Official announcement of the Canon EOS R1 is now expected in July

[roby17269]

I saw your portfolio. Very nice fashion photos. But they do not need hi fps. I still maintain that if a photographer wants high mpx and not so high fps, R1 (and this thread) is certainly not for them. (There are others who prefer hi fps and are willing to work with lower mpx.)

Thanks! - there are other kind of images in the "Not Only Fashion" page

I agree it's not for me - I am on record here declaring I will not buy it assuming the resolution specs are as per the rumors.
I just disagree with people implying that high res means slow as molasses: Sony and Nikon have opted for different compromises and achieved good resolution and good speed.

I guess yes, I know I am not a sport shooter and Canon does not care about my "feelings", but I am also someone that has used 1-class cameras and would like for Canon to either go back to the 1D / 1Ds approach or to take a more similar approach to what Sony and Nikon are doing. And before @neuroanatomist chastises me , these are my desires and no, Canon is not doooooomed if they fail to heed my wishes (as they have already done with the 35!!! )

 

[Ozarker]

Uff. He is saying saying that your preference regarding R1 is irrelevant because you are not the target customer. He is not saying all your preferences are irrelevant. Deep breaths.

Sanj, I have no preference concerning the R1. Snotty remarks to people who state they would have preferred, say, 30 mpix, over what is offered is valid. They aren't ordering Canon to do it. It's like saying, "The video specs don't matter, but I might like everything else." Does that mean that this person isn't the target market? My lowly R had the mpix I wanted, but not the speed. Does that mean that one feature makes me not the target market? Apparently it was targeted enough for me.

Honestly, I think the camera models are meant to have a broad appeal and even some overlapping appeal in their individual target areas. The R1 isn't made for just the sports guys. So while people want to jump at those folks who say they wished it had been 30 mpix, not a single cotton picking one would have complained if it had been made with 30. Was it possible? I don't know. Doesn't change the fact that they would have preferred more.

I don't think a single spec disappointment means, "Well, you're not the target market." I think that's bs.

 

[sanj]

Sanj, I have no preference concerning the R1. Snotty remarks to people who state they would have preferred, say, 30 mpix, over what is offered is valid. They aren't ordering Canon to do it. It's like saying, "The video specs don't matter, but I might like everything else." Does that mean that this person isn't the target market? My lowly R had the mpix I wanted, but not the speed. Does that mean that one feature makes me not the target market? Apparently it was targeted enough for me.

Honestly, I think the camera models are meant to have a broad appeal and even some overlapping appeal in their individual target areas. The R1 isn't made for just the sports guys. So while people want to jump at those folks who say they wished it had been 30 mpix, not a single cotton picking one would have complained if it had been made with 30. Was it possible? I don't know. Doesn't change the fact that they would have preferred more.

I don't think a single spec disappointment means, "Well, you're not the target market." I think that's bs.

I agree with everything you say except: I think R1 is meant mostly for action shooters in rugged conditions. I also believe that R1 will have the best possible IQ for most photos (DR included) that do not require cropping or LARGE (Thx Nemorino) bill board printing.

 

[Nemorino]

or bill board printing

Just calculate a little. How large will the picture be if one pixel is printed 1mm? ;-)

 

[sanj]

Just calculate a little. How large will the picture be if one pixel is printed 1mm? ;-)

Explain, please.

 

[photophil]

Explain, please.

Billboards do not need a lot of resolution due to the large viewing distance. 1 pixel per millimeter is a higher resolution than what would be used for a billboard already. A 24 MP image at that resolution would result a 6x4 meter print.

 

[Nemorino]

@photophil
That is exactly what I had in mind!

 

[sanj]

Billboards do not need a lot of resolution due to the large viewing distance. 1 pixel per millimeter is a higher resolution than what would be used for a billboard already. A 24 MP image at that resolution would result a 6x4 meter print.

Yes. But billboards tend to be larger. It has been drilled in my head that one needs a large format camera for proper billboard advertizing photography.

