 is supposed to be announced in a year, the hardware is almost certainly fixed and the firmware is in final testing.. But in keeping with the principle of using software/firmware to fix hardware, the firmware can be changed late. (Let's face it, most of the really neat stuff in the R5, R6 and R3 is firmware based.) Unless it is done carefully, there is always the possibility of "unintended consequences" otherwise known as introducing bugs. Serious bugs would severely damage Canon's reputation with buyers, especially professional photographers.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 3, 2021)

Just wanted to say thank to everyone that answered my question. I concur that hardware changes would be difficult at this stage and we are likely only looking at firmware changes. I suspect that a year prior to release that a beta product is already being test internally at Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Just wanted to say thank to everyone that answered my question. I concur that hardware changes would be difficult at this stage and we are likely only looking at firmware changes. I suspect that a year prior to release that a beta product is already being test internally at Canon.


Or the release is further out than a year.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or the release is further out than a year.


That scenario is also a very real possibility.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 3, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I wonder why the 400 mm DO f4 + EF 2x III extender is not as good as the 500 mm f4 + EF2x III extender?



I compared these two directly against each other a few years ago when deciding between precisely those lenses. I went with the 500mm f/4 mostly because I got a really good deal on a used one. The 400 DO II was newer and not as discounted among the used inventory at the time. 

The image quality results showed me that the 500 was very slightly better with the TCs, particularly in the bokeh quality (so, you known, hair splitting). But if I'd had gotten a better offer on a used 400 f/4 DO II, I'd have probably taken it. I really liked the size better.

In retrospect, now shooting the 600 f/4 II primarily, the 500 was the better decision from a focal length perspective, but the IQ issue is still pretty even.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or the release is further out than a year.


Ayup.

It's seldom that we're handed a rumor about a new camera coming out a year later, which turns out to be more than notionally accurate on timing. Sometimes it's accurate that such a model will eventually exist, but the average difference in first rumor timing to actual release is probably more than a year off.

In the mirrorless era, this is probably an average of 1.5 years off. In retrospect, we keep finding that Canon's actual release schedule continues to conform to their 4ish-year cycles, depending on the model class.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 3, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> Ayup.
> 
> It's seldom that we're handed a rumor about a new camera coming out a year later, which turns out to be more than notionally accurate on timing. Sometimes it's accurate that such a model will eventually exist, but the average difference in first rumor timing to actual release is probably more than a year off.
> 
> In the mirrorless era, this is probably an average of 1.5 years off. In retrospect, we keep finding that Canon's actual release schedule continues to conform to their 4ish-year cycles, depending on the model class.


I agree. Back in the film day there was a 16 month separation between the EOS 3 and the EOS-1v; that could be what we have here as well. In reality, I would like to see Canon go well beyond the Z9 and A1 with the R1 and if they take the time they definitely can.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2021)

tron said:


> I just realized that I kind of have a 800mm f/8 lens in the form of a 400mm DO 4L II and EF 2XIII and EOS EF-R converter.
> The quality seems OK but not as good as the quality of the 500mm 4L IS II EF 2XIII combo.


I've had two 400mm DO II, and neither could be described as better than your "OK" with the 2xTCII. In fact, the two RF 800mm f/11 I've handled are at least as good as them.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 3, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Just wanted to say thank to everyone that answered my question. I concur that hardware changes would be difficult at this stage and we are likely only looking at firmware changes. I suspect that a year prior to release that a beta product is already being test internally at Canon.


How long have R3 testers had those cameras? The R3 feedback may have already occurred over the last 6 months. If the actual R1 introduction is a year away, Canon would likely have units in testers' hands for the previous 3+ months.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> How long have R3 testers had those cameras? The R3 feedback may have already occurred over the last 6 months. If the actual R1 introduction is a year away, Canon would likely have units in testers' hands for the previous 3+ months.


Fair point. I also wondered if feedback is from the CPS members that test the cameras 3 months prior to launch so that gives a bit more than a year.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2021)

entoman said:


> Is it honestly necessary to punctuate every sentence with “IMHO” or to state “this is what I want but YMMV” on a forum that deals mostly with rumours and rarely with facts?


No, it's not. 

But when someone (not you) starts sentences with "we want" or "give us" instead of "I want" they're trying to speak for many, and I will (figuratively) stomp on them for it.

When they try to imply that if Canon doesn't give "us" what "we" want they're "d-word-ed," and will lose market share, they are again trying to speak for everyone, and need to be brought up short. 

