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

[wq9nsc]

Stephen is spot on, the 1 series has historically been focused upon a fairly narrow market segment with a brief aberration into the "studio" S suffix variant.  Fortunately, the 1 series has stayed focused upon its target market needs.

For any level of sensor technology, a smaller pixel count with larger photosites will provide better low light performance than the same technology with a higher pixel count and resulting smaller individual photosites.  For those of us doing a lot of limited light shooting, how the sensor performs in terms of noise and DR in limited light is critical and I wouldn't hesitate to choose a 20 MP sensor with significantly better low light performance over the prior generation instead of a new 30 or 40 MP sensor that only delivers equivalent low light performance to the prior generation.  As to data processing/workflow/storage, any system that handles a 40 MP sensor image well will handle a 24 MP sensor even faster.  I use twin CPU HP workstations for photo/video work and you can NEVER have too much processing and storage but you can definitely have awkwardly large files.

As to file size, it IS what the 1 series market wants and Canon has a long history of success in this market.  The other even more critical requirement for the 1 series market is near perfect reliability and that is what I will be watching most closely before even considering making a transition from my 1DX III bodies to the R1 and quite frankly I have not been impressed with that aspect of the R line so far so the R1 needs to get it right.  Miscellaneous unexplained lockups, overheating, random glitches, and the like are not acceptable where the 1 series plays.  The 1 series has to offer rock solid reliability under conditions that the photographer hates to work in and I have experienced that plenty with my 1 series bodies in over two decades of 1 series usage.

Pixel count is one measure of performance but one that the consumer market is fixated on, see phones for example with ridiculous pixel counts using a tiny sensor and "just good enough" optics.  There has long been a parallel in the transportation/logistics industries where many consumer diesel pickups have higher horsepower ratings than semis BUT a truck powertrain is perfectly focused upon its intended market.  You can't fit 16 liters of engine in a pickup truck engine compartment, the front suspension won't support the weight, and the customer wouldn't like the price/performance/handling.  And a commercial firm expects to get into the million mile range before a major overhaul on a semi-tractor powertrain which spends long days 7 days a week hauling heavy loads and a small displacement light diesel won't deliver that under sustained heavy usage.  Both transportation choices are built for their specific markets and if someone buys a product intended for a very different market, they won't be very happy with the result.

I own two extremes in the Canon line, with a pair of 1DX III bodies and a pair of 1DX II bodies but also a little "baby" M6 Mark II purely as a light small convenient camera for use where I don't need a "real" camera but want a camera that handles like a camera instead of part of a phone.  I also own a pair of 5DS R bodies but if high MP count becomes a focus, I would be looking at medium format systems.

Rodger

[Stephen]

MVP 🥇

[KifsterMD]

You're assuming that there has to be a tradeoff: e.g. 20-ish mp and good performance vs 50mp and poor performance.

This is not the case now.

Advances in sensor technology deliver more resolution with less noise.  This is what we have in the Nikon Z9 and the Sony A1.  (The A9iii has a global shutter and that's a different animal altogether).  Canon seems to have been unable to deliver on the 'more resolution' part.  They achieve low noise by using low mp count.  Again, their sensor technology isn’t up to par with Sony and Nikon’s. 

Sony and Nikon's current pro bodies offer (roughly) 50mp with seemingly excellent performance in all other aspects.

[Stephen]

bro. you're obviously a troll.

Do you own any of the cameras you're talking about? Have you used any of them? Do you own a camera at all?

[KifsterMD]

5D3 and 1DX3.  24-105L, 28-300L, 100-400ii L, EF50 f/1.2L

[Tronhard]

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.

You are rubbishing a piece of gear you have yet to see in its production version, let along handle one for yourself.    Your comments say more about  you than the camera you are so ignorantly critiquing.

[KifsterMD]

Can we keep this discussion civil, please?

I am not bashing the camera.  And let's face it: the capability of these pro- bodies has exceeded all of our abilities back in the 90's and early 2000's.  The overwhelming majority of us will fail to use any of these cameras to their fullest potentials.  My 5D3 has 61 AF points and I've probably never used more than ten of them, nor have I ever used any of its focus tracking features.  (On my 1DX3, I have a handful of times, but there are myriad other features I have not nor will I ever use).

But that's beside the point, isn't it.  Photography is, fortunately or unfortunately, as much a tech game as much as it is a practical endeavor.  People do compare specs and numbers.  And you better believe that Canon, Nikon, Sony, and all the other manufacturers know this.  (Maybe Leica is the sole exception, as they continue to sell marginally-spec'ed cameras for ridiculous prices).

