Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5mk2 announced

Interesting times for Canon shooter: Youtube EOS R1

Petapixel EOS R5II

Really surprised that they went with a 24MP sensor on their "flagship" when Nikon and Sony have been at 45 and 50MP respectively for 4-5 years on their so called flagships.

E.J. Peiker wrote: Really surprised that they went with a 24MP sensor on their "flagship" when Nikon and Sony have been at 45 and 50MP respectively for 4-5 years on their so called flagships.

Supposedly, sports shooters and news agencies are not interested in high MP cameras and they seem to be the primary target audience for Canon. I find their marketing strange, too.

Just read this on a review ...
The new sensor, and the addition of the new DIGIC Accelerator front-engine processor, the R1 is capable of capturing up to 40 fps of RAW, JPEG, or HEIF (HDR-PQ) images using Electronic Shutter.The DIGIC Accelerator chip also has a useful In-camera Upscaling feature that uses deep learning to double the horizontal and vertical size of a JPEG on your card (leaving the original image alone) in about 10 seconds.That means you can upscale a 24MP image to 96MP right in the camera!

E.J. Peiker wrote: Really surprised that they went with a 24MP sensor on their "flagship" when Nikon and Sony have been at 45 and 50MP respectively for 4-5 years on their so called flagships.

Exactly my opinion, too. The rumour was 30 MP for the R1 sensor but they even undercut that. That's a big disappointment. Canon officials always state that sports shooters and journalists don't want/need higher resolution.I wonder why Nikon and Sony pros at the sidelines obviously have not understood that yet . During the European Soccer Championsship here in Germany, a lot of Z8/Z9 and Sony cameras could be seen.Anyway, the release of the R1 will save me a lot of money. 

As for the R5 II, it remains to be seen, if the claimed improvements of the AF over the already pretty good AF of the R5 turn out to be substantial in practice. The other features and changes look to be less important for me. Therefore, I will keep my R5 for now.

BTW, I was surprised that they only went via Youtube for the presentation. Maybe that's because  they laid off Rudy Winston after 30 years of serving Canon. Good new times...

Wolfgang

From what I've seen in the reviews, the R1 clearly seems to be optimized for sport including some impressive AF features for ball games. It would have been popular during the recent European football championship.

In many ways it looks like an R3 II and besides the AF does not look as innovative as the A9 III.
40fps is plenty but at that resolution people were hoping for more (whether they need it is a different question but it has some use cases).
Maybe even an A1 II will get 40fps but with 50MP.
Perhaps it just took Canon too long to develop it.
On the other hand, the camera looks great, just not sure if it is a "flagship". In Germany I saw a price of 7,499 Euros, which is almost twice as much as I paid for a Z8 (Nikon had a discount of 500 Euros for a Z8 when I bought it.)

The R5 II looks great.
I was a Canon shooter before I had a break from photography for a few years. Now I have a Z8 (that and the 800 PF were the main reasons for Nikon), but if I was still a Canon user, I would probably get the R5 II because the stacked sensor and improved AF and pre-capture in RAW make this a compelling offer (if more detailed reviews confirm that it works as advertised in the field).

Markus Jais wrote:
The R5 II looks great.
I was a  Canon shooter before I had a break from photography for a few years. Now I have a Z8 (that and the 800 PF were the main reasons for Nikon), but if I was still a Canon user, I would probably get the R5 II because the stacked sensor and improved AF and pre-capture in RAW make this a compelling offer (if more detailed reviews confirm that it works as advertised in the field).

I agree, the R5II looks compelling, stacked sensor, 14 bit even in electronic shutter, RAW pre-capture and up to 30fps look like a decent upgrade. If the new AF system works as well as suggested in early reviews, that would be great. Most reviewers describe this camera as more versatile as the R1, particularly for wildlife photography. I look forward to seeing/reading more thorough reviews. 

Axel Hildebrandt wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:
The R5 II looks great.
I was a  Canon shooter before I had a break from photography for a few years. Now I have a Z8 (that and the 800 PF were the main reasons for Nikon), but if I was still a Canon user, I would probably get the R5 II because the stacked sensor and improved AF and pre-capture in RAW make this a compelling offer (if more detailed reviews confirm that it works as advertised in the field).

I agree, the R5II looks compelling, stacked sensor, 14 bit even in electronic shutter, RAW pre-capture and up to 30fps look like a decent upgrade. If the new AF system works as well as suggested in early reviews, that would be great. Most reviewers describe this camera as more versatile as the R1, particularly for wildlife photography. I look forward to seeing/reading more thorough reviews. 

Some reviews said that the sensor readout is significantly slower than in a Z8. But maybe in real life that doesn't really matter.

