Like the new 24MP Sony a9 III sports camera. A difference is that R1 image quality won't be degraded by a global shutter.Still only 24MP?
Upvote
0
Like the new 24MP Sony a9 III sports camera. A difference is that R1 image quality won't be degraded by a global shutter.Still only 24MP?
Didn't say I don't believe you, but that I'm just waiting for some official wellknown sources.Well you won't believe me....but my source is very well known and works for Getty.... who by the way will all be forced to be using the R1 at the Olympics, even if they are Nikon or Sony shooters. There are a fair few pretty unimpressed snappers after using it.
After all these years that Canon have had to match, and maybe even get in front of Sony and Nikon...and it's basically just an R3 with a bit faster focussing? Still only 24MP?
You will all be pretty disappointed when its finally announced I think.
Yes we should definitely trust your source, user who joined this forum today.Well you won't believe me....but my source is very well known and works for Getty....
Exactly as one would expect since camera tech is already so mature. R3 owners are obviously not the target market, but for those who have the R3 and have already shot a few hundred thousand images, they may be ready for a new camera and will get an R1. And others will always find an upgrade in AF to be worth upgrading. As always, it will depend on what specific specs are the most vital for each individual photographer.I have spoken to a photographer who has used the R1. Yes 24MP. Yes the AF is better. Some AI thing where you photograph someones face, then you can set it to track and follow that persons face only...they described it as a bit of a gimmick. But the camera is basically just an R3 mkii. Not what they had hoped it would be. They said if they were spending their own money, they wouldn't even bother upgrading from the R3!
Funny that a well known Nikon representative - in talking to the sports shooters he knows - says that many of those shooters really would prefer 16 MP for a faster workflow to transmit their images. So, "still only 24MP" is probably a plus for working pros. I realize gear-heads will whine and complain, but, as is usually the case, the most ignorant make the most noise.Well you won't believe me....but my source is very well known and works for Getty.... who by the way will all be forced to be using the R1 at the Olympics, even if they are Nikon or Sony shooters. There are a fair few pretty unimpressed snappers after using it.
After all these years that Canon have had to match, and maybe even get in front of Sony and Nikon...and it's basically just an R3 with a bit faster focussing? Still only 24MP?
You will all be pretty disappointed when its finally announced I think.
I’ll bite: What sort of features is this photographer looking for, then? I’m only an amateur sports shooter, but this is exactly the sort of feature I would love to have.I have spoken to a photographer who has used the R1. Yes 24MP. Yes the AF is better. Some AI thing where you photograph someones face, then you can set it to track and follow that persons face only...they described it as a bit of a gimmick. But the camera is basically just an R3 mkii. Not what they had hoped it would be. They said if they were spending their own money, they wouldn't even bother upgrading from the R3!
Isn't it obvious? S/he's suggesting that people want more than 24 MP. Which really means that s/he personally wants more MP.I’ll bite: What sort of features is this photographer looking for, then? I’m only an amateur sports shooter, but this is exactly the sort of feature I would love to have.
Yes, it's interesting that Sony, after no doubt getting some feedback from real sports pro's using their machines, chose to make their latest and greatest camera 24 MP. Maybe Canon knows a thing or two about their market and knows that 24 MP is just fine.Like the new 24MP Sony a9 III sports camera. A difference is that R1 image quality won't be degraded by a global shutter.
Impossible. Everyone here knows that randos on the internet know more about making and selling cameras than Canon.Some people here write as if Canon just kind of chooses their specs for their cameras on a random whim. In reality they have real world feedback from true working pro's and make their choices very carefully.
Thanks! Good points. It would be more likely Apple make some special software for Canon to connect to macs or iphone/ipads, but that also appears like a "no friggin way" scenario, right?There is no way. Regulatory and cultural factors aside, I don’t see complimentary businesses. Apple does not need litho machines at the node canon makes. Apple does not need an optics business. If Apple wanting a printing business they’d white label. They could build their own camera by sourcing parts—look at the Vision Pro! Apple branded copiers?? Apple branded CT scanners?! And Canon is way way too big to buy for a patent portfolio.
