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

[KifsterMD]

Ehhhh, I'm going to have to disagree with your argument here.  I think you're missing the point, to be frank.

Most people understand that the R5 and R1 series serve different purposes and that the R1 is geared more towards performance rather than high resolution.  And indeed, I think most people understand that a lower pixel count helps overall performance (e.g. shooting speed, decreased noise, faster workflow, etc.).

The issue is that, five years after the release of the 1DX Mark 3 (a 20.1mp camera), Canon should have been able to achieve this better performance with a pixel count higher than 24mp (which is fairly negligible improvement from its predecessor in terms of resolution).  I would have expected something around 30mp by now.

And let's face it: when you spend $6200 on a camera (regardless of your daytime job), you'd like a little more versatility with it regardless of its intended purpose.  At 24mp, the versatility isn't there - you don't have a heck of a lot of resolution with which to work.  30mp would have been the minimum.  I suspect Canon knows this.  Sony and Nikon certainly understand that their sports/photojournalism cameras should offer more than 24mp and they certainly delivered... and with similar or better performance specs to those of the R1.

The bottom line is that Canon's sensor technology is falling behind and this R1 is a glaring manifestation of this fact.  They can continue to make the "you don't need..." argument to placate customers, but a lot of us aren't buying it anymore.  You can be absolutely sure that the R1 Mark III, when it comes out a decade from now, won't be sporting a 5,000 frames-per-second shooting speed with a 24mp sensor "because that's all the resolution we need for photojournalism and sports".  Know what I mean?

[Stephen]

I think you may be missing that the R1 is for a very specific audience who have told us they don't want a high-resolution camera. It slows down their workflow while at events. Think about the Games in Paris happening right now. These photographers need to get images now to their respective agencies so they can publish as quickly as possible. Can you imagine how flakey the WiFi is there? Now imagine if they had to deal with a 50mp image. Yikes!

[jrhoffman75]

---

@Stephen wrote:

I think you may be missing that the R1 is for a very specific audience who have told us they don't want a high-resolution camera. It slows down their workflow while at events. Think about the Games in Paris happening right now. These photographers need to get images now to their respective agencies so they can publish as quickly as possible. Can you imagine how flakey the WiFi is there? Now imagine if they had to deal with a 50mp image. Yikes!

---

Jeff Cable is a Canon photog who is posting from the Olympics. From his blog:

"Now, for those of you who are into photography and cameras, let me tell you about the Canon R1. The focus on this camera is absolutely AMAZING! In past Olympics, my take rate when photographing gymnastics was maybe 40% in perfect focus. With the Canon R1 I have a 95% take rate. This is crazy! And at 30 fps I ended up with more than 5,000 images to choose from. Trying to select my favorites was daunting!! When this camera locks in, it holds. And it locks in so fast that when I hit the focus button with the gymnast in mid air, it still locks on their face perfectly. This is a game changer. Even I am blown away. With that said, I am not using the pre-capture mode because I am already blasting off too many photos as it is. But I am excited to use that feature for birds in Africa and Costa Rica."

[Frito-1]

I get the issues with the large files, however, the continued advances in technology most likely will wipe out that concern. Storage is cheap and bandwidth is ever increasing.   When spending over $6k on a body, I would like it to have a larger sensor that has technology to eliminate noise.  It should also possess the technology that makes the files scalable for transfers.  I can cut the file size for a transfer.  I cannot expand the base detail that does not exist.    Thanks again

[KifsterMD]

I understand that argument.  It sounds nice and it's a very convenient argument (or dare I say "excuse") for Canon, but it doesn't seem very plausible. 

Ask yourself:

Do you think Canon knows something about sports photography and photojournalism that Nikon and Sony do not?  Do you think Canon did more 'market research' than Nikon and Sony did?  I seriously doubt it.  You think Canon has more of an interest in making equipment for these areas of photography than Nikon or Sony?  Not a chance.

A far more likely explanation is that Canon is lagging behind in terms of sensor and/or processing technology and this is why they delivered a 24mp camera, in 2024.  Sony and Nikon both offer cameras for the same 'very specific audience' that offer superb autofocus, fast frame-rates, low noise, and are well-suited to sports and photojournalism.... with twice the resolution!  Twice!!

Want lower resolution from the Nikon and Sony cameras because the wifi is "flaky"?  You can shoot in lower resolution modes.  But the versatility of higher resolution is there if/when you need it...... (like when the WiFi isn't "flaky".....).

[Stephen]

Believe what you like, it's your prerogative, but did you happen to notice we released another camera alongside the R1? The R5 Mark II, and that's the model that's intended for most photographers that need super-high resolution and very similar features. 

[KifsterMD]

I’m an amateur photographer, but I’m a loyal Canon user and would never switch to another brand.  So yes, I saw the R5 Mark 2. 

Sony and Nikon offer the R1 and R5 Mark 2 rolled into one with their pro cameras.  Both offer the higher resolution of the R52 with the shooting performance (more or less) of the R1.  

Canon has some catching up to do.  

[JFG]

Hello KifsterMD 

By the way you praise Nikon and Sony, it makes me think that you're enamored with those cameras and that you're not a canon user or fan.  Also, like Nikon and Sony, Canon is very aware of what they, the competition,  are offering and what the market needs are and that is why Canon outperformed both Nikon and Sony in 2023.  Click the link below as it will show you how well Canon knows its different markets and their needs.  https://www.techradar.com/cameras/canon-is-still-the-worlds-most-popular-camera-brand-according-to-a...

As mentioned before by kvbarkley, "If you really want Canon to hear this, send feedback. We can do less than a military chaplain, here.

Go to the main canon usa page and find the little '+' button: "

I'm sure they will listen to you and take note, however, as a for profit entity,  Canon will make its decisions based on market needs and the concensus of the majority.  If you read the link I posted above, you will understand.    "You can satisfy some of the people some the time but you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time."

I like Trevor, I suggest that you practice your right to exercise your freedom to choose what is best for you.   "If you think that those brands are better, then the joy of a free society is for you to go and purchase one of those.  That is your privilege and right.   My right is to challenge the basic assumptions of your whole argument." by Trevor 

😉

[KifsterMD]

I'll refer you to my previous post about being a loyal Canon user.  I use a 5D3 and a 1DX3 and have four L lenses for these.

I'm not 'enamored' by any brand, nor was it my intent to praise Nikon or Sony.  I was merely pointing out some basic facts about their offerings intended to compete with Canon's R1.  By the specs alone, The A1, A9III, and Z9 are overall stronger products.  And much of that has to do with the sensors.

True, Canon has had the greater market share and has been the go-to camera brand for sports and newspaper photographers for some decades now.  I suspect much of it had to do with the advent of their EOS system (and EF mount) along with the superb advertising campaign in the 80's that presented it as the camera brand for active people.  And although I've never used Nikon, I do know that Canon's lens technology was certainly ahead of Nikon's for the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's.  

Sony is a latecomer, but it had a long track-record of making electronics including camcorders and, being a much larger company, had plenty of money to invest in its photography business.  They also got the jump on the mirrorless camera.

[kvbarkley]

If you really want Canon to hear this, send feedback. We can do less than a military chaplain, here.

Go to the main canon usa page and find the little '+' button: