Tony, I think you're wrong. I believe both the A1 and the A9 III have that same clever tilty/flippy-twisty screen. But you're making me have second thoughts which might very well drive me down into the subway to travel the 120 blocks to B&H to check them both out.
I have seen tests where a9 III doesnt have the greatest dynamic range and low-light performance, isnt that very relevant to discuss and they key is if the r1 is fast enough not to have visible rolling shutter? Global shutter doesnt come without a tradeoff
Meh. Flip screens, electronic view flinders, eye control - to me that all sounds like unreliable amateur junk. Canon lost it when they gave up on the EF series. The R cameras are a joke.
I was certain that the R3 was meant to be the R1 until Canon learned of the A1 and Z9 high res sensors, and the R1 was going to have at least a 45 mp sensor. Now I'm just confused.
What they should have done was given the R1 a 45 megapixel sensor and camera out with an R3 Mark II with all the features of the current R1! Don’t quite understand the marketing logic coming out of Canon these days or ever for that matter! lol
@@tomnorton8499 Seriously. I used the R3 and its a solid camera. I would rather buy two used R3 for $3500 each then one R1 at this point... Also with Nikons camera being $2500, makes the R1 seem beyond overpriced
I'm more interested in getting that screen put on canon camera then I am about 45+ mp and 500000000fps realisticly I'll use that 10000 percent more then I'd ever use the rest of the mp and speed
Watched a professional sports photographer for F1 whose using R3s, his feeling is that the R1 is going in the right direction and can't wait to get a pair of them.
@@joshcruzphotos understand, but the 1s are not made for the ambitious amateur, they are tailored for pro journalists in sports, daily news, documentary etc.
It's horses for courses, I don't think comparing the R1 to the Nikon Z6III is a very good idea as they are catering for different market segments. The R1 is for professionals that are going to spend months on end sitting in a hide in the remotest part of Pakistan waiting for the elusive snow leopard for example or outdoor sport covering Rugby in the driving rain in the middle of winter in northern England. One of the biggest selling points of these cameras are the ruggedness and longevity and most of the tech is nice to have.
2:20 you’re confusing the R1 buffer with the R5 Mark II. The R1 can basically shoot unlimited raw files. Canon lists it as 1000 raw files on their spec sheet.
In my mind, R1 is an R3 mark ii. But Canon needed an Olympic flagship out named the R1 before the opening and saw this as the compromise (perhaps also a panic action to keep shareholders happy, we'll never know).
why don't you wait til you have the camera in your hand and make a thorough comparison between Sony, Nikon and canon flagship camera. pointing to their strength and weakness without giving any commentary and let your viewer make the decision. that would be better!
Interesting comparison… one point, the Sony A9III has a tilt flip screen. So it’s perfect for both photography and video. I think this is a better option than the R1.
People on the TH-cam complaining about the resolution of the R1 really need to consider the audience for this camera. It is for high-speed sports photography and photojournalism where typical print size is rarely larger than 8x10. Going back over a decade the 1-series has always been a lower resolution sensor for the best low-light performance. The R3 was a test bed for new technology (stacked sensor, Eye Control AF) just like the EOS-3 before it.
Exactly. Canon has a playbook going back to the 1970s. If you follow what they did in the past, it's super clear they're executing the same exact playbook which has kept them at number 1 for over 30 years.
To a degree, you have a point. However, there are other pro bodies on the market offering excellent specs AND higher MPs for about the same money as the R1. You have a point about the R1's intended audience, but that still doesn't explain the price. This is more like a R3 MKII. You essentially get 2 CF Express cards, a higher resolution viewfinder and a new AF system for a $2K premium. Worth it?
24mp postersize from a fullframe camera DSlR had plenty of resolution I've seen 24mp blown way up and they look fantastic. I just think there's alot of bad shooters out there, that are blaming equipment mp for there poor quailty skills. .5 maybe 1 percent of the photographers who are truly gonna consistently use the full power of a camera are gonna be okay. The other 999.999 percent of ppl shooting photos of there dogs and cats and puddles with reflections will never even use the full potential of there cameras whatever mp or fps it shoots.
@@GarrettLucasWV Let's compare the R1 vs. R3. Improvements in the R1 include: 1) Faster flash sync in electronic shutter mode of 1/400 sec vs. 1/180 in the R3, less rolling shutter artifacts. R1 electronic shutter is faster than the 1Dx Mk3 mechanical shutter. 2) 0.5 sec precapture in RAW vs. no precapture in RAW 3) Dual CFE B for fast redundant shooting while retaining deep buffer performance 4) cross-type AF sensors (a first in FF mirrorless camera) 5) 40 fps maximum burst vs. 30 fps maximum burst 6) R1 has a 1000+ frame buffer at 40 fps; R3 buffer is more limited 7) R1 AF algorithms and tracking is superior to the R3 8) R1 has a brighter and higher resolution and higher magnification EVF 9) R1 EyeControl AF boost improvement in hardware and software compared to R3 10) R1 has a strap lug on the vertical grip which was removed on the R3 Whether or not these 10 improvements are worth $2K is a personal and economic decision.
You can easily print much, MUCH larger than 8x10 with 24mp. I've printed billboards with 8mp. In fact Fro has videos showing his 4 FEET x 6 FEET images from his 12mp crop sensor cams and even up close they look amazing. MP are mostly marketing gimmicks now. I can also upscale my R6 II files using basic AI (like Adobe's built in superscale feature) and they look sharper and more detailed than native R5 files.
Everyone when Canon releases a camera: "Oh wow, crippled, too expensive, disappointing." Everyone a year or two later: "Actually the Canon is my favorite to use."
@fwiffo - spot on "WHY I SWITCHED TO CANON" ..... "WHY I SOLD ALL MY "Whatever camera" TO GO CANON" the list goes on and on.... People if you don't like it ...don't buy it if you like it buy it and have fun!
I'm mostly a Canon shooter, and this is hugely disappointing. The Z8 appeals to me more with more fps, and it's really useful for air shows. It's in jpeg but can still do 120fps. And letting Rudy Winston is a big disaster for canon. He's been pretty much driving camera sales single handedly, and can sell anything. I just don't see those buying this except for those who need even the smallest refresh, and hobbyists with very deep pockets.
I don't care the R1 because it is not for me. Since it is not for me, I don't need to trash it in any shape and form. But I do pre-order the R5II which is I think an awesome camera.
The algorithm certainly seems to be better for "certain" sports. Basically, for sports with a large round ball, the camera can focus on the player with the ball. This is a unique and useful bit of tech. I'm sure Sony will respond in due time.
He also felt the R3 was better than the A9III, though he said they were very close and both were excellent. So of course the slightly improved R1 is also better.
I realy hate what all the youtubers are saying about this camera. It's like saying why a Freightliner or a Mack truck can't outrun a Ferrari, because it was not freaking build for that. The R1 will do well in the hands of true professionals. It was never targeted for youtubers. I remembered when you guys talked bad about the R5 when it first came out and still to this day most of them are shooting canon R5. These titles are misleading. Stop reviewing Jeeps like you want them to run as fast as Lamborghinis.
Personally I think the trade-off between FPS and dynamic range needs a thorough assessment and comparison before you can call this worse than the A9III.
Yes I saw that, the video DR is fine with about just above 12.5 stops but Geral Undone shows that it's clearly has some very aggressive Noise reduction baked in. And the photo DR is worse than it's predecessor the A9 II. It's still great as a sports can dont get me wrong and Sony should be praises doe this innovation just stacked BSI sensors offer about a stop and a half more DR than Global shutters do now..
Considering that eos 1DS released in 2002 had 11MP, 1DS MK2 had 16.6MP in 2004 and 1D MK2 released in the same year with only 8 MP was a jacking shit, then 1DS MK3 released in 2007 had 21 MP but later 1D X had only 18 MP in 2011, then 1D X MK II had 20 MP in 2016, and 1D X MK III had again only 20 MP in 2020, is realy no wonder that R1 has only 24 MP. Maybee if enough people are vocal about this, sometime Canon will make a revision with double the resolution... Beside 2X image 1:13 sensor resolution it also needs 3X EVF resolution that is spect in dots - so subpixels, 1/3 pixels, so again a jucking shit with only 3 MP. An optical FF35 SLR ground glass has ~ 2500 lines vertical resolution x ~ 6250 horizontal, so an EVF with pentile dots even if made 4K horizontal pixels but pentile so 20% less rez then true 4K, it would still have lower rez then a good optical SLR viewfinder, but even so it would be 3X better then 1R has. Otherwise 0.90X viewfinder magnification is great. Not yet awesome from FF35, and 0.90X with a 50mm lens is not realy true 0.9X, but only true 0.774 X with a 43mm that is the ultranormal lens, not wide and not tele, equal to the format diagonal, but even so it can be great if it had the resolution.
Really interested to see how Sony responds with an A1II but honestly after this launch from Canon they might just keep sitting on whatever tech they've been banking for a while longer. I keep saying if they just released a new A1 with the same exact internal specs but a better body (like with a way better rear screen, bioauthentication, that kind of stuff) it'd still be a big win for them. Like why do camera companies insist on neglecting the back screen? Just put an high-nit OLED on there already! Those panels have come way down in price and we're talking about their flagship camera anyway. They can afford it. Make the screen a flagship feature! Release an "A1 OLED" that's the same in every other way and they'd still sell like hotcakes.
I reckon Sony is sitting on either a ~62mp bsi stacked sensor that has the same DR and high ISO performance as the original A1, with the same or faster readout speed. If Sony swallows their pride and switches to CFB cards, then things will look really painful for the R1 imho.
@@davepastern So true! Those memory cards at that level of thruput are in some ways more of an issue than anything in terms of what needs upgrading. I bet more likely they come out with new type A cards that are faster but also cost way way more (and are still tiny in terms of size). If they did Tony's beloved internal storage idea along with one fast card slot that would basically cover everything. But they'll never do that.
I always thought of the R1 as the bombproof reliable beast for pros who can’t or don’t want to baby their gear, why is nobody talking about (or lack of) superior build quality, robustness which surely would differentiate it significantly from the R3 and R5 (not that either of these are not well made) ?
if the R1 is using the same multi-function shoe as the R3, then it isn't weather sealed, not without using the AD-E1. Either way, Canon doesn't guarantee weather sealing or offer an IP rating (nor does Sony or Nikon for that matter). The only manufacturer who stands by their gear and weather sealing ratings is OM systems.