In other words, DON'T presume to speak for ME in telling Canon what they should do.

An "I'd like to see" or "I want" would be all that's necessary...no need for a "YMMV," that would be implicit. It wouldn't be punctuation, just a shift in the sentence subject from a "we" those people aren't entitled to, to an "I".


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2021)

OK I want R R5 to not miss any capabilities that 7DII, 5DIV and 5DsR have like:

1. To have a single button memory recall where many settings are temporarily activated (including speed, focusing methods, exp comp, AF parameters, etc). So I can shoot static birds with lower speed and the central AF point but when I detect a flying bird I press the button and the camera speed get up to say 1/2500, the AF points change to a lot more than the central, etc, etc.
As I mentioned I can/could do it with 7DII, 5DIV and 5DsR.

2. To configure camera for release, focus or in between priority just like all latest Canon DSLRs (and R).


----------



## juststeve (Nov 3, 2021)

Perhaps of interest to those wanting light weight, compact and less expensive super-teles for birding, Nikon has two compact lenses on the Z system map for 2022. One looks to be a 400/ 4.5 to 4.8 and the other an 800/6.3 to 6.8 of maybe 7.1. It is assumed they are the successors to the F mount 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF lenses which were/are quite highly regarded optically, quite light and compact and while expensive, not ridiculously so.

The 300/4 I have a wee bit of experience with as one of my tour people was using on a D500. It was a sweet lens, very compact and very good optically and price is about $1500. The 500/5.6 has not been in my hands but a lot has been posted on FM about the lens. The only unfavorable comments I have seen about the lens regard availability. Price was about $3300, I believe. It is not in production now, as of a couple of months.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2021)

tron said:


> OK I want R R5 to not miss any capabilities that 7DII, 5DIV and 5DsR have like:
> 
> 1. To have a single button memory recall where many settings are temporarily activated (including speed, focusing methods, exp comp, AF parameters, etc). So I can shoot static birds with lower speed and the central AF point but when I detect a flying bird I press the button and the camera speed get up to say 1/2500, the AF points change to a lot more than the central, etc, etc.
> As I mentioned I can/could do it with 7DII, 5DIV and 5DsR.
> ...


I used to do the first with the old fashioned physical mode dial, using muscle memory to flick within milliseconds. It's more complicated with the modern electronic mode dial. I find it easy to switch shutter speeds manually in Fv with the dial left on shutter speed. If I underexpose by not increasing the iso as I increase speed, I just correct in post as the R5 can be pushed through so many ev.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 3, 2021)

SteveC said:


> But when someone (not you) starts sentences with "we want" or "give us" instead of "I want" they're trying to speak for many, and I will (figuratively) stomp on them for it...


I would add that asserting that Canon (or any other company) "can" do something like offering a lens at a low price point set by the person doing the commenting, will also prompt negative comments. It gets amplified if the person doubles down on their original assertion after others have pointed out they aren't being realistic. 

In this particular case, several people pointed out the targeted price point was unrealistic and why, but instead of acknowledging that and moving on or asking questions, he just dug in and basically said not to confuse him with the facts. 

I've found that on this forum it's the doubling down on original misconceptions that usually gets people in trouble with other forum participants.


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I used to do the first with the old fashioned physical mode dial, using muscle memory to flick within milliseconds. It's more complicated with the modern electronic mode dial. I find it easy to switch shutter speeds manually in Fv with the dial left on shutter speed. If I underexpose by not increasing the iso as I increase speed, I just correct in post as the R5 can be pushed through so many ev.


I tend to use high speed to cover for all cases but unfortunately sometimes I lower the speed and I increase it afterwards. But I have made the same mistake with 5DsR when I was shooting a static and an almost static bid. 

The static one was in a dark place so I had shot it with 400mm DO II at 1/160 but then I forgot to change the speed. So I shot a tree-creeper at that speed. Some shots were a disaster but fortunately some turned out good (and at low iso too).


----------



## entoman (Nov 3, 2021)

SteveC said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> But when someone (not you) starts sentences with "we want" or "give us" instead of "I want" they're trying to speak for many, and I will (figuratively) stomp on them for it.
> 
> ...


Hence I nearly always qualify my posts to make it clear that I’m talking about my own opinions and suggestions. If I suggest that “many” or “most” people probably think likewise, I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m expressing an opinion. I sometimes make the mistake of assuming that people have enough common sense to *realise* that I’m expressing an opinion, without needing to double-underline it. 

