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

[JFG]

Trevor,

KifsterMD is entitled to his thoughts and way of thinking as it is his right.  I also agree with you that complaining and berating Canon is not going to get him anywhere.  So that leaves him with the 3 choices you mentioned.  It is up to him to make a decision or to continue voicing out his negative thoughts.  It is not the canvas or the brush that creates a picture, it's the artist and their creativity that makes a master piece.  I agree to disagree with him too.   😆 

I'm moving on.  

[KifsterMD]

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

....or at very least no decrease in performance....

, 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?) 

High MP cameras almost invariably can be shot in lower res and/or compressed modes.  So that is a non-issue.  No one would object to their $6,000+ camera body having more resolution on tap if/when they need it.

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.   

I understand what you're saying.  But that claim defies common business sense.

A tool is a 'specialist tool' because it includes certain features that the specialist needs.  A specialist tool is not regarded as such because of the features it omits.  An Indycar is a specialist tool because it drives insanely fast.  It's not a specialist car because it doesn't have a cupholder.  An Indycar can never be desirable to the masses because it is woefully impractical and undesirable to drive on roads, and rendering it desirable would essentially change the very nature of it.

In contrast: Sony and Nikon's flagship cameras - their 'Indycars' if you will - can be used by 'specialists', but they have the higher resolution that appeal to a broader range of potential buyers.

Canon is in the business of selling cameras to make money.  If they could deliver higher MP count on the R1 (while delivering the same shooting performance to keep its core user satisfied) and encourage a broader range of people to spend $6200 on an R1 instead of $4300 on an R5, you better believe Canon would do it.  You make a product as desirable to as many people as possible.  

I'm an amateur who dropped $6500 on a 1DX3.  I needed a (Canon) camera that was rugged, durable, and offered excellent low-light performance, reliable AF, and super-fast frame rate.  (22mp was what I had been working with and I was uninterested in the 5DS and its slow frame-rate).  Now there are pro camera bodies out there that are weather-sealed and sport super-fast frame rates, great AF, excellent low-light performance, and resolution that is high enough for landscape photography (which I do half the time).  Except Canon doesn't offer such a camera.

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.

Pricing of goods is based on many factors.  Supply and demand, of course.  But pricing things competitively (as you pointed out), and even pricing it so that it is desirable enough to encourage sales but not so desirable that it steals sales from the R1 are also crucial.  There is a balance to be struck.  The 5-series Canons were never intended to be 'second flagship' cameras.  They were intended to be semi-professional/consumer products and were priced less accordingly.  As time went by and we've reached 2024, MP counts went up. The 5 series MP counts went up, Sony and Nikon's flagship MP counts went up.  40-50 seems to be the industry norm now for pro and prosumer cameras.  The only camera that remains in the 20mp range is the Canon R1.  But you're still contending that Canon did this because it's a 'specialist' tool.

I'll restate my previous point: Canon's sensor technology has some catching up to do.  The readout speed and shooting performance is great, but only at a meager 24mp.  In this day and age, that's not competitive.

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 significantnumber 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.

I take photos for fun.  I can wait until the R1 Mark ii.

[JFG]