@@thothheartmaat2833 it’s a pretty decent size for a desk ornament 😀. Back in the 1970’s we used to joke you could safely use or Nikons for footballs or wheel chocks, can’t say I would give that label to any digital camera.
Just a little point here, the a9iii has a screen that is both tilty and flippy. R1 has no advantage there and is actually at a disadvantage in that regard.
@@airb1976 yet the R1 doesn’t have it… whats your point? I don’t actually remember a Canon camera having a tilty AND flippy. They usually just go flippy. Please can you give me the models that have tilty AND flippy screens from Canon? I’m struggling to find one…
People...as in everyone, is so dumb about this. The "1" line was never a high mpx fashion ad or landscape camera. Theyve always been lower res work horses for journalists and sports photogs. What scenerio do journalists need 45 mpx? They dont. They need long buffer, leading edge AF and great lowlight/high iso. Check, check and check. As if they werent designing this with feedback from actual working pros that are shooting for news in conflict zones, shooting sports at the olympics etc etc. "Im not putting them down because...its bc its what we, (as youtubers that rely on views that come from jumping on the critique bandwagon) believe"
Thank you so much for sharing that comment. That is exactly what I was thinking. All the youtubers are jumping on that same title to discourage people. Like you said, the 1 series was never for high resolution/megapixels. The 1 series was made to be workhorses and be reliable and staying functional through tough conditions. I wish I could give your comment 100 thumbs up.
Except that 1Ds line was always the highest megaixels on the market in that category, aimed at fashion, landscapes and anything that requires high resolution. 1Ds III was 21mp in 2007!
So everybody is dumb but you? I'm pretty sure there's a diagnosis specifically for that. It wasn't consumers who promised that the R1 was going to be "master of everything". This camera isn't that. Period. And as someone below pointed out, the 1 DS III was 21 mp in 2007. Dual pixel AF is old hat. The Digic X processor is old had (and probably what is responsible for the overheating problems). Stacked sensors are old hat, not some new innovation to brag about (unless you're Canon). Pixel shift isn't an innovation anymore - not even close. I could go on, but why bother?
there was little high res stills cam that can do more than 5fps back then, now you have 6 of them if not more pushing past 10fps, times have changed eps when the A1 can do it years sooner with a smaller body
The game has changed. If canon wants to make a lower res camera, that's great. But it can't compete with the other manufacturers' flagships. This wouldn't be an issue, if the price wasn't so outrageous. What Canon made here is a highly specialised sports, action and journalism camera. Within that niche, the a9 III does everything better - and massively so. Therefore the R1 should be significantly cheaper than the Sony. But it's not. That is the problem here.
Missing the point Tony I am afraid, the upscaling and resolution improvements would be very useful when you sit at the side of a pitch and needed to get off your images to your news desk. This is not just for big sporting events like the Olympics but regional sports too where there is no editorial team to perfect your images. You don’t have time to go back to your office and use Lightroom….again understand the immediate pressure the professional sports photographers are under to deliver images.
Correction Tony‼️We do need more processing in camera that is computational photography that surpasses iPhone 15 Pro’s. Particularly the ability to blend 10s of exposures pre and post pressing the shutter button and produce a single RAW with high DR. We also want an iOS instead of the cave age OS that all cameras have. The day Apple announces a pro camera, I’ll be the first to sign up for it.
Since modern mirrorless cameras use a PDAF + CDAF loop, even if the phase detect does not achieve full accuracy, the contrast detect will refine it. The main benefit of that system is that by the nature of how it works, it always compensates for any nonlinear behaviors of a lens, thus you don't really need to worry much about lens calibration like you had to worry about with DSLRs.
i'm kind of surprised by the dogpiling of criticism about the R1 not being "flagship" enough, as if "good-better-best" was the only way to differentiate tools - i feel like this kind of criticism belays a fundamental misunderstanding of how canon has positioned its product lines (for decades?) ... i was already groaning enough going from 20mp 1DX to 24mp R3, but i'd never get a 40mp+ 1-series for news and sports. period. will never need that level of resolution, and at the volume that i shoot, it'd just be a colossal waste of storage ... my colleagues who shoot beauty / fashion / editorial never shoot on 1D or 1DX, and would likely never consider an R1. they don't need the speed or a snappy viewfinder or big buffers, but they do need high resolution - that's where the 5-series has excelled for a while (and 1Ds, which - again, not built for speed).
8:45 - No offense, but you can tell you have little experience in shooting contemporary events. Neural processing for noise reduction is great for low light events where super high ISO was needed and the images need to be published ASAP. In-camera upscaling is great if the subject was too far away and you need to do a heavy crop. Sure, for high-end events you have an editor handling the images, but most times it's just a junior from the communications team with an iPhone or Canva at best who will post their snaps if you don't send your images fast enough. This camera is not for those who do travel or portrait photography and have the luxury of post-processing off-site.
Tony I personally really wouldn't push for internal memory for multiple reasons: Due to the constant writes and considering its not uncommon to have memory cards to fail, I wouldn't want to lower the reliability of the camera with a part that can't easily be changed. Second it will raise the price of the camera and by more than the cost of a memory card with the same storage I bet, look at smart phones. If they do start adding memory in the main stream, I bet they would slowly go to a model where they remove the card slot and then charge for different storage options, with really pathetic sizes on the budget cameras. Speed of importing, I would much rather take a card out, swap to another card to continue shooting rather than losing my camera for a while to transfer to the computer. Even worse if need to hand a card over to an editor, imagine having to hand over the camera and losing it for month before he gets it back to you. You are pretty much lose redundancy because if you write to a card as well for redundancy then you lose the speed advantage of the internal memory and this no other way to do a backup with internal memory. I have also had multiple cameras that don't talk to computers particularly well, I wouldn't want to be trapped into plugging in the camera if this was the case. The reliability and longevity you would certainly lose with this bothers me the most. (please ignore any mistakes in this, dyslexia is a fun thing.)
Just one point.... I film/photograph wildlife, especially Owls and both my R3 and R5 are constantly losing focus on birds flying directly towards me while gliding, wings out-stretched, and totally wrecking these clips, so the cross focusing of the R1 should help me enormously here.
I think the R1 might be proven to perform exceptionally well when using big telephoto lenses. Performance in low light may also be significantly better than the R3..
Not sure you can say things are slowing down and there no innovation to pull your glasses off and proclaim ‘breaking news’ on. Recently we have seen Global shutter, 120 fps RAW’s, pre capture spreading to more models, ever more advanced AF in the form of Ai subject recognition, and many more. The innovation is still present, just maybe not so much in the R1, that doesn’t make the R1 a ‘bad’ camera, just maybe a little disappointing vs the best features which can be found elsewhere.
Auto focus trumps everything now where so many camera are close in terms of spec. So getting the shot is everything. The new auto focus features are far better than the A9iii with and usable. FPS and hitting buffers are just massive hurdles that pro photographers don’t want. So if you can’t get the image at 40 fps then you should choose a different job because you are terrible at it! The second generation of eye autofocus Canon should be applauded for as this is innovation that others are not doing. In this camera and the R5ii this will be a very useful feature and will no doubt improve further over time and others will adopt when they catch up. Next generation subject tracking looks amazing and for those who have tested it and were invited to the event they have all said how amazing it is and better than anything from the competition. Time will tell but this is proper innovation and giving photographers meaningful tech rather than megapixels nobody needs or wants as if that makes the camera better!!!!
The 1 series has always been a camera for professional photographers, primarily sports photographers. There were actually two versions: the 1D series (lower megapixels but faster with an APS-H sensor) and the 1Ds series (full-frame sensor and more megapixels). In my opinion, Canon has just returned to their roots by calling the R1 their sports flagship, and maybe there will be an R1s later on. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable to be disappointed. This camera is meant for sports, and in sports, 24 MP is the sweet spot. I am confident that the photographers this camera is intended for are not disappointed.
sure...but when they gimp the R5II to prop up R1 sales...that then becomes a problem. R5II slower sensor readout speed than the 2 year old sensor in the Z8...it's more expensive too...the Canon R5II does have a better spec EVF, but they basically cannibalised that from the R3 which has been no doubt selling like shit recently, even with the reduced pricing. If the R5II had a 4ms readout speed, and could sync flash in ES mode, and a better EVF as well as cross type AF like the R1, it would have been a massive hit for wildlife/birding photographers. But nope...gotta use that cripplehammer™ to prop up the R1... if the R1 is USD $6299, imagine how much more expensive a 45mp R1s might be (hint - nothing under 8.5k USD). Canon is already in the shit with the pricing for the R1. People aren't gonna pay R1s prices when they can get a A1 for much cheaper.
@@davepastern As I said, the photographer who buys an R1 is usually not the same as the one who buys an R5II. As a birder myself, I prefer more megapixels because I often need to crop (birds in flight, etc.). Therefore, the R5II is clearly the better camera for my purposes. A sports photographer or a photojournalist doesn't need or even want more than 24MP because they need to process and submit their pictures as quickly as possible. So I really don't think they "gimped" the R5II to prop up R1 sales. I was actually positively surprised that they used the same AF system. When comparing across brands, you should compare the R1 to the A9III and the R5II to the Z8 (or the Z9 and the A1, which are in another price league). To me, the R5II seems to be a bargain for serious wildlife photographers and videographers. The Z8 is as well, by the way, but I won't change systems because of these minor differences.
@@mabrucevercetti2456 I'm really not sure fhat they used the same AF system. I can see nowhere in the tech spec sheets where it says that Canon is using the cross type AF in the R5II.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Whenever someone complains about resolution I ask the question "How large of a print do you plan on printing?". 24 MP is enough resolution for reasonable sized prints especially with AI upscaling algorithms.
@@user-pg4zh2tk2w - While I agree with you, I am also wanting to crop a lot since I am planning to use it for bird-in-flight photography. If 24MP is all I can get, then there's no point of getting it for wildlife. Very disappointing!
It might be, but that doesn't explain the jacked up price relative to other bodies with much higher megapixels and video specs. Is the new AF really worth a 2K premium?
