Thoughts on EOS R1 sensor

[Frito-1]

Hi All,

I have to admit that the 24MP sensor in the flagship camera is a bit of a disappointment.  I would like higher resolution without having to use PhotoShop to stitch pictures together.  Any one know why Canon did not go with a resolution closer to the R5?

Thanks in advance,

Fred

[Tronhard]

What is so mildly depressing about all this is the concentration the folks have on what they have not got to satisfy their tech addiction, rather than appreciating what a massively powerful camera each of these represents in its own way.   We have become a world of whiners, when nothing is ever good enough because we seek a technological development that will somehow release the latent genius that is within us.  We just need this or that update.

It is always a good idea to look back at the skills and talents of photographers of the past - the likes of Ansel Adams, Joseph Karsh, Lee Miller, Vivian Maier and Eugène Atget: each a huge talent in their discipline of choice.  I would suggest they didn't spend their lives with regrets about what technical feature they lacked, they got on with being a good photographer.  We can learn a lot from them...

I would hazard that the vast majority of people who demand this or that feature will never actually need it, they are more focused on the spec sheets that taking good images.   

[John_SD]

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain – and most fools do.” ~                    Dale Carnegie

"Whiners whine, winners perform."

The legitimate critiques in this thread are about the R1, not thinly veiled name-calling of other posters. 

[JFG]

😇

[jrhoffman75]

It wasn’t your thread I was referring to. There are several. 

[JFG]

Oh ok, not a problem 👌 

[ntkophoto]

24 MP is plenty for 95% of the work of working professionals. This camera is about speed and precision, the R5II is the Swiss Army knife for pixel peepers. This camera is about delivering images reliably and quickly...45 MP is totally unnecessary and a burden when you needed the image ten minutes ago.

[KifsterMD]

That’s Canon’s argument.  But there are a whole lot of people (myself included) who disagree: a camera costing $6200, in the year 2024, should offer both higher resolution and outstanding shooting performance simultaneously.  

Nikon and Sony deliver that.  Why can’t Canon?

And for god’s sake: no one is arguing that the camera should have 100mp.  But I think 30 would have been the minimum.  At 24mp, this camera is suited to one task and one task only.  Unless one is heavily invested in Canon glass, I cannot see why someone looking for a versatile pro body wouldn’t switch to Nikon or Sony.  

I guess the sales after a couple years will show us who is right.  But I suspect that the R1 won’t sell as well as the 1DX3 did.  I also predict that the Mark  II version of this camera will offer a significant bump in resolution.  

[Tronhard]

Can you please define in some specific term the value of " a whole lot of people"?  Considering neither camera has a production model in the actual market at this stage, I find it hard to see how more than the relatively small population of reviewers have had any experience with the pre-production units demonstrated only days ago.
One can look at the spec sheets, but that can be misleading - there is nothing like shooting with the gear to actually know how it works and that can be a very personal thing.  Furthermore, a lot of reviewers seem to get more clicks by being negative than positive about a new model, but I too am see "a lot of" reviewers who are generous in their praise of these cameras, but are quite specific on why and how it benefits the targeted users.

I would encourage you again to read the material in the link which I posted earlier and will repeat here.  Please DO take the time to read it and consider it objectively.  The Argument for Two Flagships   It clearly spells out the historical context and the current market space that the R1 is intended to support and their needs are directly in opposition to the ones you state.  Thus, instead of debating something you can't change, it makes sense from your own personal satisfaction to look at the model that likely was aimed at your needs: the R5II - it is also a top of the line unit but for a different purpose.

[KifsterMD]

I understand what you're saying about "two flagships", in other words: different but equal.  And I'm telling you that this argument is flawed for two reasons:

1. While I understand that one camera cannot be superb at everything, it can certainly be superb at one thing and versatile enough for other things.  That is clearly not where the R1 is.  The resolution is just plain lacking (by today's standards) for everything other than sports magazine and newspaper photos.

2. Most manufactured products (including Canon, by admission) have a hierarchy in their product lineup.  While some products may offer a little more of this or more of that, as you go up in price, you go up in features and quality.  This is indeed the case with Canon's lineup.  If the R5 were meant to be another flagship, why didn't Canon price it that way?  And although the R5 Mark 2 is much closer, it still doesn't have quite the same shooting performance.  When the R1 Mark 2 comes out, you can be sure it's going to blow the R5 Mark 2 out of the water.

I don't need to try the R1 to know that 24mp is limiting.  I shoot with a 1DX3 and at 20mp I often find myself wishing I had more pixels to play with.... even when shooting at 600mm focal length.  I have no doubt that its autofocus is awesome (as is my 1DX3's) and that its low-light performance is fantastic (as is my 1DX3's).  But for $6200, I want a camera that is a bit more flexible.

[Tronhard]

It seems we are doomed to disagree. But if I was you I wouldn't put cash on a higher MP camera to follow the R1 - unless that higher MP camera comes with significant increase of performance in the whole data bus, and even then only if the editors and agencies that hire those photographers at whom the camera is specifically aimed (did you read the quote off their own white paper?)  To say that the R1 isn't a versatile unit is not a valid or realistic statement - it's an amazing unit, and share many features with the R5II but as we are trying to tell you it's a specialist tool.  If you can't get that nothing I can say will penetrate your reality.  I simply don't get why you are fixated on the R1.   
As regards price.  Of course you go up in price as quality and features increase, but price also considers  and is hugely impacted by production volume.  The 5 series has always and likely will continue to sell vastly more units than the R1, and in a price-competitive market that has absolute significance. Not only do you get what you pay for but to quote Stalin, quantity has a quality all of its own, in this case critical mass.

If you know that 20MP is limiting in what you do and produce (knowing which would give us some context to appreciate your position) the R1 now has 24MP.   Given the R5II shares a significant number of the features with the R1, some specific idea of where it falls short relative to the R1, given it s offering you 45MP which should sort out your need for MP count.   For less coinage you could have a camera that is more flexible - the R5II.

So what are your alternatives?  You can complain all you like, but the R1 is what it is and will remain so for quite a few years, based on cycle history.  Your only options are the R5II, some other brand, or stay with what you have.  In practical terms, venting about it will not really resolve your issue if that is, as it appears to be for you, really holding back your photography.