I guess what a lot of us are trying to say is that Canon is a customer oriented company that listens to its customers needs and proceeds to provide products for each specific market needs according to their customer's requirements and feedback.  It is obvious that the R1 is for professional journalist and sport reporters in mind per their communities direct requirements/requests for their needs.  The R1 is Canon's flagship for them and others that need a camera that won't fail them when they need it the most, a truly dependable camera.  A Swiss watch of a  camera.  The R1, R5 Mark II, R6 Mark II and other models are specifically made with the different customers in mind based on their professional, or non professional needs, budgets etc..  The R1 was never meant to be the "All "The One" camera for everyones need.  A do all, do everything camera. The perfect camera with all the components of Nikon, Sony, Leica, Hasselblad and every camera in the market built into it.  The R1 is what it was designed to be, nothing more, nothing less.  Having said that, the R1 is not for you as you're not in it's market segment.  Also, last weekend, I was taking wildlife pictures with my R6 Mark II and met two fellow photographers, one with a Nikon Z8 and another one with a Sony camera.   Both were complaining about their cameras features that it didn't have and some features it had.  They both mentioned how lucky I was for preordering the EOS R5 Mark II.  It seems that the grass is always greener on the other side. Without going into details it showed me how some people will always find something wrong with any product and oftentimes will critique it. Some without testing it, regardless of make or model.  I suggest that you at least wait for the R1 to hit the market, then rent one and test it out, compare it with the Nikon Z8 or Z9 then you'll have a basis for your critique.  And then be ready for all of those that will not agree with your assessment.  Ask yourself, why is it that Nikon only has 8% of the market 🤔 

Food for thought: Were Ferraris initially made for the streets or the tracks?  I guess that is why Ferraris initially didn't have radios, air conditioners, blinkers or reverse lights..  Ferrari didn't sell to all markets it only sold to a specific market and didn't try to be everything to every marker segment and they were not for everyone. Things have changed and now days Ferraris have heaters, air-conditioning, reverse lights radios, navigation, and blinkers, but still, they are not for everyone.  They are still only for a specific market segment.  Go figure..

[jrhoffman75]

I suggest the Moderator consider locking this thread. It is getting personal. 

[John_SD]

Unfortunately, the thread went south when the mod called KifsterMD a troll. That was completely out of bounds. Nevertheless, I agree that the thread has run its course and should be locked before more name-calling ensues. 

[juliawhites]

Canon likely chose the 24MP sensor for its balance between image quality and performance, prioritizing faster processing and low-light capabilities. For higher resolution, the R5 or other models with larger sensors might be a better fit.

[KifsterMD]

They haven’t developed the technology to deliver that balance at 40mp or even 30mp, as their competitors have.  That’s the biggest drawback.  Had they made it a 30mp camera (while allowing you to shoot at lower resolutions), I’d be pre-ordering one today.  

[ntkophoto]

As a 1-series shooter since the 1n-RS, to the 1v-HS, then the 1dMkIi (which was only 8.2 MP), 1d MkIII and 1dxII, I feel that the R1 ticks all the right boxes for my usage. Yes, a few more MP would be nice,...so woulda higher flash sync speed. But, ultimately, the things that matter most... The indestructible build quality, long battery life, high-iso low-light performance, and AF speed/accuracy are the qualities that mean the most to me on the job. With today's upscaling capabilities, 24MP is totally sufficient for 4'x6' prints... No, it's not a 100MP 16-bit medium format sensor, but it is still more than capable of producing beautiful results in the right hands. When shooting high-volume events (think thousands of images in a day) that must be edited, processed and delivered before the next morning when you're back at it again at dawn, higher resolutions (and the inevitable increase in time spent) become unworkable. This camera is built for those with these needs, not those who shoot at the leisure, with all the time in the world to pick out a couple shots to hang on the wall.

[Tronhard]

Very wise, my friend. 🤔

[mdac356]

Wow. So I've never posted to this or any other Canon forum and just stopped by to read some thoughts about the R1. I decided to register so I could comment on this thread. So from an outside observer here goes....

The original poster (Fred) explicitly asked for people to share their knowledge as to why the R1 sensor had the MP count it does, i.e; "Any one know why Canon did not go with a resolution closer to the R5?". Then when people shared the knowledge that Fred asked for, Fred told the various posters why they were all (for lack of a better word?) "wrong".

Was Fred honestly asking for people to share their knowledge, or rather looking for conformation that his own views on the R1 MP count were correct and valid? Seems to me given Fred's responses here, that perhaps Fred was looking for validation of his feelings (disappointment) on the R1 MP count rather than various explanations of "why 24 mp?" based on people's knowledge.