@@musclerambo1 I don't think this is aimed at wildlife primarily. It is aimed at sports photography. Professional sports photography to be exact. That is why it is released a week before the Olympics. 24MP is indeed a bit low for wildlife, unless you have the 1200mm F/8 or 800 F/5.6 ;)
Hahaha, those Canon fanboys, back in the day when they had the upper hand in resolution and frame rate: it’s all about that (and indeed DR and shadow noise left to be desired) and now: resolution and frame rate is not where it’s at… No, you lose this round, and it’s very disappointing. Maybe the R1M2 will pick up the ball (pun intended) and run with it.
I'm also disappointed by this kind of geek reviews. A review based almost only on numbers without taking the camera on hand. 24 mp are more than enough and really don't understand the need for a 120fps for stills!
The point is that canon made a highly specialized sports and action camera that does everything worse than the a9 III, but costs more. Nobody said that the R1 is bad. It's just ridiculously overpriced for what it does, compared to the competition.
@@mbismbismb I have held the R3, which is virtually the same body, and the A9 III. The handling of the Sony is excellent, and the tech inside is worlds ahead of what Canon made with the R1. Global shutter and 120 FPS shooting is pretty much unbeatable for a sports and action shooter.
Oh my gosh, who needs 120fps, or even 40fps?!?!? Who wants to sort all those shots? (I know sports photographers "need" this, but I remember when 4fps was amazing.)
Yeah just people whose entire job for the day is hours of travel to capture one single moment.. imagine flubbing after all that expense.. I have those moments at my job and thankfully I get the shot most of the time but it can be hairy and give me a lot of anxiety..
Not sure why everyone is crying for 24mpx R1. R1 is for sports and you don't need and even want 60 mp for sports. Actually, it would be disaster. 60mpx is useful for wildlife where you crop the shit of the picture. You don't crop like that in sports. Managing those huge files 1000x of times would be nightmare. And Tony not all AI are generative AI. You can do upscaling without generative AI. This camera is specially trained for soccer and volleyball for now which is awesome. That means it recognize the shape of the ball, who is passing and who is receiving not just eye focus on faces. Jared was trying to show it. If camera understand the ball movement and nature of the game, that's awesome.
Don't be so hasty to criticise something for having features you don't personally think you'd use. You are but one person, with your own preferences. Different people value different features, so if a camera has features I wouldn't use, I'm not going to moan about it, unless its at the expense of having a feature I really wanted (which we'll never know unless we work for Canon). Jarod Polin's video shows off that Action Priority focus thing and it looked amazing for certain situations (like basket ball).
The R1 has the fastest Readout Speed for a FF camera with a Mech Shutter. 24MP is the SWEET spot for the R1 intended NICHE Market. A camera is also the Sum of it's parts. By far the biggest component of these type cameras is the AF. In today's world of EVERYONE including those with 45MP PLUS cameras are always still living in processing Software 24/7 for their work, so 24MP is mostly a NON issue. Yet everyone, mostly those that don't even USE the full 24MP cameras that they already have are Crying a River. Canon's Bread and Butter Cameras are the R5/R6 series. The R1 is mostly a disappointment for those that were NEVER going to buy this camera regardless of what specs it delivered.
Well that's just not true. I had intentions of buying this camera if it was going to actually be a competitive flagship. Who cares if it has the fastest readout speed? The R3 A1 and Z9 are already overkill for anything that would need it. We hit that point already. That's why global shutter is fucking pointless lol. I was hoping for the R1 to be 45mp. I knew it wouldn't be after the months of rumors. I wanted the large voltage battery to drive lenses fast + bsi stacked sensor that the R3 has. Why even purchase this camera over the R3? The R3 does 99% of what this camera does besides basically ai features and video fatures while being 40% of the cost. Lol.
@@kpopfanphotos I stated mostly, so it is true. You are one of the VERY few in a really NICHE market. Nor does the R3 do 99% of what the R1 does. That is nonsense. Now it might only do that for your specific case usages but others will have different ones. Plenty care which cameras have the fastest readout speed regardless of what point it stops being even a issue. If money was not a issue, it would be real Silly to buy the R3 over the R1.
@@natureredux1957 so guess we should all be content with 24 mp - just like we should be with fax machines, pagers., and the us mail. Canon is about to learn the hard way consumers dictate demand not the manufacturers. Niche market is their marketing excuse for producing a disappointing camera. R1 has some GREAT features but it’s missing the ONE feature the Majority wanted most.
@@troypast3589 Never stated what anyone should be content with. I would love a 100MP camera with Multiple Crop Feature be that in Photo or Video. And you are wrong, the Majority never claimed to want more then 24MP, just a LOUD small minority. Most of which were NEVER going to buy this camera.
No, I'm not disappointed because there's no way in the world I'd ever buy one. This channel buys $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 cameras and lenses the way I buy groceries. It's tough to relate. Whatever your hobby, TH-cam is 95 percent about the gear, not the reasons to own the gear. Nothing is ever enough until you are. But there's no business model in eternal truths.
It’s sincerely an R3 mkii, that doesn’t answer for the A1 or Z9. The R5 mkii stacks up well compared to the Z8, albeit with a slower readout speed. A lot of the in camera processing seems more useful on an entry level camera, where someone will shoot jpeg and maybe doesn’t want to do any post processing.
More than anything, I think it's the naming that shot this camera on its foot. Everyone was expecting the R1 to be a radical upgrade compared to the R3, but it feels like an R3 mark II at best. If they had called this the R3 mark II, or had named R3 as the R1 and had this named R1 mark II, the reaction would've turned out better.
I think Canon should have made the R3 the R1 right from the start and not bothered about having the R3 designation. (I don't get their numbering.). Then they could have just concentrated on upgrading the R1(3) and released the now R1ii along with the R5ii.
I suspect you need to be in the target market for the R1 (high speed sports, press, photojournalism) to be able to review it objectively. Tony and Chelsea, however entertaining they might be, aren't.
The AF looks amazing for ball sports or motorsports. Given unlimited funds, I’d pick one up. That said, I feel like Sony in the near future will release something like the a7V that will offer 95% of the performance of the R1 for $2500 to $3500.
People saying the R5ii sensor should have went on the R1 really are overselling that sensor. It is about half as fast as the R1, Z8, Z9, and mechanical shutters. So if they went with it, they would need to have put on faster mechanical shutter for high speed sports. The R1 sensor is the fastest stacked sensor on the market at 1/300 with the next fastest being the Z9 with 1/270th. The R3 is 1/170th(most likely why it wasn’t the R1) with the R5ii being slower than the R3 sensor.
I was disappointed in Canon a long time ago. I was a 1Dx and 7D II shooter, with a full kit of L glass including the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. But Canon was too slow to mirrorless, and I started buying Sony gear, but when I finally sold my Canon gear 3 years ago, I invested in Lumix MFT, and now use mostly Lumix, with some Sony. Nothing I have seen in recent years would tempt me back to Canon. I was given a 60D and two lenses by a relative, and I do sometimes use the Canon 110 film camera, but Canon, for me, is now clearly ancient history.
in canon history ... 1D line up never be high resolution ... so why mad now ? coz other brand did that ? so canon should ? but why ? if every camera brand have the same spec, why bother ? this is like "if every body can be super hero, so no one will be"
Full disclosure, I am primarily a videographer and a photographer second. I plan to purchase two (2) R3 cameras as video production system. However, from a photography business perspective I believe the R3 should have been originally badged as an R1 with this new release as an R1 Mii. I don’t understand the technology tree an R3 Mii would have going forward unless it becomes a more video centric hybrid. A video centric hybrid would then bleed into their EOS cinema line from a feature perspective but not a form factor perspective. Where does the R3 line go from here other than filling a product line price point?
I think they acutually nailed it. The R1 is for specific market , journalist or sports photographers will love it , The AF system in it looks top tier and seems better than Sony and far better than Nikon currently. For all the rest of us , the R5 II seems amazing at a reasonable enough price point. Sony is all set with the A9 III , let's see Nikon's response. The Z9 is going to get an update for the olympics according to rumers , it might help it catch up a bit.
Its a sportscamera, but this dude dont recognize that its the improvements in autofocus that is the big seller. TH-camr without any understanding of the target audience for the camera. No wonder no camera manufacturer will have anything to do with the guy.
As long as the "big" camera companies focus their efforts on hybrid cameras and not photocentric or videocentric specific models, there will always be compromises and not everyone will be satisfied with their offering. I.E, there is no perfect hybrid. I'm not a Sony user, but it seems they come closest to providing what both camps want, the A9 III for fast action video and the A7R5 for stills.
Imo quad pixel af is the only Real great advantage this thing has. Which doesn’t really justify its existence, but nearly all other existing mirrorless bodies all still have random difficulties with lines that don’t align with their focus points. (This coming from a Sony user)
@@NikCan66 if Nikon is still using Sony to make it, I’m not sure they will be global yet. Time will tell but I’m guessing Nikon is a few years away and Canon even further.
@@NikCan66 yes... Agree with you on that. Look at DJI. They got hasselblad in 2019 and what they achieved in pocket 3 is great... But it took 5 years 😉
@@Z_EOS Sony global shutter but a less dynamic range is a week spot on the Sony a9iii as most sports events I attention take place in either badly lit indoor or outdoor events under floodlights and the Sony a9iii limited iso range would become an issue. Other manufacturers will make adjustments to use global shutter with the full dynamic range going forward
Canon has let me down. I was actually interested in the R1 but: Very little improvement over what I already have. Second: The prices is outrageous, come on Canon. Third: No 3 party lenses to speak of. Canon what are you trying to do? Run everyone away from your cameras and send us to Sony or Nikon? Guess Ill just put my money away for the R1 Mark 2.