I’ll be off to Africa tomorrow, so I hope everyone here enjoys their photography, and some interesting and amicable discussions during my absence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m expressing an opinion. I sometimes make the mistake of assuming that people have enough common sense to *realise* that I’m expressing an opinion, without needing to double-underline it.


Yes, it’s obvious you’re expressing an opinion.

Hopefully when people express an opinion they have enough common sense to *realize* that their opinion might be challenged… particularly in cases where objective evidence refutes their opinion.

Furthermore, if someone were to express an opinion that differed significantly from objective reality, for example posting that the earth is flat, that person might reasonably expect to be challenged rather forcefully.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2021)

SteveC said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> But when someone (not you) starts sentences with "we want" or "give us" instead of "I want" they're trying to speak for many, and I will (figuratively) stomp on them for it.
> 
> ...


Perhaps he's King Entoman and it's the "Royal We" as used by our Queen.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it’s obvious you’re expressing an opinion.
> 
> Hopefully when people expresses an opinion they have enough common sense to *realize* that their opinion might be challenged… particularly in cases where objective evidence refutes their opinion.
> 
> Furthermore, if someone were to express an opinion that differed significantly from objective reality, for example posting that the earth is flat, that person might reasonably expect to be challenged rather forcefully.


Yes, it's fair to have opinions on matters that are just matters of opinion, but not on matters of fact. I have mentioned before that the Headmaster (Principal) of my school subjected us to a lecture by a spokesman of the Flat Earth Society. He was quite convincing.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 3, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> I compared these two directly against each other a few years ago when deciding between precisely those lenses. I went with the 500mm f/4 mostly because I got a really good deal on a used one. The 400 DO II was newer and not as discounted among the used inventory at the time.
> 
> The image quality results showed me that the 500 was very slightly better with the TCs, particularly in the bokeh quality (so, you known, hair splitting). But if I'd had gotten a better offer on a used 400 f/4 DO II, I'd have probably taken it. I really liked the size better.
> 
> In retrospect, now shooting the 600 f/4 II primarily, the 500 was the better decision from a focal length perspective, but the IQ issue is still pretty even.


I don’t know but I suspect the 2x was designed most closely to work with 400 2.8 , 500 & 600 F4. I never liked it with say the 70-200 or 300 F2.8 but it works really well with the 600 F4 II. The 1.4 works well with everything and I often leave it on the 300 2.8 II . Of all my lens I rate the 300 2.8 II the best. It makes everything look good.


----------



## TravelerNick (Nov 5, 2021)

On the F/11 lenses. Every increase in price shrinks the potential buyer pool. At the F/11 prices you can talk yourself into buying it and using it rarely.

At twice the price you start moving into the territory that only people who really think they need it will buy. That means all the fixed costs are spread over the smaller buyer base. 

It's not just about price either. At F/8 the lens will be bigger and heavier. Further reducing the potential market.

I have virtually zero interest in anything over 200mm (and even that takes some convincing) but I'd likely buy the 600mm F/11 at the price. I'd even likely carry it. 

An F/8 lens that is basically aimed at amateur wildlife shooters that don't want to spend the money on the exotic longer lenses but want something one stop faster than the F/11 is a pretty small market item. Niche items are rarely cheap. 

Aren't there used EF lenses that can be adapted for similar prices? Canon also needs to compete with that further shrinking the pool of buyers.


----------



## StevenA (Nov 5, 2021)

garrev said:


> I'm not sure where you're coming from Steven, but you have just discounted and written off the years and years of practice, training, experimenting, visionary talents and skills, climbing on your belly through thorns to get the shot, determination, and plain hard work many have dedicated to perfecting their craft and creating images no one - I mean NO ONE - else could replicate. Just ask your daughter and she'll make you eat your words.



I haven't discounted anything. Modern tech is doing that - blame it. And actually, because of the advancements in cameras is the very reason my daughter picked up film. She said there was no challenge to digital and gains more satisfaction from getting an image on film.

Certainly we can agree film is more challenging? Thus, as I said, modern camera tech is blurring the lines between the novice and the professional.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 5, 2021)

StevenA said:


> Certainly we can agree film is more challenging? Thus, as I said, modern camera tech is blurring the lines between the novice and the professional.


I'm not @garrev but I definitely agree that film was/is more challenging.