 

[photophil]

Yes. But billboards tend to be larger. It has been drilled in my head that one needs a large format camera for proper billboard advertizing photography.

As usual in discussions about printing and resolution, the 'required' resolution depends on viewing distance and material. Glossy paper, matte paper, or canvas, 30 cm, 3 meters or 30 meters viewing distance, make a vast difference.

I recently had some pictures printed large (cropped R6 images printed 50 cm by 70 cm) which were a far cry from the often cited 300 dpi. They turned out absolutely fine, even if you literally touch your nose to the glass of the picture frame.

None of this is to deny the fact that higher MP cameras are required for some applications, of course.

 

[roby17269]

As usual in discussions about printing and resolution, the 'required' resolution depends on viewing distance and material. Glossy paper, matte paper, or canvas, 30 cm, 3 meters or 30 meters viewing distance, make a vast difference.

I recently had some pictures printed large (cropped R6 images printed 50 cm by 70 cm) which were a far cry from the often cited 300 dpi. They turned out absolutely fine, even if you literally touch your nose to the glass of the picture frame.

None of this is to deny the fact that higher MP cameras are required for some applications, of course.

You can also think of it this way: more and more billboards are becoming electronic screens. What's the resolution of those screens? I don't know for sure but not that high.

Having said that, I still want as high resolution as possible. 45mp is ok. I do prefer the look of the 80mp files out of my 54x40mm digital back, CCD and AF warts and all, delivered at the blazing speed of 1 FPS (for no more than 10 consecutive images after which either the camera or the flashes choke)

 

[photophil]

Having said that, I still want as high resolution as possible. 45mp is ok. I do prefer the look of the 80mp files out of my 54x40mm digital back, CCD and AF warts and all, delivered at the blazing speed of 1 FPS (for no more than 10 consecutive images after which either the camera or the flashes choke)

Yeah, no question about it. I would also prefer a higher resolution camera for birding. The gear goblin inside my head has been telling me that the price of a used R5 is sure to drop once the Mk II is out.

 

[roby17269]

Yeah, no question about it. I would also prefer a higher resolution camera for birding. The gear goblin inside my head has been telling me that the price of a used R5 is sure to drop once the Mk II is out.

I am still on the fence about the R5 II. The main issue being... the R5 I have is so good!
If the R5 II has the same resolution as the R5, the only incentive for me would be a significantly better AF. I am not one to trust press releases, so I will need to wait for serious reviews to appear. I do not need speeds faster than the R5 can offer. And the jello effect is not really an issue for what I do.

Of course this is the rational angel speaking from one of my shoulders... on the other the gear goblin is sitting wispering "new gear, new gear, new gear"

 

[koenkooi]

I am still on the fence about the R5 II. The main issue being... the R5 I have is so good!
If the R5 II has the same resolution as the R5, the only incentive for me would be a significantly better AF. I am not one to trust press releases, so I will need to wait serious reviews. I do not need speeds faster than the R5 can offer. And the jello effect is not really an issue for what I do.

Of course this is the rational angel speaking from one of my shoulders... on the other the gear goblin is sitting wispering "new gear, new gear, new gear"

Comparing the R5 and R8 side by side, I find the AF on the R8 noticeably better, so I'm convinced that the R5II will be even better. I especially like the 'auto' subject detect, it works as advertised!

Comparing the R8 and R7, which both have the R3 era AF software, you can really notice that the sensor readout speed makes a huge difference. For opportunistic birding, as in stopping during your bicycle ride to take pictures of a heron, the R5 would have about 80-90% properly focused shots during a H+ ES burst, the R8 about 90-95% and the R7 would be all over the place, but generally better than 60%.
I'm not the steadiest nor the most patient shooter, so the above is more about how the camera handles me than about absolute camera performance

 

[roby17269]

Comparing the R5 and R8 side by side, I find the AF on the R8 noticeably better, so I'm convinced that the R5II will be even better. I especially like the 'auto' subject detect, it works as advertised!