@@user-eh8jv2em2o Actually Canon has a ton of lenses that I really like. It's Canon's cost that gets me. I could probably by two Tamron/Sigma lens for the same as one Canon lens. Thank you for asking. Have a super day. :)
*For me, a Full Frame flagship Canon R1 Camera should've been this:* *Sensor:* 45MP Stacked with a speed of 1/800" (The speed of the sensor of Sony A1 is 1/240") *Shutter:* Electronic, with 1/2000 Flash Sync Speed *Video:* 8K 60FPS, with extremely low Rolling Shutter. *Focus system:* Same as Canon R1 *Storage:* 1TB*2, very high endurance M.2 SSDs as storage solution. *Viewfinder:* Same as Canon R1. *Screen:* A 5" (6m dot) OLED 120Hz screen, that rotates exactly as the Sony A7rV. *Body:* Same size as Canon R3, or slightly bigger, with same ergonomics. *Cooling:* Built-in silent fan *Communication:* Built-in GPS, Bluetooth, high speed Wi-Fi, and Google Photos app. *Security:* Built-in tracking system, fingerprint sensor, and a way to embed pictures with a security code that tells that the picture in not AI-generated. *Price:* US$ 8,499/-
To my fellow TH-cam watchers: do you ever watch a car review where the TH-cam channel does not drive the car they talk about? No! This is what this channel has just done with the R1: they have not even held the camera in their hand. “Flagship camera after 6 / 7 years [sneering]”, “people are incredibly disappointed”, “it is a let down”, “Canon has lost their edge in a pretty big way”. To Canon: is it diffamation? Dear Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus lovers: let’s rebel: we want a high quality TH-cam! We want high quality reviews that really help us assess if products deliver the picture quality we need! We want value added and comments we cannot elaborate ourselves by lack of direct experience! We want expert opinions that are built on the best practices of review including having engaged with the engineers, designers and marketers of the products to explain to us why they have done what they have done! We want work behind the reviews! We also want humility as no one is bigger that anyone else - we are all equal and all of us deserve respect through the quality of what is shown to us! And finally we want people who are really taking our interest as TH-cam watchers / users at heart and will show total commitment to this purpose! Vamos TH-cam!
This is a high quality TH-camr. This is Tony's "Breaking News" series. Him and Chelsea buy the cameras they review, so they have to wait for it to actually be shipped. The day 1 reviews are also generally pre-production. So the first look is not nearly as useful as reviewing the "as-shipped" model.
Tony, The incoming comments from my favorite evaluators have been uniformly lackluster to say the least. Quite frankly, I was surprised. That said, given the amount of time Canon has taken with the R1 it is safe to say that they indeed put out the camera they wanted to. I think most people believe that these manufacturers are constantly looking over their shoulders to see what the competition is doing to match or better them. I suspect that all these manufacturers are thinking more long term and develop what they feel the market wants or that aligns with their business strategy rather than having any given model go toe-to-toe with a particular competitor. The R1 is a good camera and will take fantastic photographs. To the extent that Canon is bleeding market share, if any, to the competition will the R1 stem this tide? Time will tell.
It just amazes me how sports photographers in the past 50+ yrs were able to take such amazing perfect iconic action photos sans sooo many aids. Seems to me all these newer superfeatures are geared more to absolut photo-morons who want the camera/s to do EVERYTHING for them./.........
We have the technology to do this, so I’m not sure why no one has. Have a camera that supports 8K video, full frame, global shutter, max, ISO, blazing read and write speeds so there is no hiccups, a bunch of m.2 memory, large enough batteries that you rarely would have to switch, and highest speed transfer from camera to computer possible, 200 megapixels, extra high stabilization, catch the few seconds before you press button, super fast autofocus with no stalling when you press button… umm did I cover it all? It’s like they always have something missing … but then they will have the feature in a different camera that is missing something else. If you could take all the best features from all cameras and bundle into one camera … then improve to higher and better levels… then I would be willing to spend more money
No it’s not. While I am sad about the omission of an on-axis tilt screen for Photojournalism, the AF-C algorithm of this camera is better than the Sony A1 & A9iii. When combined with the 100-300 2.8, you have an advantage over all Sony and Nikon shooters
@@hikertrashfilms Sony is working on their own advanced focusing system. Comparing the A1 to an R1 tells more of the story. You are comparing technologies that are 4 years apart! In camera world that is several lifetimes. Paired with a global shutter, improved ai focusing, and better dynamic range - Tony is spot on saying Canon is losing ground. They have for years, but this is their flagship. I have used Canon since the T90 but have to admit I am very disappointed.
How exactly do you “blow away” the other cameras that are already getting high 90% of shots in focus? You get 1 or 2 per 100 more in focus? That is not “blown away”. I would call that negligible gains. And the A9iii will be absolutely getting vastly more options to choose from at 120 FPS RAW, easily making up for any tiny percent differences in autofocus. I just am not seeing this claim of blown away. It’s not like these cameras aren’t good at AF already.
"blows away" - Maybe your brain got blown away from your fanboyism and watching to much TH-cam. All this tech works so stable an precise, it's just small steps for a company and than from the other.
Nikon shooters also have a 120-300/2.8, but they can shoot 120 fps 12MP JPEG; sure it’s not for wildlife, but for sports guys that’s plenty to get the job done. You can also do that with 1s of pre-capture and a bottomless buffer.
That's just nonsense. The a9 III does absolutely everything better than the R1, the Sony lenses are better, and the Sony gear is cheaper. There's absolutely no reason right now to shoot Canon for sports and action.
I will come forward as one who seems bewildered at Canon camera's inability to focus on a horizontal horizon. I've taken many trips to Alaska and twilight offers spectacular views with little dynamic range above and below the horizon despite the wide variation of colors. Many times, it is impossible to get the autofocus to work on a perfectly horizontal horizon and this forces an imperfect manual focus situation. The only way to get the autofocus to work is to tilt the camera over 15° off of the horizontal. Canon, what the heck!
Surely there must be a way that manufacturers could fit a fast removable M.2 drive in new cameras instead of just relying on cards. And they need to add some security like a fingerprint reader in the shutter button or a password to unlock the camera.
I'm dissapointed because i thought that it was going to compete against the A1 and it is just a R3 mark ii branded as R1, i think that the R5 II is a much better camera and also cheaper
More resolution does not necessarily make a better camera. I have read Nikon forums where users wish the Nikon Z9 had fewer pixels. It really depends on your application and how big your prints are.
Rudy paid the price for the R1 disaster. Canon’s problem with announce and wait is there are plenty of offerings in the pike. These options will body slam long term R1 orders. Yeah, I’m talking about Alpha 1ii, among others. Poor salesmanship. Even worse planning.
Yes. You are correct but you did not mention some cool features of R1 over Z9 and Canon lenses are better than Nikon. The camera always needs good autofocus and here the R1 shines in fast action. R1 is not a general purpose camera, it is dedicated to the action photographers.
I think it's a huge disappointment. Nikon started catching Sony before Canon did. Sony's A1 and 9iii have been doing most of this for a long time with more pixels or faster frames. Kinda sad!
I am a little surprised that everyone thought the first version of this camera was going to be the ultimate camera, otherwise there would not be a need for a Mark 2, Mark3, and so on.
Internal storage is a bad idea. Rather internal buffering. The R1 has better AF than anything else right now. It’s sensor is fast enough for anything you want to shoot. It’s a great workhorse for a pro sport or news etc photog. I do think the face priority and the sport modes have applications. It’s not the camera for me, but it will sell.
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
MISTAKE: The Sony a9 III does have a flip screen so that's not an advantage for the Canon. I was thinking of my Sony a1.
Tony, I think you're wrong. I believe both the A1 and the A9 III have that same clever tilty/flippy-twisty screen. But you're making me have second thoughts which might very well drive me down into the subway to travel the 120 blocks to B&H to check them both out.
@@giovannispinosa182 The A1 has the traditional tilt screen. The A7RV and the A9III have the new screen that can do it all.
@@geoffn8963 Oh, yes, This is correct. My bad. And thanks for saving me a subway ride.
I have seen tests where a9 III doesnt have the greatest dynamic range and low-light performance, isnt that very relevant to discuss and they key is if the r1 is fast enough not to have visible rolling shutter? Global shutter doesnt come without a tradeoff
Meh. Flip screens, electronic view flinders, eye control - to me that all sounds like unreliable amateur junk. Canon lost it when they gave up on the EF series. The R cameras are a joke.
Tony, no matter how boring the cameras get, please promise us that you'll never stop ripping off the glasses and yelling BREAKING NEWS!
😂😂😂
I don't know; it speaks to delusions of being Clark Kent, and Chelsea may be suspicious of Lois Lane.
Hahahaha
I was certain that the R3 was meant to be the R1 until Canon learned of the A1 and Z9 high res sensors, and the R1 was going to have at least a 45 mp sensor. Now I'm just confused.
If Canon just called the R1 a R3 Mark II it would have gotten a lot better reception.
What they should have done was given the R1 a 45 megapixel sensor and camera out with an R3 Mark II with all the features of the current R1! Don’t quite understand the marketing logic coming out of Canon these days or ever for that matter! lol
Tbh that kind of checks out, because there's a limit in what they can change or improve in a shorter period of time.
@@tomnorton8499 Seriously. I used the R3 and its a solid camera. I would rather buy two used R3 for $3500 each then one R1 at this point... Also with Nikons camera being $2500, makes the R1 seem beyond overpriced
To be fair the Camera industry is still pretty exciting. It’s just Canon that did a really boring move with the R1
R1 is the best camera on the market for sport photography, with a fantastics AF system. You should try before saying it's a huge disappointment.
The A9III does have a flippy screen but can tilt up or down when not flipped out (Same as the A7R5).
I'm more interested in getting that screen put on canon camera then I am about 45+ mp and 500000000fps realisticly I'll use that 10000 percent more then I'd ever use the rest of the mp and speed
We’re so spoiled… you all just want the camera to walk to the shoot while you remotely shoot it from home at 100mpx 20k raw video..
Watched a professional sports photographer for F1 whose using R3s, his feeling is that the R1 is going in the right direction and can't wait to get a pair of them.
Yeah and there's millions of such users
If you’re talking about Kym Illman, then you should just go ahead and mention his name. More people should know about him…
@@justinburley8659 Kim Illman is a real photographer, not an influencer. His channel is better than any of these influencers.
@@joshcruzphotos understand, but the 1s are not made for the ambitious amateur, they are tailored for pro journalists in sports, daily news, documentary etc.
@@justinburley8659 What tf is Kym lllman?
It's horses for courses, I don't think comparing the R1 to the Nikon Z6III is a very good idea as they are catering for different market segments. The R1 is for professionals that are going to spend months on end sitting in a hide in the remotest part of Pakistan waiting for the elusive snow leopard for example or outdoor sport covering Rugby in the driving rain in the middle of winter in northern England. One of the biggest selling points of these cameras are the ruggedness and longevity and most of the tech is nice to have.
2:20 you’re confusing the R1 buffer with the R5 Mark II. The R1 can basically shoot unlimited raw files. Canon lists it as 1000 raw files on their spec sheet.