Does the R1 take fantastic photos?  Probably does.  But so does my old 5D3.  If the photos were all we critiqued, then we'd all be shooting with DSLRs from the early 2000's.  They took amazing photos.  My wedding was shot back in 2002 with a 6mp Nikon and the photos were perfect.

[Tronhard]

As I understand it you seem to suggest that Canon should be prepared to cater for two broad constituencies. The first being those working professions for whom this is a tool of the trade and will purchase it based on their pragmatic assessment of their professional needs and the benefits its features offer to fulfil them - and I would totally agree with that.  However, it is critical to understand what each market is comprised of, what benefits it values, and what features are required to offer value to them.

In the case of the R1, it is professionals in the sports, news and journalism fraternities who are the stated clients - and they have consistently maintained over many years been adamant that they don't need or want anything more than 24MP - and that is not just a matter of the sensor alone.  Sensor size has impacts on focusing, frame rate, processing time, buffering, storage space and transmission to their agencies or clients, who also have no use for large files that will end up on web pages or at most double-page magazine spreads. In that world speed and agility is everything.  Larger sensors are, to them an anathema because all through that pipeline they require too many resources.  Canon was absolutely clear about the results of their consultations with their clients in that respect.   Canon asked, the clients spoke, and Canon has provided.  That's how the market works.  If the configuration is not suitable, for your purposes, then you are not in the intended market, so pick another model.  That's how it works in all industries.

The other group would seem to be (excuse the vernacular) more focused on feature than function and who, as you yourself seem to say, will never leverage these tools for work, but may enjoy owning the tech. We can all get along with much less sophisticated gear - I make that point frequently. I still shoot on occasion with my old gear to make the point that technique is more important than tech.  That said, as an engineer and retired professional photographer, I love tech as much as the next person, but I would not spend money on a camera that have a use for.  I would rather save my money for the glass, which will likely have more of an impact on my images and be a longer-lasting investment.

Did it ever occur to you that such tech- oriented people will, almost by definition, never be satisfied? There will always be some element in these miracles of engineering that they lust after because some reviewer suggests that is a flaw, or another brand has prioritized a different feature set?  Each of these brands have their strengths. Just like there are many brands and models of cars - for a reason.

I shoot Canon, Fuji Nikon, Olympus and Sony - I say that to make the point that I am not being a Canon fan boy. I have, at times, been highly critical of one or two Canon models, and in particular how they have been marketed.  However, I have done so being specific in the issue, how that issue impacts the performance of the unit and how it does not service its constituent market.  I usually comment on how that could be improved, if I feel I can competently make that offering.

The simple truth is that if they were not all offering good product they would not have a market. It is also significant to follow the market share, where Canon remains dominant, so they are obviously doing something right for their wide range of customers. Certainly not perfect but neither are the others...  Personally, I think that variance and brand differential are good things - they make the market more agile and can cater for a wider variety of shooting needs.  Imagine if suddenly only one brand existed - I would be like something out of the Soviet Union. 🙂

[Frito-1]

People have the right of a free society to express an opinion without brand biased name calling. I know two professionals that switched to another brand.  It speaks volumes when a person, that uses photography to put food on the table, makes a switch that costs over $12,000 in one case and almost $26,000 in the other. I have been expecting a stellar camera that does it all at $6K.  Canon is providing the equipment for the Olympics. I expect absolutely nothing less than rave reviews. Thus, I wait for the reviews of the people that spend the money.  

[Tronhard]

I am not aware that I abused you or anyone else specifically. I made a general statement, but if you feel it applies to you that is a shame.

As to what your expectations are, regrettably Canon forgot to ask you and I can see that is an omission.

For the people they did consult: those I referred to in the link in my first post (which I wonder if you read) and echoed by others, the R1 is a tool for a very specific job and a specific market segment. The R5II is the camera for those who don't require those features or limitations of the R1 . Did you consider the R5Ii and, if so, what was unacceptable in that model?

Saying one wants "it all" is not very definitive of what 'it' is and what benefits that missing feature set is supposed to provide for you. I am puzzled the the R5Ii is not acceptable to you. Perhaps you could expand on that?

Are you a professional, and if so in what genre? What subjects do you shoot? What mediums do you publish in? What does your current gear or the R5Ii not do for you?  Giving all this context would add objectivity and gravitas to your expressed opinion.   I am not arguing that you don't like the camera (that's your right) I am challenging the purpose or point of your objections.