Modern cameras helps novices like me (going from a 5D3 to a 1Dx for autosports immediately doubled my keeper rate), but when panning technique comes in, I am still woefully inadequate. I may have access to same equipment as a pro, but but results are far behind. The fleshy bit behind the camera decides the images (still).


----------



## StevenA (Nov 5, 2021)

kaihp said:


> I'm not @garrev but I definitely agree that film was/is more challenging.
> 
> Modern cameras helps novices like me (going from a 5D3 to a 1Dx for autosports immediately doubled my keeper rate), but when panning technique comes in, I am still woefully inadequate. I may have access to same equipment as a pro, but but results are far behind. The fleshy bit behind the camera decides the images (still).



Yes, Agreed, But I wonder what your panning keeper rate would be using film, instead of a 1Dx?


----------



## kaihp (Nov 5, 2021)

StevenA said:


> Yes, Agreed, But I wonder what your panning keeper rate would be using film, instead of a 1Dx?


Same as with the 1Dx. None


----------



## StevenA (Nov 5, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Same as with the 1Dx. None


Haha. Fair enough.


----------



## gunship01 (Nov 7, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> I've no doubt there are people that will never be satisfied with the number of pixels a camera's sensor has and will always want more. For me, 45mp on the R5 is a sweet spot. Anything bigger would just slow down my process. For those suggesting 60mp or higher, that's a lot of mp for full frame sensor, may as well move into medium format if that's a big requirement.


Agreed Tom. Well put. 
I'm with the group aligned with the ideological business aspect of 1) incremental development (not too much technological advancement at once so as to keep the customers aligned with the product and not jump ship) and 2) making the R1 emulate the competition's Z9 in specs and price (the final product being 45 MP and around $6K).


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 8, 2021)

I "hear" that Nikon has over 400,000 pre-orders for the Z9 already as of last week.

How many of those people are *not* interested in a 45MP R1? 

If the R1 is not 80 to 85MP Canon is cutting off their nose to spite their face. So easy to change frame rate by adjusting file size. 

When was the last time Canon had 400,000 pre-orders on a camera?

The R1 *might* be Canon's last chance. And how do our current Canon inventory of $12,000 f/2.8 400mm , compare to the new Nikon 2.8 400MM with a built in TC?

If the R1 is 80 to 85MP our agency is prepared to replace every 1DX, 1DXII and 1DXMKIII in inventory as well as invest in new optimized glass for the RF platform. While the few million we'll be spending might not drive Canon's final decision. There are too many like us on the agency side, sports team, league, magazine, digital producers and even enthusiasts to realize that the initial base could exceed Nikon's 400,000 orders. More important, look at the cross-over from other genres. Multiple fashion, wildlife and wedding photographers have said they would move to a platform with that resolution.

Of the 400,000 Z9 pre-orders.... How many people would cancel their Z9's, if Canon announced the R1 has a *significantly* better resolution to offer? 

Canon needs to step up well before 3rd 1/4 2022... Or the ship will have sailed......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> I "hear" that Nikon has over 400,000 pre-orders for the Z9 already as of last week.


I “hear” the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese.

Got any actual evidence?

I didn’t think so.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 9, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Gosh, Steve, IBIS? a 50/1.2 with literally ten times the resolution of the previous model? The R5's ability to nail focus on humans to birds? Or just another several stops of DR and ISO speed improvement?
> 
> I'll meet you half-way. I like shooting landscapes and cityscapes and want maximum detail in my shots and don't need AF or IBIS to do those, just a tripod. And I'd LOVE 100MP, but I wonder if the lenses for the camera line mentioned can actually resolve that finely? The Canon 50/1.2 can, I believe. If not, then we get a high-resolution photo of a poorly focused detail, and that's not compelling to me.


I have very little use for a 50mm prime. I think I have used my f/1.4 on one occasion since I got the 6D2, when I knew I’d be taking a picture of a small group in available light. If I take anything in that focal length range, my kit zoom works fine otherwise. All my pictures of humans or birds appear sharp. One guy in the small group shot appeared slightly fuzzy because he was a bit farther away than others. The cure for that would have been to stop down slightly more, not having the camera focus on somebody else’s eye or focusing on one of his eyes and making everybody else fuzzy. As it was, when I resized for use in the neighborhood newsletter and for the web, he didn’t look fuzzy, at least not so anybody would notice.