In my mind, R1 is an R3 mark ii. But Canon needed an Olympic flagship out named the R1 before the opening and saw this as the compromise (perhaps also a panic action to keep shareholders happy, we'll never know).
why don't you wait til you have the camera in your hand and make a thorough comparison between Sony, Nikon and canon flagship camera. pointing to their strength and weakness without giving any commentary and let your viewer make the decision. that would be better!
Doesn't the A9 III have a tilty flippy 3d screen???
it does
Yes: it has a screen that is both flippy and tilty. It’s the best of all worlds, in my experience!
yes 4 axis !!!
the one I wished the canon r5 mk ii would have !
So a part that will easily break. Can’t stand all these modern cameras. Just like modern cars.
@@swampscott2670 I don't own a car, so I wouldn't know. Plenty of Canon DSLRs around, just use that.
Interesting comparison… one point, the Sony A9III has a tilt flip screen. So it’s perfect for both photography and video. I think this is a better option than the R1.
Do you remember how many years Sony ignored their customers about the flippy screen, which Canon used?
@@airb1976lots of us hate the flip screen and prefer a tilt. The new screen solves the problem and everyone can be happy
People on the TH-cam complaining about the resolution of the R1 really need to consider the audience for this camera. It is for high-speed sports photography and photojournalism where typical print size is rarely larger than 8x10. Going back over a decade the 1-series has always been a lower resolution sensor for the best low-light performance.
The R3 was a test bed for new technology (stacked sensor, Eye Control AF) just like the EOS-3 before it.
Exactly. Canon has a playbook going back to the 1970s. If you follow what they did in the past, it's super clear they're executing the same exact playbook which has kept them at number 1 for over 30 years.
To a degree, you have a point. However, there are other pro bodies on the market offering excellent specs AND higher MPs for about the same money as the R1. You have a point about the R1's intended audience, but that still doesn't explain the price. This is more like a R3 MKII. You essentially get 2 CF Express cards, a higher resolution viewfinder and a new AF system for a $2K premium. Worth it?
24mp postersize from a fullframe camera DSlR had plenty of resolution I've seen 24mp blown way up and they look fantastic. I just think there's alot of bad shooters out there, that are blaming equipment mp for there poor quailty skills. .5 maybe 1 percent of the photographers who are truly gonna consistently use the full power of a camera are gonna be okay. The other 999.999 percent of ppl shooting photos of there dogs and cats and puddles with reflections will never even use the full potential of there cameras whatever mp or fps it shoots.
@@GarrettLucasWV Let's compare the R1 vs. R3. Improvements in the R1 include:
1) Faster flash sync in electronic shutter mode of 1/400 sec vs. 1/180 in the R3, less rolling shutter artifacts. R1 electronic shutter is faster than the 1Dx Mk3 mechanical shutter.
2) 0.5 sec precapture in RAW vs. no precapture in RAW
3) Dual CFE B for fast redundant shooting while retaining deep buffer performance
4) cross-type AF sensors (a first in FF mirrorless camera)
5) 40 fps maximum burst vs. 30 fps maximum burst
6) R1 has a 1000+ frame buffer at 40 fps; R3 buffer is more limited
7) R1 AF algorithms and tracking is superior to the R3
8) R1 has a brighter and higher resolution and higher magnification EVF
9) R1 EyeControl AF boost improvement in hardware and software compared to R3
10) R1 has a strap lug on the vertical grip which was removed on the R3
Whether or not these 10 improvements are worth $2K is a personal and economic decision.
You can easily print much, MUCH larger than 8x10 with 24mp. I've printed billboards with 8mp. In fact Fro has videos showing his 4 FEET x 6 FEET images from his 12mp crop sensor cams and even up close they look amazing. MP are mostly marketing gimmicks now. I can also upscale my R6 II files using basic AI (like Adobe's built in superscale feature) and they look sharper and more detailed than native R5 files.
"the R1 Mark 3, like it's predecessor the R3".... ermm it's the first R1... it's not a R3 Mark II either...
Everyone when Canon releases a camera: "Oh wow, crippled, too expensive, disappointing."
Everyone a year or two later: "Actually the Canon is my favorite to use."
Exactly.
@fwiffo - spot on
"WHY I SWITCHED TO CANON" ..... "WHY I SOLD ALL MY "Whatever camera" TO GO CANON" the list goes on and on....
People if you don't like it ...don't buy it if you like it buy it and have fun!
To be clear, nobody should take this comment too seriously. It's a just a humorous observation.
Everyone??? Or only those who said "Actually the Canon is my favorite to use.".
Everyone is a wild generalization. I used the r5 and the r6 for almost two years. I switched to Nikon and i will never switch back. Z8 is amazing.
I'm mostly a Canon shooter, and this is hugely disappointing. The Z8 appeals to me more with more fps, and it's really useful for air shows. It's in jpeg but can still do 120fps. And letting Rudy Winston is a big disaster for canon. He's been pretty much driving camera sales single handedly, and can sell anything. I just don't see those buying this except for those who need even the smallest refresh, and hobbyists with very deep pockets.
I don't care the R1 because it is not for me. Since it is not for me, I don't need to trash it in any shape and form. But I do pre-order the R5II which is I think an awesome camera.
Jared polin reviewed the R1 and he has said the AF is better than the A9III’s for sports.
He is paid troll
The algorithm certainly seems to be better for "certain" sports. Basically, for sports with a large round ball, the camera can focus on the player with the ball. This is a unique and useful bit of tech. I'm sure Sony will respond in due time.
He also felt the R3 was better than the A9III, though he said they were very close and both were excellent. So of course the slightly improved R1 is also better.
@@RG-rm9jt It only claims to support basketball, volleyball and soccer (football)
@spqr49 that is a lot.
I realy hate what all the youtubers are saying about this camera. It's like saying why a Freightliner or a Mack truck can't outrun a Ferrari, because it was not freaking build for that. The R1 will do well in the hands of true professionals. It was never targeted for youtubers. I remembered when you guys talked bad about the R5 when it first came out and still to this day most of them are shooting canon R5. These titles are misleading. Stop reviewing Jeeps like you want them to run as fast as Lamborghinis.
yeah but in this case the ferrari has the same payload as the freightliner
Personally I think the trade-off between FPS and dynamic range needs a thorough assessment and comparison before you can call this worse than the A9III.
There are no tradeoffs for dynamic range in video. CineD rated the A9III as having the best exposure latitude of any mirrorless camera to date.
@@angryrabbitproductions1690 are you pre ordering the R1? just wondering.
Yes I saw that, the video DR is fine with about just above 12.5 stops but Geral Undone shows that it's clearly has some very aggressive Noise reduction baked in. And the photo DR is worse than it's predecessor the A9 II. It's still great as a sports can dont get me wrong and Sony should be praises doe this innovation just stacked BSI sensors offer about a stop and a half more DR than Global shutters do now..
@@suchetdas5392 Thats the same with Canon, they're also bake in a harder "ai" video noise reduction to make their claims.
Considering that eos 1DS released in 2002 had 11MP, 1DS MK2 had 16.6MP in 2004 and 1D MK2 released in the same year with only 8 MP was a jacking shit, then 1DS MK3 released in 2007 had 21 MP but later 1D X had only 18 MP in 2011, then 1D X MK II had 20 MP in 2016, and 1D X MK III had again only 20 MP in 2020, is realy no wonder that R1 has only 24 MP.
Maybee if enough people are vocal about this, sometime Canon will make a revision with double the resolution... Beside 2X image 1:13 sensor resolution it also needs 3X EVF resolution that is spect in dots - so subpixels, 1/3 pixels, so again a jucking shit with only 3 MP. An optical FF35 SLR ground glass has ~ 2500 lines vertical resolution x ~ 6250 horizontal, so an EVF with pentile dots even if made 4K horizontal pixels but pentile so 20% less rez then true 4K, it would still have lower rez then a good optical SLR viewfinder, but even so it would be 3X better then 1R has. Otherwise 0.90X viewfinder magnification is great. Not yet awesome from FF35, and 0.90X with a 50mm lens is not realy true 0.9X, but only true 0.774 X with a 43mm that is the ultranormal lens, not wide and not tele, equal to the format diagonal, but even so it can be great if it had the resolution.
Really interested to see how Sony responds with an A1II but honestly after this launch from Canon they might just keep sitting on whatever tech they've been banking for a while longer. I keep saying if they just released a new A1 with the same exact internal specs but a better body (like with a way better rear screen, bioauthentication, that kind of stuff) it'd still be a big win for them. Like why do camera companies insist on neglecting the back screen? Just put an high-nit OLED on there already! Those panels have come way down in price and we're talking about their flagship camera anyway. They can afford it. Make the screen a flagship feature! Release an "A1 OLED" that's the same in every other way and they'd still sell like hotcakes.
I reckon Sony is sitting on either a ~62mp bsi stacked sensor that has the same DR and high ISO performance as the original A1, with the same or faster readout speed. If Sony swallows their pride and switches to CFB cards, then things will look really painful for the R1 imho.
@@davepastern So true! Those memory cards at that level of thruput are in some ways more of an issue than anything in terms of what needs upgrading. I bet more likely they come out with new type A cards that are faster but also cost way way more (and are still tiny in terms of size). If they did Tony's beloved internal storage idea along with one fast card slot that would basically cover everything. But they'll never do that.
@@roland.boyden CFB is a much simpler solution. Even if it's PCIe v3. v4 would be really kick ass.
I always thought of the R1 as the bombproof reliable beast for pros who can’t or don’t want to baby their gear, why is nobody talking about (or lack of) superior build quality, robustness which surely would differentiate it significantly from the R3 and R5 (not that either of these are not well made) ?
if the R1 is using the same multi-function shoe as the R3, then it isn't weather sealed, not without using the AD-E1. Either way, Canon doesn't guarantee weather sealing or offer an IP rating (nor does Sony or Nikon for that matter). The only manufacturer who stands by their gear and weather sealing ratings is OM systems.
I think Nikon has better build quality....maybe just me ?
@kahvac z9 is a mf beast... r3 can barely function as a paper weight..
@@thothheartmaat2833 The Z9 is a beast a great camera ! but... the R3 is also a great camera !
@@thothheartmaat2833 it’s a pretty decent size for a desk ornament 😀. Back in the 1970’s we used to joke you could safely use or Nikons for footballs or wheel chocks, can’t say I would give that label to any digital camera.