Markus Jais wrote:

Axel Hildebrandt wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:
The R5 II looks great.
I was a  Canon shooter before I had a break from photography for a few years. Now I have a Z8 (that and the 800 PF were the main reasons for Nikon), but if I was still a Canon user, I would probably get the R5 II because the stacked sensor and improved AF and pre-capture in RAW make this a compelling offer (if more detailed reviews confirm that it works as advertised in the field).

I agree, the R5II looks compelling, stacked sensor, 14 bit even in electronic shutter, RAW pre-capture and up to 30fps look like a decent upgrade. If the new AF system works as well as suggested in early reviews, that would be great. Most reviewers describe this camera as more versatile as the R1, particularly for wildlife photography. I look forward to seeing/reading more thorough reviews. 

Some reviews said that the sensor readout is significantly slower than in a Z8. But maybe in real life that doesn't really matter.

I have not seen specific numbers yet, supposedly the sensor readout speed of the R5II is similar to the R3. I saw a video where a reviewer photographed a golfer and didn't notice any deformed balls or clubs. Time will tell, but I'm sure it's much better than the R5. With the R5, I sometimes have deformed wings in takeoff shots of small and fast birds.

Axel Hildebrandt wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:

Axel Hildebrandt wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:
The R5 II looks great.
I was a  Canon shooter before I had a break from photography for a few years. Now I have a Z8 (that and the 800 PF were the main reasons for Nikon), but if I was still a Canon user, I would probably get the R5 II because the stacked sensor and improved AF and pre-capture in RAW make this a compelling offer (if more detailed reviews confirm that it works as advertised in the field).

I agree, the R5II looks compelling, stacked sensor, 14 bit even in electronic shutter, RAW pre-capture and up to 30fps look like a decent upgrade. If the new AF system works as well as suggested in early reviews, that would be great. Most reviewers describe this camera as more versatile as the R1, particularly for wildlife photography. I look forward to seeing/reading more thorough reviews. 

Some reviews said that the sensor readout is significantly slower than in a Z8. But maybe in real life that doesn't really matter.

I have not seen specific numbers yet, supposedly the sensor readout speed of the R5II is similar to the R3. I saw a video where a reviewer photographed a golfer and didn't notice any deformed balls or clubs. Time will tell, but I'm sure it's much better than the R5. With the R5, I sometimes have deformed wings in takeoff shots of small and fast birds.

here are some numbers:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon- ... 2856214338

whether that makes any difference I cannot tell.
The Z8 seems to be pretty good at this but I have not yet taken any really good flight shots as I just got the camera a few weeks ago and mostly photographed perched or swimming birds (they just wouldn't fly much!    )

I guess the R5 II will be fast enough and I would probably be very happy with that camera.

here are some numbers:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon- ... 2856214338

whether that makes any difference I cannot tell.
The Z8 seems to be pretty good at this but I have not yet taken any really good flight shots as I just got the camera a few weeks ago and mostly photographed perched or swimming birds (they just wouldn't fly much!    )

I guess the R5 II will be fast enough and I would probably be very happy with that camera.

Thanks, Markus. The readout speed of the R5 is 15.5 ms if memory serves right, 6.3 ms for the Mark II sounds decent, considering that it is full RAW at 14 bit, and I also like that pre-capture is full RAW. The current pre-capture implementation is too cumbersome. 

Axel Hildebrandt wrote:

here are some numbers:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon- ... 2856214338

whether that makes any difference I cannot tell.
The Z8 seems to be pretty good at this but I have not yet taken any really good flight shots as I just got the camera a few weeks ago and mostly photographed perched or swimming birds (they just wouldn't fly much!    )

I guess the R5 II will be fast enough and I would probably be very happy with that camera.

Thanks, Markus. The readout speed of the R5 is 15.5 ms if memory serves right, 6.3 ms for the Mark II sounds decent, considering that it is full RAW at 14 bit, and I also like that pre-capture is full RAW. The current pre-capture implementation is too cumbersome. 

and it's pre-capture for RAW!! Nikon can only do jpeg (I really hope they change this with a firmware update).

So what is the update so far after let's say 1 month? Is R1 or R5II worth it?

For sports or for birding, which one to get? R1 is too expensive for me right now, so R3 can be as a replacement if i can afford that, but for me any camera improvement over my oldie 1DX is a winner no doubt.

I guess the R5 II is a great choice. If I was a Canon shooter, I would definitely get it. I had a 1DX many years ago, the R5 II for sure plays in a different league.
45MP, 30fps, pre-capture in RAW, very good AF according to reviews, all make this a wonderful camera. In some ways the specs are even better than those of the Z8/Z9.
The R1 does not sound too interesting for wildlife. 40fps is not the game-changer the 120fps of the Sony A9 III are and the R5 II already shoots 30fps. If the slower read-out is not a problem (and I guess it won't be for most situations), the R5 II, for me, would be by far the better choice.


See this videos by Jan Wegener, he knows what he is talking about:

Review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnXETx2ws_c

Setup-Guide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPXHd0lPLLI&t=1s