All the things you list are nice, and I am happy they are available for people who want or need them. I have not perceived the need. Hence the lack of temptation. I am thinking of my own picture taking, which is not the same as that of a lot of folks here, apparently.

The reviews I have seen of the Fuji GX lenses tend to rave about them, some more so than others, but all really good. I would do more reading up before I decided on the two lenses I would buy, with usefulness for what I want to do the main concern. The kinds of things I would shoot with the 100S would not need IBIS or fast autofocus or birds’ eyes, just a tripod and some patience, not much unlike you.

Yesterday may be instructive. Yesterday was beautiful. The 7.8 acres of woods behind my house are looking very nice now with increasing fall colors. It has been a very busy weekend, so when I got home after lunch yesterday, I was bushed and just sat down and dozed off rather than taking the camera out into the woods. If I had had another $10,000+ of gear, I still would have sat down and dozed off. I think Wednesday will still be nice, so maybe that will be a good day to go out and shoot pictures with what I have now. If lunch with a friend tomorrow doesn’t go on too long, I could start scoping out a trail in the afternoon. I’ll put the battery on to charge tonight, just in case.

The moral of all that is that if I don’t go out to shoot over the next couple days or if it turns out to be not that much fun, then I can reasonably conclude that I’m not really that interested in expanding my landscape photography, and the temptation for that equipment will be significantly attenuated. OTOH, if my reaction is “Gee, I wish I had another 75 megapixels for this great shot,” my credit card could take a good hit before Friday.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 10, 2021)

I did go out on trail in the woods behind my house yesterday. I took the 16–35mm zoom, but no tripod. I was really intending just to scope out things for this afternoon. I was surprised how green the trees there still were, so I didn’t go back today. I took a few pictures anyway, and a couple of them looked like another 75MP might be in order. But really, stopping down a bit and using a tripod would likely have cured what ails those pictures. I wasn’t being very careful even as it was.


The trees you can see from my bedroom, living room, and deck looked even nicer today than yesterday. Even the maples out front are looking good. So late in the afternoon I took a few pictures from the deck. Here is one out back, and one of a tree out front seen from between the houses.


----------



## canonmike (Nov 29, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If a 7D or 7D II was the right tool for the job given a person’s budget, why not just keep using it? It’s not like it suddenly quit doing what you wanted it to. I can appreciate GAS as much as the next guy, and the idea will sound weird to folks on a board dedicated to rumors about the coming latest and greatest, I realize.
> 
> My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football. Unless sales of pictures to other parents is too lucrative to give up, many of those owners suddenly have no long term special need for it once the son graduates.





stevelee said:


> My unscientific unrandom anecdotal sample of folks using or aspiring to those cameras have 100% been people with sons playing high school football. Unless sales of pictures to other parents is too lucrative to give up, many of those owners suddenly have no long term special need for it once the son graduates


Guilty, your honor, except it was when my grandson graduated, not my son, after which my 7D sat on my bookshelf for a couple of yrs, before I ultimately sold it. Your comment was spot on.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 3, 2021)

In my opinion, a "global shutter" (offering significantly reduced high ISO/low light noise, plus significantly increased dynamic range) would provide the most likely incentive for serious photographers to choose/upgrade to a Canon R1 over an R3 or R5. I would very seriously consider such an R1. That R1 would be too tempting to pass up.

Canon, are you reading this?

Jan


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 3, 2021)

ethanz said:


> I had one of those Sony Mavica mini-cd cameras a long time ago. Interesting camera.


Believe it or not, I still have mine, along with a bunch of mini-discs with photos on them.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 3, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Launching the R1 with mindblowing specs and 50mpix sensor ASAP is the only smart thing to do now…
> 
> 
> Please take notice of this (my) point of view:
> ...


Interesting conjecture...


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 3, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> And think twice when buying the R3, by the time the R1 hits the market, nobody wants an R3 anymore. Maybe some hobby planespotter, but your 6000 euro investment will be shattered in just a year.


I disagree. The R3 should be very well suited as is to my motorsports photography needs.
Jan


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 13, 2022)

Just had the Nikon rep come in with the Z9 and everyone at our agency was just blown away by the IQ, focus, DR and ergonomics.

Our goal was to get 15fps at double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII. The Z9 is going to do exceptional in the pro-market.