Just a little point here, the a9iii has a screen that is both tilty and flippy. R1 has no advantage there and is actually at a disadvantage in that regard.
Oooh good point. I was thinking of the a1.
@TonyAndChelsea ... come on, Tony... of course you exactly knew that better but wanted to give us something to keep the comment section busy 😜
Canon has this tilty and flippy screen for years and Sony ignored that for a long time
@@airb1976 yet the R1 doesn’t have it… whats your point? I don’t actually remember a Canon camera having a tilty AND flippy. They usually just go flippy. Please can you give me the models that have tilty AND flippy screens from Canon? I’m struggling to find one…
People...as in everyone, is so dumb about this. The "1" line was never a high mpx fashion ad or landscape camera. Theyve always been lower res work horses for journalists and sports photogs. What scenerio do journalists need 45 mpx? They dont. They need long buffer, leading edge AF and great lowlight/high iso. Check, check and check. As if they werent designing this with feedback from actual working pros that are shooting for news in conflict zones, shooting sports at the olympics etc etc.
"Im not putting them down because...its bc its what we, (as youtubers that rely on views that come from jumping on the critique bandwagon) believe"
Thank you so much for sharing that comment. That is exactly what I was thinking. All the youtubers are jumping on that same title to discourage people. Like you said, the 1 series was never for high resolution/megapixels. The 1 series was made to be workhorses and be reliable and staying functional through tough conditions. I wish I could give your comment 100 thumbs up.
Except that 1Ds line was always the highest megaixels on the market in that category, aimed at fashion, landscapes and anything that requires high resolution. 1Ds III was 21mp in 2007!
So everybody is dumb but you? I'm pretty sure there's a diagnosis specifically for that.
It wasn't consumers who promised that the R1 was going to be "master of everything". This camera isn't that. Period. And as someone below pointed out, the 1 DS III was 21 mp in 2007. Dual pixel AF is old hat. The Digic X processor is old had (and probably what is responsible for the overheating problems). Stacked sensors are old hat, not some new innovation to brag about (unless you're Canon). Pixel shift isn't an innovation anymore - not even close. I could go on, but why bother?
there was little high res stills cam that can do more than 5fps back then, now you have 6 of them if not more pushing past 10fps, times have changed
eps when the A1 can do it years sooner with a smaller body
The game has changed. If canon wants to make a lower res camera, that's great. But it can't compete with the other manufacturers' flagships. This wouldn't be an issue, if the price wasn't so outrageous. What Canon made here is a highly specialised sports, action and journalism camera. Within that niche, the a9 III does everything better - and massively so. Therefore the R1 should be significantly cheaper than the Sony. But it's not. That is the problem here.
Missing the point Tony I am afraid, the upscaling and resolution improvements would be very useful when you sit at the side of a pitch and needed to get off your images to your news desk. This is not just for big sporting events like the Olympics but regional sports too where there is no editorial team to perfect your images. You don’t have time to go back to your office and use Lightroom….again understand the immediate pressure the professional sports photographers are under to deliver images.
It’s amazing how difficult it is to please everyone.
Correction Tony‼️We do need more processing in camera that is computational photography that surpasses iPhone 15 Pro’s. Particularly the ability to blend 10s of exposures pre and post pressing the shutter button and produce a single RAW with high DR. We also want an iOS instead of the cave age OS that all cameras have. The day Apple announces a pro camera, I’ll be the first to sign up for it.
Since modern mirrorless cameras use a PDAF + CDAF loop, even if the phase detect does not achieve full accuracy, the contrast detect will refine it. The main benefit of that system is that by the nature of how it works, it always compensates for any nonlinear behaviors of a lens, thus you don't really need to worry much about lens calibration like you had to worry about with DSLRs.
i'm kind of surprised by the dogpiling of criticism about the R1 not being "flagship" enough, as if "good-better-best" was the only way to differentiate tools - i feel like this kind of criticism belays a fundamental misunderstanding of how canon has positioned its product lines (for decades?) ... i was already groaning enough going from 20mp 1DX to 24mp R3, but i'd never get a 40mp+ 1-series for news and sports. period. will never need that level of resolution, and at the volume that i shoot, it'd just be a colossal waste of storage ... my colleagues who shoot beauty / fashion / editorial never shoot on 1D or 1DX, and would likely never consider an R1. they don't need the speed or a snappy viewfinder or big buffers, but they do need high resolution - that's where the 5-series has excelled for a while (and 1Ds, which - again, not built for speed).
8:45 - No offense, but you can tell you have little experience in shooting contemporary events.
Neural processing for noise reduction is great for low light events where super high ISO was needed and the images need to be published ASAP.
In-camera upscaling is great if the subject was too far away and you need to do a heavy crop.
Sure, for high-end events you have an editor handling the images, but most times it's just a junior from the communications team with an iPhone or Canva at best who will post their snaps if you don't send your images fast enough.
This camera is not for those who do travel or portrait photography and have the luxury of post-processing off-site.
Tony I personally really wouldn't push for internal memory for multiple reasons:
Due to the constant writes and considering its not uncommon to have memory cards to fail, I wouldn't want to lower the reliability of the camera with a part that can't easily be changed.
Second it will raise the price of the camera and by more than the cost of a memory card with the same storage I bet, look at smart phones.
If they do start adding memory in the main stream, I bet they would slowly go to a model where they remove the card slot and then charge for different storage options, with really pathetic sizes on the budget cameras.
Speed of importing, I would much rather take a card out, swap to another card to continue shooting rather than losing my camera for a while to transfer to the computer. Even worse if need to hand a card over to an editor, imagine having to hand over the camera and losing it for month before he gets it back to you.
You are pretty much lose redundancy because if you write to a card as well for redundancy then you lose the speed advantage of the internal memory and this no other way to do a backup with internal memory.
I have also had multiple cameras that don't talk to computers particularly well, I wouldn't want to be trapped into plugging in the camera if this was the case.
The reliability and longevity you would certainly lose with this bothers me the most.
(please ignore any mistakes in this, dyslexia is a fun thing.)
Agreed, and SSDs are not so reliable when you do a lot of writes every day. They're great if you do mostly reads, but a camera will do mostly writes.
Just one point.... I film/photograph wildlife, especially Owls and both my R3 and R5 are constantly losing focus on birds flying directly towards me while gliding, wings out-stretched, and totally wrecking these clips, so the cross focusing of the R1 should help me enormously here.
I would always choose a Nikon over a Canon, any time! ❤🙏🏻
Canon now third behind Sony and Nikon.
I think the R1 might be proven to perform exceptionally well when using big telephoto lenses.
Performance in low light may also be significantly better than the R3..
I'm going to go with it'll be marginally better than the R3. Marginally.
I mean this is their perfected technology for professionals where the other models were experimentation..
Not sure you can say things are slowing down and there no innovation to pull your glasses off and proclaim ‘breaking news’ on.
Recently we have seen Global shutter, 120 fps RAW’s, pre capture spreading to more models, ever more advanced AF in the form of Ai subject recognition, and many more. The innovation is still present, just maybe not so much in the R1, that doesn’t make the R1 a ‘bad’ camera, just maybe a little disappointing vs the best features which can be found elsewhere.
Auto focus trumps everything now where so many camera are close in terms of spec. So getting the shot is everything. The new auto focus features are far better than the A9iii with and usable. FPS and hitting buffers are just massive hurdles that pro photographers don’t want. So if you can’t get the image at 40 fps then you should choose a different job because you are terrible at it! The second generation of eye autofocus Canon should be applauded for as this is innovation that others are not doing. In this camera and the R5ii this will be a very useful feature and will no doubt improve further over time and others will adopt when they catch up. Next generation subject tracking looks amazing and for those who have tested it and were invited to the event they have all said how amazing it is and better than anything from the competition. Time will tell but this is proper innovation and giving photographers meaningful tech rather than megapixels nobody needs or wants as if that makes the camera better!!!!
The 1 series has always been a camera for professional photographers, primarily sports photographers. There were actually two versions: the 1D series (lower megapixels but faster with an APS-H sensor) and the 1Ds series (full-frame sensor and more megapixels). In my opinion, Canon has just returned to their roots by calling the R1 their sports flagship, and maybe there will be an R1s later on. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable to be disappointed. This camera is meant for sports, and in sports, 24 MP is the sweet spot. I am confident that the photographers this camera is intended for are not disappointed.
sure...but when they gimp the R5II to prop up R1 sales...that then becomes a problem. R5II slower sensor readout speed than the 2 year old sensor in the Z8...it's more expensive too...the Canon R5II does have a better spec EVF, but they basically cannibalised that from the R3 which has been no doubt selling like shit recently, even with the reduced pricing. If the R5II had a 4ms readout speed, and could sync flash in ES mode, and a better EVF as well as cross type AF like the R1, it would have been a massive hit for wildlife/birding photographers. But nope...gotta use that cripplehammer™ to prop up the R1...
if the R1 is USD $6299, imagine how much more expensive a 45mp R1s might be (hint - nothing under 8.5k USD). Canon is already in the shit with the pricing for the R1. People aren't gonna pay R1s prices when they can get a A1 for much cheaper.
@@davepastern As I said, the photographer who buys an R1 is usually not the same as the one who buys an R5II. As a birder myself, I prefer more megapixels because I often need to crop (birds in flight, etc.). Therefore, the R5II is clearly the better camera for my purposes. A sports photographer or a photojournalist doesn't need or even want more than 24MP because they need to process and submit their pictures as quickly as possible. So I really don't think they "gimped" the R5II to prop up R1 sales. I was actually positively surprised that they used the same AF system.
When comparing across brands, you should compare the R1 to the A9III and the R5II to the Z8 (or the Z9 and the A1, which are in another price league). To me, the R5II seems to be a bargain for serious wildlife photographers and videographers. The Z8 is as well, by the way, but I won't change systems because of these minor differences.
You just described the Canon mirrorless equivalent to 1D, and it's called R3.
So yes, there's a reason to be disappointed
@@mabrucevercetti2456 I'm really not sure fhat they used the same AF system. I can see nowhere in the tech spec sheets where it says that Canon is using the cross type AF in the R5II.
And this comes from someone who's never shot with the camera?
At 24mp I won’t be shooting with it either. Waiting all these years for a flagship that actually is a flagship.
