Canon R1

I'm mulling getting a new camera... I have a ton of Canon glass so I'm locked into Canon.  I finally cleaned out the camera bag and sold a 7DMII, a 5DMIV and an R6 and because I have a soft spot for it I kept my 1DMIV ... some might suggest that the soft spot is in my head but no matter I still like the APH format.  I'd been hoping for the R6MIII announcement but that now looks to be much further into 2025 than I would really like.  So I can wait or I can get the R5MII or the R1.  I'm curious about any real user comments.  

PS Happy New Years ... let all hope for an outbreak of peace and sanity.

If you can get close to your subjects most of the time and photograph much in low light, the R1 might be a good choice. I went with the R5II for the extra megapixels, but would have preferred that in a body with internal grip and larger battery.

In case you haven't seen it yet, Jan Wegener posted a thorough review of the R1: https://youtu.be/3IoyJlWMUWA?feature=shared 

Happy New Year to you, too!

Axel Hildebrandt wrote: If you can get close to your subjects most of the time and photograph much in low light, the R1 might be a good choice. I went with the R5II for the extra megapixels, but would have preferred that in a body with internal grip and larger battery.

In case you haven't seen it yet, Jan Wegener posted a thorough review of the R1: https://youtu.be/3IoyJlWMUWA?feature=shared 

Happy New Year to you, too!

I saw that review, looks like in many ways the R1 is the best camera currently available if the resolution is enough.
I guess for many wildlife shooters, that body with a sensor like in the Z9 or A1 II would have been a dream.

If I was shooting Canon, I would probably go with two R5 II bodies instead, maybe add the R1 for winter and other low-light scenarios but for about 7K Euros I can almost get a 2.8/100-300 (a lens I really miss for the Z-mount at the moment).

Axel Hildebrandt wrote: If you can get close to your subjects most of the time and photograph much in low light, the R1 might be a good choice. I went with the R5II for the extra megapixels, but would have preferred that in a body with internal grip and larger battery.

In case you haven't seen it yet, Jan Wegener posted a thorough review of the R1: https://youtu.be/3IoyJlWMUWA?feature=shared 

Happy New Year to you, too!

Hi Axel.  Thanks for responding.  With the exception of the 5DMIV I sold which had 30mp every camera I've used over the past 20 years has been between 10 and 20mp so the 24mp of the R1 isn't an issue with me.  That said I would have preferred the R1 had 28 or 30mp but I can certainly live with that sensor size.  

I have seen the Jan Wegener video and it's a generally very positive review I just wish it had been on a production model and not preproduction.  

Most of my photography tends to be from September to April covering a variety of subjects and my check list of qualities are:

Accurate and reliable AF performance
Great high ISO performance
Great dynamic range
High FPS

Markus Jais wrote:

Axel Hildebrandt wrote: If you can get close to your subjects most of the time and photograph much in low light, the R1 might be a good choice. I went with the R5II for the extra megapixels, but would have preferred that in a body with internal grip and larger battery.

In case you haven't seen it yet, Jan Wegener posted a thorough review of the R1: https://youtu.be/3IoyJlWMUWA?feature=shared 

Happy New Year to you, too!

I saw that review, looks like in many ways the R1 is the best camera currently available if the resolution is enough.
I guess for many wildlife shooters, that body with a sensor like in the Z9 or A1 II would have been a dream.

If I was shooting Canon, I would probably go with two R5 II bodies instead, maybe add the R1 for winter and other low-light scenarios but for about 7K Euros I can almost get a 2.8/100-300 (a lens I really miss for the Z-mount at the moment).

Hi Markus.  

Thanks for responding.  In some way I wish Canon had made the R1 a more as a general use camera i.e. with 30 mp but their target market has always been the sports and wildlife shooter so maxing out the resolution has never been their highest priority.  The 5 Series bodies were always higher resolution so nothing has changed in that relationship and if I can't work with 24mp then I need to get closer, get better or take up another hobby.

MalcolmBenn wrote:Most of my photography tends to be from September to April covering a variety of subjects and my check list of qualities are:

Accurate and reliable AF performance
Great high ISO performance
Great dynamic range
High FPS

Considering your checklist, the R1 might be the camera for you and 6000 pixels on the long side is definitely not bad. 

Axel Hildebrandt wrote:

MalcolmBenn wrote:Most of my photography tends to be from September to April covering a variety of subjects and my check list of qualities are:

Accurate and reliable AF performance
Great high ISO performance
Great dynamic range
High FPS

Considering your checklist, the R1 might be the camera for you and 6000 pixels on the long side is definitely not bad. 

The R1 is the direction I'm leaning today ... but there is always tomorrow

Well I made my decision and I opted for the R1.  I've had it now for about a week and I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bit overwhelmed with the complexity and sophistication of this thing.  I've never used a Canon R5 MII, a Nikon Z9 or a Sony a1 II but I have to assume that each of these cameras is equally complex, so kudos to those of you who have mastered their use.

The features/ criteria that I focused on in the decision process were:

Accurate and reliable AF performance
Great high ISO performance
Great dynamic range
High FPS

Everything I'd read lead me to believe that the R1 was the Canon model that would best satisfy those factors and as previously mentioned I'm too wedded to Canon glass to want to change now.  Yes I would have been happier with 28 or 30 mega pixels but 24 mp's isn't exactly small and in all honestly I don't need or want 45, 60 or 80 mp's and the file size issues that creates.  If and when I used the R1 for landscape use, and I will, I'll simply shoot in portrait orientation, take multiple exposures and stitch them together in Photoshop.  As for the inability to crop as deeply as a higher mega pixel camera, well camera choices like much in life entails compromises and alternative solutions.  I'm not a huge fan of Artie Morris but one of the best bits of advice I heard him offer was that the best and cheapest bit of photography gear was a cheap pair of running shoes .... get closer.  I also have long lenses and extenders that work very well and if I miss some images because I simply can't get close enough and lack the sensor resolution that would allow a deeper crop so be it.  But with this camera what I won't miss are the low light opportunities because the high ISO performance in real world shooting is great as is the AF tracking performance and the FPS is insane.  In Electronic Shutter I can shoot as high as 40 frame per second and the shutter speed goes up to 1/64,000 sec and ISO up to 102,400 and I've seen images as high as ISO 51,200 and I was amazed.

Yes I know that just about everyone is crapping on Canon and the R1 because it's "only 24 mega pixels" and it doesn't have a global shutter.  Like I said previously camera selection, whether it's the manufacturer, the specific body or the lense is like life in general a series of choices that involve compromise.  For me the R1 will deliver on the factors that were important to me .... the real test is not whether the camera will deliver but whether I'm up to the task.

Out of curiosity who else has an R1 out there and what are your thoughts?