Comparing the R8 and R7, which both have the R3 era AF software, you can really notice that the sensor readout speed makes a huge difference. For opportunistic birding, as in stopping during your bicycle ride to take pictures of a heron, the R5 would have about 80-90% properly focused shots during a H+ ES burst, the R8 about 90-95% and the R7 would be all over the place, but generally better than 60%.
I'm not the steadiest nor the most patient shooter, so the above is more about how the camera handles me than about absolute camera performance

Oh, I am sure it will be better than the R5... whether it will be $4000 (or whatever... actually the difference between the cost of the R5 II and the second hand value of the R5) better I do not know

 

[P-visie]

... on the other the gear goblin is sitting wispering "new gear, new gear, new gear"

Just think that the gear goblin is a very wise advisor. And you need new gear to help you get over the f1.4 is not f1.2 disappointment .

 

[roby17269]

Just think that the gear goblin is a very wise advisor. And you need new gear to help you get over the f1.4 is not f1.2 disappointment .

But the gear goblin would never let me keep the 1.4 if Canon will ever see fit to do the right thing (meaning releasing a 1.2)

 

[Ozarker]

I agree with everything you say except: I think R1 is meant mostly for action shooters in rugged conditions. I also believe that R1 will have the best possible IQ for most photos (DR included) that do not require cropping or LARGE (Thx Nemorino) bill board printing.

Agreed, broad appeal to the well heeled. IQ top notch.

 

[HarryFilm]

Billboards do not need a lot of resolution due to the large viewing distance. 1 pixel per millimeter is a higher resolution than what would be used for a billboard already. A 24 MP image at that resolution would result a 6x4 meter print.

Even for billboards, as an absolute perfectionist, I use error-diffusion and Lanczos-7 (i.e. 7x7 convolution matrix) to resample an image to a full 600 pixels per inch (ppi and NOT dots per inch aka dpi which is NOT the same as ppi!).

My biggest poster is 54 feet by 36 feet at 600 ppi resampled to CMYK from a 100 megapixel RGB 14 bits per channel RAW image of a Vancouver, Canada and coast mountains aerial scene showing a winter shot with snow to the bottom of the mountains. It's STILL hanging up in our main company warehouse on the North wall!

When you rasterize it, that final image comes out to 388,800 pixels by 259,200 pixels (100,776,960,000 CMYK pixels total or about 100.77 Gigapixels) and 705,438,720,000 bytes or 705.4 Gigabytes at 56 bits per CMYK pixel.

It took a few days to print onto super long lasting UV-resistant high-density and print-fast high-thread-count 48 inch wide polyethylene sheets which had high precision pixel alignment when glued by machine onto the final single-sheet backing layer!

The inks are archival quality so the poster should last 200 years with little fading. The bulk ink purchase alone was over $80,000 CDN to print that poster done for an Aerospace technology showcase.

We used our internally designed and built combined-stills/video camera which was "only" a 100 megapixels at the time of 2018.

So if you use Lanczos 7x7 image resampling and error diffusion, you can EASILY get to print your image to any size of poster for your 16 megapixel to 100 megapixel images!

V

 

[photophil]

Understandable. I just hit export in Lightroom and hope for the best

 

[HarryFilm]

You can also think of it this way: more and more billboards are becoming electronic screens. What's the resolution of those screens? I don't know for sure but not that high.

Having said that, I still want as high resolution as possible. 45mp is ok. I do prefer the look of the 80mp files out of my 54x40mm digital back, CCD and AF warts and all, delivered at the blazing speed of 1 FPS (for no more than 10 consecutive images after which either the camera or the flashes choke)

Sounds like you are using one of the
older-but-still-awesomely-good Leaf or Phase-One digital backs for a Hasselblad or Yashica medium format camera! I loved using those! CCD was quite light sensitive in those days so colour rendition was and still is quite amazing.

Keep the digital back! It will last another 20 years because that many megapixels is nothing to laugh at and low light sensitivity was and still is very very good! Just use a good denoiser to get rid of the electrical noise caused by CCD imaging.

V