@@troypast3589 I was really disappointed about the 24mp on the R1. The R5 Mark II is the flagship in my eyes and that's what I'm buying.
Resolution is overrated, 24mp is great for the R1's target market.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Whenever someone complains about resolution I ask the question "How large of a print do you plan on printing?". 24 MP is enough resolution for reasonable sized prints especially with AI upscaling algorithms.
@@user-pg4zh2tk2w - While I agree with you, I am also wanting to crop a lot since I am planning to use it for bird-in-flight photography. If 24MP is all I can get, then there's no point of getting it for wildlife. Very disappointing!
It might be, but that doesn't explain the jacked up price relative to other bodies with much higher megapixels and video specs. Is the new AF really worth a 2K premium?
@@musclerambo1 I don't think this is aimed at wildlife primarily. It is aimed at sports photography. Professional sports photography to be exact. That is why it is released a week before the Olympics. 24MP is indeed a bit low for wildlife, unless you have the 1200mm F/8 or 800 F/5.6 ;)
Hahaha, those Canon fanboys, back in the day when they had the upper hand in resolution and frame rate: it’s all about that (and indeed DR and shadow noise left to be desired) and now: resolution and frame rate is not where it’s at…
No, you lose this round, and it’s very disappointing. Maybe the R1M2 will pick up the ball (pun intended) and run with it.
I'm also disappointed by this kind of geek reviews. A review based almost only on numbers without taking the camera on hand. 24 mp are more than enough and really don't understand the need for a 120fps for stills!
Ikr hahaha
The point is that canon made a highly specialized sports and action camera that does everything worse than the a9 III, but costs more. Nobody said that the R1 is bad. It's just ridiculously overpriced for what it does, compared to the competition.
@@youknowwho9247 you can't explain that to bots/Canon fanboys/shills...
@@youknowwho9247 coming from someone who are not actually holding the actual camera... just wow
@@mbismbismb I have held the R3, which is virtually the same body, and the A9 III. The handling of the Sony is excellent, and the tech inside is worlds ahead of what Canon made with the R1. Global shutter and 120 FPS shooting is pretty much unbeatable for a sports and action shooter.
Oh my gosh, who needs 120fps, or even 40fps?!?!? Who wants to sort all those shots? (I know sports photographers "need" this, but I remember when 4fps was amazing.)
Yeah just people whose entire job for the day is hours of travel to capture one single moment.. imagine flubbing after all that expense.. I have those moments at my job and thankfully I get the shot most of the time but it can be hairy and give me a lot of anxiety..
the "leaked" adorama specs are looking pretty good now .....
How can we judge a camera no one owns yet it’s all about how good the picture is not how fast it is
Hard to believe this is their flagship camera...
A9 III has a tilty AND flippy screen...so this point also goes to Sony.
Not sure why everyone is crying for 24mpx R1. R1 is for sports and you don't need and even want 60 mp for sports. Actually, it would be disaster. 60mpx is useful for wildlife where you crop the shit of the picture. You don't crop like that in sports. Managing those huge files 1000x of times would be nightmare.
And Tony not all AI are generative AI. You can do upscaling without generative AI. This camera is specially trained for soccer and volleyball for now which is awesome. That means it recognize the shape of the ball, who is passing and who is receiving not just eye focus on faces. Jared was trying to show it. If camera understand the ball movement and nature of the game, that's awesome.
Don't be so hasty to criticise something for having features you don't personally think you'd use. You are but one person, with your own preferences. Different people value different features, so if a camera has features I wouldn't use, I'm not going to moan about it, unless its at the expense of having a feature I really wanted (which we'll never know unless we work for Canon). Jarod Polin's video shows off that Action Priority focus thing and it looked amazing for certain situations (like basket ball).
Clearly a lot of input has come from the big companies (Getty)who are going to buy hundreds of these cameras !
The R1 has the fastest Readout Speed for a FF camera with a Mech Shutter. 24MP is the SWEET spot for the R1 intended NICHE Market. A camera is also the Sum of it's parts. By far the biggest component of these type cameras is the AF. In today's world of EVERYONE including those with 45MP PLUS cameras are always still living in processing Software 24/7 for their work, so 24MP is mostly a NON issue. Yet everyone, mostly those that don't even USE the full 24MP cameras that they already have are Crying a River. Canon's Bread and Butter Cameras are the R5/R6 series. The R1 is mostly a disappointment for those that were NEVER going to buy this camera regardless of what specs it delivered.
Well that's just not true. I had intentions of buying this camera if it was going to actually be a competitive flagship.
Who cares if it has the fastest readout speed? The R3 A1 and Z9 are already overkill for anything that would need it. We hit that point already. That's why global shutter is fucking pointless lol.
I was hoping for the R1 to be 45mp. I knew it wouldn't be after the months of rumors. I wanted the large voltage battery to drive lenses fast + bsi stacked sensor that the R3 has. Why even purchase this camera over the R3? The R3 does 99% of what this camera does besides basically ai features and video fatures while being 40% of the cost. Lol.
So you admit it’s an r3mii
@@kpopfanphotos I stated mostly, so it is true. You are one of the VERY few in a really NICHE market. Nor does the R3 do 99% of what the R1 does. That is nonsense. Now it might only do that for your specific case usages but others will have different ones. Plenty care which cameras have the fastest readout speed regardless of what point it stops being even a issue. If money was not a issue, it would be real Silly to buy the R3 over the R1.
@@natureredux1957 so guess we should all be content with 24 mp - just like we should be with fax machines, pagers., and the us mail. Canon is about to learn the hard way consumers dictate demand not the manufacturers. Niche market is their marketing excuse for producing a disappointing camera. R1 has some GREAT features but it’s missing the ONE feature the Majority wanted most.
@@troypast3589 Never stated what anyone should be content with. I would love a 100MP camera with Multiple Crop Feature be that in Photo or Video. And you are wrong, the Majority never claimed to want more then 24MP, just a LOUD small minority. Most of which were NEVER going to buy this camera.
Tony Jared just released his take on the Canon R1 and R5mII and it points out the new AF merits.
The R3 has a burst rate of 195fps. What if they simply didn't mention it for the R1 in the "Development Announcement"? Just saying.
I think you nailed it. Not enough wow factor, specs seem sleepy. Especially for 6200$. They keep falling behind Sony and Nikon. IMO.
Let's see what the Australian guys have to say about it
No, I'm not disappointed because there's no way in the world I'd ever buy one. This channel buys $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 cameras and lenses the way I buy groceries. It's tough to relate. Whatever your hobby, TH-cam is 95 percent about the gear, not the reasons to own the gear. Nothing is ever enough until you are. But there's no business model in eternal truths.
Those who complain on the internet will not going afford to buy one anyway hahahaha
I'm disappointed. No sports mode specific to curling. Deal breaker for me.
Only sport that matters!
It’s sincerely an R3 mkii, that doesn’t answer for the A1 or Z9. The R5 mkii stacks up well compared to the Z8, albeit with a slower readout speed.
A lot of the in camera processing seems more useful on an entry level camera, where someone will shoot jpeg and maybe doesn’t want to do any post processing.
What about image quality, AF, reliability. Not of your concern?
More than anything, I think it's the naming that shot this camera on its foot. Everyone was expecting the R1 to be a radical upgrade compared to the R3, but it feels like an R3 mark II at best. If they had called this the R3 mark II, or had named R3 as the R1 and had this named R1 mark II, the reaction would've turned out better.
I think Canon should have made the R3 the R1 right from the start and not bothered about having the R3 designation. (I don't get their numbering.). Then they could have just concentrated on upgrading the R1(3) and released the now R1ii along with the R5ii.
I suspect you need to be in the target market for the R1 (high speed sports, press, photojournalism) to be able to review it objectively. Tony and Chelsea, however entertaining they might be, aren't.
The AF looks amazing for ball sports or motorsports. Given unlimited funds, I’d pick one up. That said, I feel like Sony in the near future will release something like the a7V that will offer 95% of the performance of the R1 for $2500 to $3500.
How boring is that? What is Canon smoking? This is a complete bummer. The Master of Nothing.
People saying the R5ii sensor should have went on the R1 really are overselling that sensor. It is about half as fast as the R1, Z8, Z9, and mechanical shutters. So if they went with it, they would need to have put on faster mechanical shutter for high speed sports. The R1 sensor is the fastest stacked sensor on the market at 1/300 with the next fastest being the Z9 with 1/270th. The R3 is 1/170th(most likely why it wasn’t the R1) with the R5ii being slower than the R3 sensor.
Another Overpriced let down by Canon... what else is new?
I want to see image quality R5 II VS R1. I'M Afraid image won't be much better.
I was disappointed in Canon a long time ago. I was a 1Dx and 7D II shooter, with a full kit of L glass including the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. But Canon was too slow to mirrorless, and I started buying Sony gear, but when I finally sold my Canon gear 3 years ago, I invested in Lumix MFT, and now use mostly Lumix, with some Sony. Nothing I have seen in recent years would tempt me back to Canon.
I was given a 60D and two lenses by a relative, and I do sometimes use the Canon 110 film camera, but Canon, for me, is now clearly ancient history.
in canon history ... 1D line up never be high resolution ... so why mad now ? coz other brand did that ? so canon should ? but why ? if every camera brand have the same spec, why bother ? this is like "if every body can be super hero, so no one will be"
Full disclosure, I am primarily a videographer and a photographer second. I plan to purchase two (2) R3 cameras as video production system. However, from a photography business perspective I believe the R3 should have been originally badged as an R1 with this new release as an R1 Mii. I don’t understand the technology tree an R3 Mii would have going forward unless it becomes a more video centric hybrid. A video centric hybrid would then bleed into their EOS cinema line from a feature perspective but not a form factor perspective. Where does the R3 line go from here other than filling a product line price point?
Why not the R1 have the capability of higher resolution in settings? Okay, 24mp for fast action photography, and 45 for landscape, people , etc.
I think they acutually nailed it.
The R1 is for specific market , journalist or sports photographers will love it , The AF system in it looks top tier and seems better than Sony and far better than Nikon currently.
For all the rest of us , the R5 II seems amazing at a reasonable enough price point.
Sony is all set with the A9 III , let's see Nikon's response.
The Z9 is going to get an update for the olympics according to rumers , it might help it catch up a bit.
Thats a fair assessment.
So what is R3? Low res, hi speed, grip camera for sports - I thought it covered all you mentioned so we expected R1 to be something different.