For the first time in 15 years, our agency has put the budget to Nikon again.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Just had the Nikon rep come in with the Z9 and everyone at our agency was just blown away by the IQ, focus, DR and ergonomics.
> 
> Our goal was to get 15fps at double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII. The Z9 is going to do exceptional in the pro-market.
> 
> For the first time in 15 years, our agency has put the budget to Nikon again.


Great, does that mean we don't need to listen to you droning on anymore about how sh!t Canon are? 

Now you can live over on NikonRumors and tell them about how great Canon used to be and how the Z9 would be perfect if it didn't have a flip out screen because as pros you can't stop yourselves breaking them off all the time, after all pro cameras don't have movable screens.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Great, does that mean we don't need to listen to you droning on anymore about how sh!t Canon are?


From your lips to goldmember’s ears. But that’s definitely a situation where social distancing would be a must.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 13, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Great, does that mean we don't need to listen to you droning on anymore about how sh!t Canon are?
> 
> Now you can live over on NikonRumors and tell them about how great Canon used to be and how the Z9 would be perfect if it didn't have a flip out screen because as pros you can't stop yourselves breaking them off all the time, after all pro cameras don't have movable screens.....


If Canon can compete, we'll be fair if the R1 can equal the IQ of the Z9


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> If Canon can compete, we'll be fair if the R1 can equal the IQ of the Z9


Nobody, including Canon or Nikon, care what you think, or what you decide to buy. Even though you purport to buy for an agency the actual numbers of bodies you have talked about are nothing more than a bean counters rounding error.


----------



## tron (Jan 13, 2022)

You both forgot to tell him to not let the door hit him on his way out


----------



## unfocused (Jan 13, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Just had the Nikon rep come in with the Z9 and everyone at our agency was just blown away by the IQ, focus, DR and ergonomics.
> 
> Our goal was to get 15fps at double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII. The Z9 is going to do exceptional in the pro-market.
> 
> For the first time in 15 years, our agency has put the budget to Nikon again.


I would like to get your assessment after six months or so of using the Nikons. They sound like excellent cameras and it will be interesting to know if they perform as expected.

I’m still adjusting to the R3, but so far I have no regrets about the performance. The eye control is not magic but I’m finding it quite useful for sports if you keep your expectations reasonable and understand that it needs to work in conjunction with the rest of the focusing system.

I know the R3 resolution was a nonstarter for you, but it isn’t a problem for me.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 13, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I would like to get your assessment after six months or so of using the Nikons. They sound like excellent cameras and it will be interesting to know if they perform as expected.
> 
> I’m still adjusting to the R3, but so far I have no regrets about the performance. The eye control is not magic but I’m finding it quite useful for sports if you keep your expectations reasonable and understand that it needs to work in conjunction with the rest of the focusing system.
> 
> I know the R3 resolution was a nonstarter for you, but it isn’t a problem for me.


For us, it's really being forward-thinking and knowing that our competition is also ordering Z9's. All things being equal if one agency is submitting higher resolution images with clearly better IQ, they get and keep more business.

Some might dismiss our seven figure purchasing budget as being insignificant to the overall market but it's very important to us.

We put aside six figures to start with the Z9's. If the R1 exceeds the IQ of the Z9 then we have lots of budget as we transition away from the 1DXMKii's and III's. 

The R3 could very well suit some. Competition between agencies is so fierce now we had to adopt the Z9, if you've seen the images compared the R3 and 1DXMKIII there is a marked difference. 

Good luck with your R3, it's a comprehensive platform that should give you years of good service and great support from CPS.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 13, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Competition between agencies is so fierce now we had to adopt the Z9, if you've seen the images compared the R3 and 1DXMKIII there is a marked difference.


I'm interested to see that, are you able to share some examples?


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 15, 2022)

tron said:


> You both forgot to tell him to not let the door hit him on his way out


"Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!"


----------



## AlanF (Jan 16, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't feel it makes sense to make a strategic decision based on one camera body. I'd personally go Nikon on grounds of the system as a whole, or a gut feeling of the direction the vendor was going to take the system. Canon was lagging with mirrorless and IBIS and DR for quite a while and in that era I could understand saying, OK, Canon just doesn't care to be the leader, so for that reason we're going Nikon. But the R system has been out now several years, we finally have IBIS, we have excellent DR in the latest bodies. Can WAS content to be behind for quite a few years but IS NOW acting like it wants to stay at least abreast of the competition if not lead. I could understand going Nikon 1, 2, 3, or 4 years ago. But I don't really understand it now. But whatever, it's your money.
> 
> Curious though, you say the AF is great. What is it doing that say the R5 is incapable of?