Harry was being funny because that’s what he does but no friggin way.
Awesome! Looks like you had an adventure!The weather sealing on the R3 is good enough for me!View attachment 217693
Only the spec whores will be disappointed and they probably wouldn't buy it if it had 200mp anyway because of reasons...Well you won't believe me....but my source is very well known and works for Getty.... who by the way will all be forced to be using the R1 at the Olympics, even if they are Nikon or Sony shooters. There are a fair few pretty unimpressed snappers after using it.
After all these years that Canon have had to match, and maybe even get in front of Sony and Nikon...and it's basically just an R3 with a bit faster focussing? Still only 24MP?
You will all be pretty disappointed when its finally announced I think.
Canon did add an Apple mode to their cameras with the R7 and newer, it works very well with Camera connect, no more wifi needed.Thanks! Good points. It would be more likely Apple make some special software for Canon to connect to macs or iphone/ipads, but that also appears like a "no friggin way" scenario, right?
Reasons: because a Canon can never be a soni or a NikonOnly the spec whores will be disappointed and they probably wouldn't buy it if it had 200mp anyway because of reasons...
Not true. Editorial photographers want the bigger file size to give them the opportunity to crop into their images more. When you are shooting unpredictable events such as news and sports you cannot always fill the frame with your subject due to being stuck in a fixed spot and not able to move, the unpredictability of your subject or the limitations of using a fixed prime lens such as a 400mm lens and unable to zoom in any more. All staff Associated Press photographers recently switched from using Canon to now all shooting with Sony, and AFP are using Nikon. With the photographers using the equivalent pro versions of the Sony and Nikon cameras having twice the file size to work with, they will be able to crop into and distribute images that photographers using the R1 just won't be able to do, putting the R1 user at a pretty big disadvantage in a very competitive environment. Especially at the upcoming Olympics!Funny that a well known Nikon representative - in talking to the sports shooters he knows - says that many of those shooters really would prefer 16 MP for a faster workflow to transmit their images. So, "still only 24MP" is probably a plus for working pros. I realize gear-heads will whine and complain, but, as is usually the case, the most ignorant make the most noise.
Yeah this one was stated by somebody else who complained about it freezing that often. Might have been a bit misleading as introduction right under your quote.Were you replying to someone else? I did not say that
Yeah, I know that mild panic when freezing happens the first timeNow that I think about it, the 5D (classic) locked up on me once. It was my only camera and I was on my first safari so I had a mild panic attack- then I came to my senses and remove the batteries and that fixed it. So many great memories with that camera! My first FF
![]()
Almost the same here.. but I don’t really consider the settings for cards, AF and Wi-Fi customizing, as these are just settings to be set. Customizing for me begins when rearranging functions/buttons and stuff like that, but that’s just my interpretation of customizing.To be honest, it's not like I customize much: I set how I want the 2 memory card to operate, change something for AF and customize the control ring (then promptly forget about it, never to be used). I am mostly a stills shooter so I do not touch the video settings. That's about it
Can I understand better what the minimum output file size needs to be? Is it for web or printing (what size/DPI)?Not true. Editorial photographers want the bigger file size to give them the opportunity to crop into their images more. When you are shooting unpredictable events such as news and sports you cannot always fill the frame with your subject due to being stuck in a fixed spot and not able to move, the unpredictability of your subject or the limitations of using a fixed prime lens such as a 400mm lens and unable to zoom in any more. All staff Associated Press photographers recently switched from using Canon to now all shooting with Sony, and AFP are using Nikon.
Yeah, it’s almost as if Canon didn’t talk to professional sports photographers when designing the R1. Except, no doubt they did. They just didn’t talk to you. Obviously, Sony made the same egregious error when designing the a9III.With the photographers using the equivalent pro versions of the Sony and Nikon cameras having twice the file size to work with, they will be able to crop into and distribute images that photographers using the R1 just won't be able to do, putting the R1 user at a pretty big disadvantage in a very competitive environment. Especially at the upcoming Olympics!