Why do people keep talking about professional photographers. How many non wedding photographers are making their living of photos?
@@HectorHughMunroUS < whole world
@@HectorHughMunro so true, now days us prosumers enthusiast have so much newer gear than people that actually live of photography.
Its a sportscamera, but this dude dont recognize that its the improvements in autofocus that is the big seller. TH-camr without any understanding of the target audience for the camera. No wonder no camera manufacturer will have anything to do with the guy.
As long as the "big" camera companies focus their efforts on hybrid cameras and not photocentric or videocentric specific models, there will always be compromises and not everyone will be satisfied with their offering. I.E, there is no perfect hybrid. I'm not a Sony user, but it seems they come closest to providing what both camps want, the A9 III for fast action video and the A7R5 for stills.
Nikon must be loving all this!
Imo quad pixel af is the only Real great advantage this thing has. Which doesn’t really justify its existence, but nearly all other existing mirrorless bodies all still have random difficulties with lines that don’t align with their focus points. (This coming from a Sony user)
Waiting for the Nikon z9 replacement will probably have a global shutter and Red sensor
@@NikCan66 if Nikon is still using Sony to make it, I’m not sure they will be global yet. Time will tell but I’m guessing Nikon is a few years away and Canon even further.
It won't have red sensor for next 3 years. And BTW.. Red cinema Monstro with FF sensor is nearly $50 000
@@Z_EOS Nikon owning the company might produce different varieties for photo hybrid and video users
@@NikCan66 yes... Agree with you on that. Look at DJI. They got hasselblad in 2019 and what they achieved in pocket 3 is great... But it took 5 years 😉
@@Z_EOS Sony global shutter but a less dynamic range is a week spot on the Sony a9iii as most sports events I attention take place in either badly lit indoor or outdoor events under floodlights and the Sony a9iii limited iso range would become an issue. Other manufacturers will make adjustments to use global shutter with the full dynamic range going forward
Canon has let me down. I was actually interested in the R1 but: Very little improvement over what I already have. Second: The prices is outrageous, come on Canon. Third: No 3 party lenses to speak of. Canon what are you trying to do? Run everyone away from your cameras and send us to Sony or Nikon? Guess Ill just put my money away for the R1 Mark 2.
May I ask what kind of lens you need that Canon couldn't provide?
@@user-eh8jv2em2o Actually Canon has a ton of lenses that I really like. It's Canon's cost that gets me. I could probably by two Tamron/Sigma lens for the same as one Canon lens. Thank you for asking. Have a super day. :)
*For me, a Full Frame flagship Canon R1 Camera should've been this:*
*Sensor:*
45MP Stacked with a speed of 1/800"
(The speed of the sensor of Sony A1 is 1/240")
*Shutter:*
Electronic, with 1/2000 Flash Sync Speed
*Video:*
8K 60FPS, with extremely low Rolling Shutter.
*Focus system:*
Same as Canon R1
*Storage:*
1TB*2, very high endurance M.2 SSDs as storage solution.
*Viewfinder:*
Same as Canon R1.
*Screen:*
A 5" (6m dot) OLED 120Hz screen, that rotates exactly as the Sony A7rV.
*Body:*
Same size as Canon R3, or slightly bigger, with same ergonomics.
*Cooling:*
Built-in silent fan
*Communication:*
Built-in GPS, Bluetooth, high speed Wi-Fi, and Google Photos app.
*Security:*
Built-in tracking system, fingerprint sensor, and a way to embed pictures with a security code that tells that the picture in not AI-generated.
*Price:*
US$ 8,499/-
Its a b cam for the canon c400 :) and then you have a photo camera also. c-log 2 in both cameras-- 24 MP and 26MP.. its a good match i think..
To my fellow TH-cam watchers: do you ever watch a car review where the TH-cam channel does not drive the car they talk about? No! This is what this channel has just done with the R1: they have not even held the camera in their hand.
“Flagship camera after 6 / 7 years [sneering]”, “people are incredibly disappointed”, “it is a let down”, “Canon has lost their edge in a pretty big way”. To Canon: is it diffamation?
Dear Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus lovers: let’s rebel: we want a high quality TH-cam! We want high quality reviews that really help us assess if products deliver the picture quality we need! We want value added and comments we cannot elaborate ourselves by lack of direct experience! We want expert opinions that are built on the best practices of review including having engaged with the engineers, designers and marketers of the products to explain to us why they have done what they have done! We want work behind the reviews! We also want humility as no one is bigger that anyone else - we are all equal and all of us deserve respect through the quality of what is shown to us! And finally we want people who are really taking our interest as TH-cam watchers / users at heart and will show total commitment to this purpose! Vamos TH-cam!
This is a high quality TH-camr. This is Tony's "Breaking News" series.
Him and Chelsea buy the cameras they review, so they have to wait for it to actually be shipped. The day 1 reviews are also generally pre-production. So the first look is not nearly as useful as reviewing the "as-shipped" model.
Tony, The incoming comments from my favorite evaluators have been uniformly lackluster to say the least. Quite frankly, I was surprised. That said, given the amount of time Canon has taken with the R1 it is safe to say that they indeed put out the camera they wanted to. I think most people believe that these manufacturers are constantly looking over their shoulders to see what the competition is doing to match or better them. I suspect that all these manufacturers are thinking more long term and develop what they feel the market wants or that aligns with their business strategy rather than having any given model go toe-to-toe with a particular competitor. The R1 is a good camera and will take fantastic photographs. To the extent that Canon is bleeding market share, if any, to the competition will the R1 stem this tide? Time will tell.
6,299 for a useless camera compared with the Sony A1 & A9 iii.
It just amazes me how sports photographers in the past 50+ yrs were able to take such amazing perfect iconic action photos sans sooo many aids. Seems to me all these newer superfeatures are geared more to absolut photo-morons who want the camera/s to do EVERYTHING for them./.........
We have the technology to do this, so I’m not sure why no one has. Have a camera that supports 8K video, full frame, global shutter, max, ISO, blazing read and write speeds so there is no hiccups, a bunch of m.2 memory, large enough batteries that you rarely would have to switch, and highest speed transfer from camera to computer possible, 200 megapixels, extra high stabilization, catch the few seconds before you press button, super fast autofocus with no stalling when you press button… umm did I cover it all? It’s like they always have something missing … but then they will have the feature in a different camera that is missing something else. If you could take all the best features from all cameras and bundle into one camera … then improve to higher and better levels… then I would be willing to spend more money
Canon has always been a little behind on sensor tech. Otherwise, its a cool camera.
and the most important spec.......AUTOFOCUS.......CANON is 10 times better than any camera!!! but I would love to have the R1 with 30-45 mp !
No it’s not. While I am sad about the omission of an on-axis tilt screen for Photojournalism, the AF-C algorithm of this camera is better than the Sony A1 & A9iii. When combined with the 100-300 2.8, you have an advantage over all Sony and Nikon shooters
@@hikertrashfilms Sony is working on their own advanced focusing system. Comparing the A1 to an R1 tells more of the story. You are comparing technologies that are 4 years apart! In camera world that is several lifetimes. Paired with a global shutter, improved ai focusing, and better dynamic range - Tony is spot on saying Canon is losing ground. They have for years, but this is their flagship. I have used Canon since the T90 but have to admit I am very disappointed.
How exactly do you “blow away” the other cameras that are already getting high 90% of shots in focus? You get 1 or 2 per 100 more in focus? That is not “blown away”. I would call that negligible gains. And the A9iii will be absolutely getting vastly more options to choose from at 120 FPS RAW, easily making up for any tiny percent differences in autofocus. I just am not seeing this claim of blown away. It’s not like these cameras aren’t good at AF already.
"blows away" - Maybe your brain got blown away from your fanboyism and watching to much TH-cam. All this tech works so stable an precise, it's just small steps for a company and than from the other.
Nikon shooters also have a 120-300/2.8, but they can shoot 120 fps 12MP JPEG; sure it’s not for wildlife, but for sports guys that’s plenty to get the job done. You can also do that with 1s of pre-capture and a bottomless buffer.
That's just nonsense. The a9 III does absolutely everything better than the R1, the Sony lenses are better, and the Sony gear is cheaper. There's absolutely no reason right now to shoot Canon for sports and action.
I will come forward as one who seems bewildered at Canon camera's inability to focus on a horizontal horizon. I've taken many trips to Alaska and twilight offers spectacular views with little dynamic range above and below the horizon despite the wide variation of colors. Many times, it is impossible to get the autofocus to work on a perfectly horizontal horizon and this forces an imperfect manual focus situation. The only way to get the autofocus to work is to tilt the camera over 15° off of the horizontal. Canon, what the heck!
Surely there must be a way that manufacturers could fit a fast removable M.2 drive in new cameras instead of just relying on cards. And they need to add some security like a fingerprint reader in the shutter button or a password to unlock the camera.
I'm dissapointed because i thought that it was going to compete against the A1 and it is just a R3 mark ii branded as R1, i think that the R5 II is a much better camera and also cheaper
More resolution does not necessarily make a better camera. I have read Nikon forums where users wish the Nikon Z9 had fewer pixels. It really depends on your application and how big your prints are.
Rudy paid the price for the R1 disaster. Canon’s problem with announce and wait is there are plenty of offerings in the pike. These options will body slam long term R1 orders. Yeah, I’m talking about Alpha 1ii, among others. Poor salesmanship. Even worse planning.
Yes. You are correct but you did not mention some cool features of R1 over Z9 and Canon lenses are better than Nikon. The camera always needs good autofocus and here the R1 shines in fast action. R1 is not a general purpose camera, it is dedicated to the action photographers.
Since when Tony become unbiased?
I think it's a huge disappointment. Nikon started catching Sony before Canon did. Sony's A1 and 9iii have been doing most of this for a long time with more pixels or faster frames. Kinda sad!
I am a little surprised that everyone thought the first version of this camera was going to be the ultimate camera, otherwise there would not be a need for a Mark 2, Mark3, and so on.
Internal storage is a bad idea. Rather internal buffering. The R1 has better AF than anything else right now. It’s sensor is fast enough for anything you want to shoot. It’s a great workhorse for a pro sport or news etc photog. I do think the face priority and the sport modes have applications. It’s not the camera for me, but it will sell.
Great camera but Canon is clearly lagging in sensor tech and only falling further behind Sony.