The preliminary reviews from reliable FM members is that the Z9 AF is similar to the R5 but not quite as good at recognising birds eye AF. That is, of course, high praise but it means their flagship doesn't outperform Canon's lower range. I'm not a pro and I don't need my camera to be built like a tank - the weight of the Z9 at 600g more than the R5 means I would never ever consider it even it were significantly better. Canon's shaving weight of the 1DX series on going to the R1 makes it just within my weight limits.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 16, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't feel it makes sense to make a strategic decision based on one camera body. I'd personally go Nikon on grounds of the system as a whole, or a gut feeling of the direction the vendor was going to take the system. Canon was lagging with mirrorless and IBIS and DR for quite a while and in that era I could understand saying, OK, Canon just doesn't care to be the leader, so for that reason we're going Nikon. But the R system has been out now several years, we finally have IBIS, we have excellent DR in the latest bodies. Can WAS content to be behind for quite a few years but IS NOW acting like it wants to stay at least abreast of the competition if not lead. I could understand going Nikon 1, 2, 3, or 4 years ago. But I don't really understand it now. But whatever, it's your money.
> 
> Curious though, you say the AF is great. What is it doing that say the R5 is incapable of?


It's tracking during the demo's was truly exceptional as was exposure, noise, color rendition and the resolution was "far" superior. The general IQ advantage was so apparent even a non-pixel peeper could see the enhanced resolution over the R3 and 1DXMKIII. Getting into the weeds in post and crops everyone in the room was impressed. After we did some pixel peeping on human hair and skin and there is no doubt with our senior editors, chief photographers and my management group that we would put 6 figures to a few (2) test kits. Nikon agreed to replicate our Canon kits as close as possible. If they prove as effective after we tweak workflow, then we'll start replacing more 1DXMKIII and 1DXMKII kits with a 7 figure budget in 2022 to first 1/4 2023.

If the R1 comes out in 2023, we'll take a look. When I first started we had a mixed shop Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad in our studios.

We no longer have Hasselblad but use Fuji 100 and 100s for in studio.

With an 8 figure budget for second half of 22" into 2nd half of 23"

We can move to the platform that serves us best in the U.S. LATAM ASIA, EU AND the MENA.

Everyone was really impressed with the Z9


----------



## unfocused (Jan 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The preliminary reviews from reliable FM members is that the Z9 AF is similar to the R5 but not quite as good at recognising birds eye AF. That is, of course, high praise but it means their flagship doesn't outperform Canon's lower range. I'm not a pro and I don't need my camera to be built like a tank - the weight of the Z9 at 600g more than the R5 means I would never ever consider it even it were significantly better. Canon's shaving weight of the 1DX series on going to the R1 makes it just within my weight limits.


The problem with the R5 for sports is the buffer. It's simply too small and doesn't clear fast enough for fast sports action. I love it for birds and it is quite sufficient for birds in flight, but for fast moving sports action, waiting for the buffer to clear means missing critical shots. I assume that's one of the main reasons Canon went with 24mp for the R3. But, if you really need 45mp and a sports-oriented body, I can totally understand why @GoldWing might prefer the Nikon (If it has an adequate buffer that clears fast enough).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 16, 2022)

unfocused said:


> The problem with the R5 for sports is the buffer. It's simply too small and doesn't clear fast enough for fast sports action. I love it for birds and it is quite sufficient for birds in flight, but for fast moving sports action, waiting for the buffer to clear means missing critical shots. I assume that's one of the main reasons Canon went with 24mp for the R3. But, if you really need 45mp and a sports-oriented body, I can totally understand why @GoldWing might prefer the Nikon (If it has an adequate buffer that clears fast enough).


A genuine question for you, why go for the Nikon Z9 over the Sony A1? My knowledge of sports photography is limited, to say the the least.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> A genuine question for you, why go for the Nikon Z9 over the Sony A1? My knowledge of sports photography is limited, to say the the least.


Are you asking me or @GoldWing? I'm a Canon person and I am perfectly happy with the resolution of the R3. I would never consider Sony. I was simply explaining why, if you need a sports oriented body and 45MP, which Goldwing says he does, then Nikon is a logical choice. You'd have to ask him why they didn't consider Sony.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 16, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Are you asking me or @GoldWing? I'm a Canon person and I am perfectly happy with the resolution of the R3. I would never consider Sony. I was simply explaining why, if you need a sports oriented body and 45MP, which Goldwing says he does, then Nikon is a logical choice. You'd have to ask him why they didn't consider Sony.


