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

[kvbarkley]

Probably to keep the frame rate up, and get good noise performance.

[jrhoffman75]

This is what Canon stated in the 1D X Mark III white paper. I suspect the same rationale applies to R1. 

[JFG]

John,

Great information!  That Canon Statement says it all.  Having said that there will be those that won't understand marketing and market segmentation.

[Tronhard]

Hi Fred and welcome to the forum!

There is not ONE 'flagship' camera: there are, and always were at least two - but for separate markets. 

To understand this, one needs to understand the relationship between features, benefits and value - Marketing 101.   A feature is a characteristic of a device or service that is specific to that product.   A benefit is specific to users of products or a market of users, and varies with what they need to either improve performance or remove a constraint to their use of the product and achieve their goals.   Value is only attained when a feature matches a benefit.

So, with that under our belts, look at which market the 1D series was historically aligned to: photojournalists, news and sports - and that is why these are coming out in time for the Olympics, as they generally do.  So what features do those markets need?   They need extremely good focus, low light performance, fast recording and the benefits to them are :ability to upload quickly and reliably in real time to their agencies or clients, who will be publishing those images on line or in smaller-sized printed format.  What they DON'T need is extremely large files that will slow down focus and tracking, shooting, buffering, and take up file space and connectivity band width.  So, look at the history - the 1 series have always hovered in the 20-24MP range, because larger files are not offering benefits to those markets, and thus are of no value.

That is where the second 'flagship' comes in.  The 5 series (5d's and now R5's).  They are the general-purpose units that offer features that will be of benefit to those who don't necessarily need that level of connectivity, but instead want resolution to allow cropping, large prints and fine details.  That market includes commercial product, wildlife, landscape, fashion, portrait, wedding and other social events.  So they will forfeit the high-speed download and some superior dynamic range capabilities of FF those sensors with larger, but fewer photosites.

The R5II shared the same focusing/tracking, IBIS and processors with the R1, so it's no slouch, but it's forte is resolution for larger output and the ability to crop.  The R5II does offer options for those with a foot in both camps:  for those who need specific benefits in performance, they can enhance the body with the 3 different battery grips to offer specific features that a) give enhanced connectivity, b)offer  extra cooling for video and c) the more traditional grip that offers extra battery capacity and portrait controls and also works with the R6 series.

If you take all that into account, and you wanted more resolution, you were looking at the wrong camera, the R1 was not made for you, the R5II likely was.

[JFG]

Trevor,

Like always, you hit the nail on the head with your response.  A little common sense, and knowledge of market segmentation goes a long way.  There is not one camera, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica or Hasselblad, that can be "The All" (the one), camera for everyone and every need.  If there were one, it would be so expensive that no one could afford it.  Like you mentioned, there is not one Flagship Canon Camera, there are two, the R1 and R5 along with other models to meet different budgets, needs, and levels of expertise.  Those that are serious about purchasing new or used cameras need to think about: What they will need it for; What features they really need; What is their budget for said camera.

[jhog1978]

I agree — 24.1 MP for a flagship camera is VERY disappointing. That said, I’m thrilled with my R3. Even though it only has 24 MP, the image quality is amazing. I traded a 5DS (with 51 MP) for the R3 and took a huge leap UP in quality. Only thing I can guess is that Canon thinks the image quality with this “new/improved” sensor will override the MP issue. I have my doubts, and as anxious as I was to immediately upgrade to the R1 when it came out, there’s no way I will be doing that for a 0.1 increase in MP count. Canon, this is an EPIC fail !

[Stephen]

This is exactly it.

[Frito-1]

Thank you for your response! The R5 mark ii is the correct fit for me given the specifications for both cameras.  I would have liked something between. 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. Look how far we have come in the last 20 years. 15 years ago, It took me 5 hours to render a 30 minute video that contains stills and video. Today, with UHD it takes about 10minutes.  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]

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?