We tried to adopt SONY a few times and got a bad taste for support and continuity of product lines. The rugged bodies we need were never part of what SONY put out compared to Canon. CPS also played a good role. We're just not interested but thank you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 17, 2022)

What I will say is that Z9 with the new Nikkor Z 400 f2.8 with built in TC looks to be a very compelling kit for many!

On a broader note, I don’t understand brand allegiance in a professional environment. Get whatever has the features you need to do the job you have. No reason why one company should provide that for ever, or one company provide all you need for every situation. 

The problem I have with some commenters is they repeatedly put a company down because they don’t make what they personally want. Who cares? Move on to the company that does, be happy and get your job done…


----------



## stevelee (Jan 17, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> What I will say is that Z9 with the new Nikkor Z 400 f2.8 with built in TC looks to be a very compelling kit for many!
> 
> On a broader note, I don’t understand brand allegiance in a professional environment. Get whatever has the features you need to do the job you have. No reason why one company should provide that for ever, or one company provide all you need for every situation.
> 
> The problem I have with some commenters is they repeatedly put a company down because they don’t make what they personally want. Who cares? Move on to the company that does, be happy and get your job done…


For a lot of professional situations, I would expect that the professional services available would be a main reason to stick with Canon even if another brand has some gear a little better suited to the task.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 17, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Hysterical to even say this when to this day Canon continues to sell the $6500 1DX Mark III brand new to countless people including major organizations.
> 
> I've had my 1dx mark II for almost six years now and yet I'll still be selling it for a significant amount once my R3 arrives. But sure. Keep trolling.



I'm not sure there have been "countless people" buying any types of ILCs since around 2012...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 17, 2022)

Cyborx said:


> Hahahaha… name me 3 major organizations that have bought 1Dx III bodies after the announcement of the R3.
> 
> So easy to call me a troll bro, if you read my posts you know I am using 1dx series myself.



Then you ought to know it is the 1D X series, not the 1Dx series... Dx is a Nikon thing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 17, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> I bet this was a design decision to get the cost down. Most high speed shooters are doing sports, and have deadlines within MINUTES of the end of an event. Jeff Cable, the guy of R3 test fame at the olympics, had to have all his photos sorted, processed and transferred within 15minutes of an event. No time for RAW processing anyway.
> 
> Brian



The higher profile the event, the shorter the deadlines. Not even Jeff Cable shoots the Olympics 50 weeks per year. Just because some of his assignments are that tight doesn't mean all of them are.

I know more than a few sports/action photogs that are shooting raw for at least some of their assignments. Ten years ago none of them were, because the camera buffers couldn't keep up. Even with short turnarounds, if one has an existing "recipe" for a particular facility's lights that offers more color correction or other processing that can't be applied in camera to JPEGs, they can shoot raw and then batch apply the same "recipe" to every keeper fairly quickly before pushing the images to the wires. This works very well in facilities with less than ideal lighting. NFL, NBA, NHL, major colleges, etc. arenas almost all have pretty good lights that are full spectrum and flicker free. But medium sized colleges and most high schools do not. Those are the facilities where raw is most valuable, and those events are the ones that tend to have more forgiving deadlines.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 17, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> The R1 will not differ from any other camera when a professional makes a business decision.
> 
> Nor will an Enthusiast differ in what changes their motivations.
> 
> ...



Kodak sold over 10,000,000 Brownies between 1900 and 1905 in the first five years it was on the market. The Hawkeye Brownies sold from 1950-61 weren't far behind. The RF mount 1-Series digital camera will never come close to outselling the Brownie as the best selling camera in history.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 17, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> If that instamatic is the best professional camera you've ever owned.... You've done a great job with it... Hang in there for another 50 years!!!   Best to you!!!



You didn't say the "best professional camera" of all time.

You said "The best selling camera" of all time.

Please make up your mind.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then Canon would like you to buy the RF 100-500L and the RF 2x TC. And if that’s not bright enough, they’ll happily sell you an RF 600/4L to use with your 2x TC.
> 
> Incidentally, I had the 7D and 100-400L, and the 1D X and 600/4L, and the latter combination delivered far better results.



Mostly because the original 7D couldn't AF the broad side of a barn more than 2-3 frames out of a 10 shot burst.


----------

