Backstory: I have been a full-time professional Nature and wildlife photographer for almost thirty years (www.jholko.com). I have specialised in Polar and sub-polar photography and have made over 100 expeditions to both the Arctic and Antarctic.
Canon EOS R1 Field Report from Antarctica: A Wildlife Photographer’s Perspective
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
A 60-in by 90-in print with 24MP?! That I want to see. I've made prints at 106 pixels per inch but that is 66 pixels per inch. And why does the bottom half of the penguins fade to white?
Upvote
0
Output size typically scales with viewing distance. 60-foot wide highway digital billboards are typically 8MP or less.
Upvote
0
I've seen large prints taken with 1D series bodies in galleries. Amazing pictures. I think the trick is pretty straight forward. Camera resolution is more about resolving detail in your subject. Once you have the level of detail you find adequate, you could up output from software to almost any size so that you do not see any pixelation. So, at least to me, resolving the level of detail you want is step 1. Step 2 is projecting that detail to your output.
Upvote
0
While I accept his experience, this is 'review' feels rather biased for supposedly only being a "field report on my experiences". It doesn't read like a field report.
A lot of these quotes sound like they might as well be Canon marketing speak.
I also didn't find his last argument 'against' higher resolution very convincing.
Besides all that, those are some great photos
A lot of these quotes sound like they might as well be Canon marketing speak.
I also didn't find his last argument 'against' higher resolution very convincing.
...Because it would give you the option to shoot a high res file OR a low res binned file with similar noise performance. You can't create detail from a lower res image. You CAN pixel bin a higher res file into a lower noise, lower res image.
Besides all that, those are some great photos
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Anyone know the ISO performance in video compared to the R3? I did a test with a body cap on and running through the ISO numbers from 100 to 12,800 with clog 3 and 2. The R3 has less noise in almost all settings. Did I do something wrong or is the R3 superior in video noise performance. Would this translate equally in photo mode?
My main goal is to have a low light photo/video option. I have two R5 II for the rest of my needs.
My main goal is to have a low light photo/video option. I have two R5 II for the rest of my needs.
Upvote
0
This! Viewing distance is everything and the larger your print gets, the further back you have to stand to admire it.
We just made a truly massive print to hang in our home above the entry and I was submitting a 26mp Fujifilm image using a fairly soft lens...it bothered me, but it's what my wife wanted. The viewing distance would be a minimum of 8-10 feet, but would more likely be viewed only when looking downstairs toward the front door and the image looks incredible. You're not walking up to the wall unless you were on a ladder. haha
Upvote
0
Strange enough, I experienced this exact same phenomenon. I haven't been home with both cameras long enough to do any further testing, but my years of experience with the R3 was that it proved incredible for low light video. I'd like to adjust settings in a controlled use to see how it performs.
After about a month, I honestly don't see any functional difference between the R1 and R3 files in terms of noise performance, aside from colors which looks so slightly but noticeably richer on the R1. There is more detail in the R1 file, but that could just be a slightly weaker AA filter. We're splitting hairs here and most users who don't even own proper monitors to work on will probably never even see the subtle differences.
Upvote
0
firstly, this photographer writes this article like paid promotion material. You can claim you buy your own gear and anything you want but you don't have to be an idiot to see how its written.
Article quote "Many photographers never reach this point as they upgrade their cameras too often and never learn to master the tools they already own."
Bit of a stretch when he earlier boasts he "owned them all" 1DXiii, R5, R5ii, R3's, now two R1's. and you state others never master their tools? come on now.
Stating the camera handled the Antarctic (in the peak of the summer I might add) kinda is irrelevant, 99% of people wont have the ability to travel private charter to these locations anyway, so its kinda a mute point. Yes the R1 is most likely nicely weather sealed but so is the R5ii which I own, I've never had any problems with weather nor should I. I highly doubt he would've failed if he happened to have an R5ii with him on that same trip, so these points are a bit stretched to sell the camera.
I also love it when people's argument for 24mp is basically only used as a "Id rather have this "feature" and be stuck with 24mp". You're basically admitting you have no argument.
Article quote "Many photographers never reach this point as they upgrade their cameras too often and never learn to master the tools they already own."
Bit of a stretch when he earlier boasts he "owned them all" 1DXiii, R5, R5ii, R3's, now two R1's. and you state others never master their tools? come on now.
Stating the camera handled the Antarctic (in the peak of the summer I might add) kinda is irrelevant, 99% of people wont have the ability to travel private charter to these locations anyway, so its kinda a mute point. Yes the R1 is most likely nicely weather sealed but so is the R5ii which I own, I've never had any problems with weather nor should I. I highly doubt he would've failed if he happened to have an R5ii with him on that same trip, so these points are a bit stretched to sell the camera.
I also love it when people's argument for 24mp is basically only used as a "Id rather have this "feature" and be stuck with 24mp". You're basically admitting you have no argument.
Upvote
0
I found it interesting that the default Auto ISO range of the R3 goes up to 25600, while it goes up to 51200 on the R1.
Upvote
0
I thought "higher res would cause more noise" was an interesting take given that in the R7 II thread the consensus seems to be that pixel size doesn't determine noise levels given an equivalent-aperture lens and same sensor size:
Upvote
0
I agree with you, mpmark, about the 24mp being a downside to the R1 (and possibly on the R6III). It's a nice topic to debate over nachos. But I don't understand the point of anything else you've written here. You say that "this photographer writes this article like paid promotional material," but with your choice of blustery words such as "claim," "idiot," "stretch," "boasts," and more, you write as if you have a large chip on your shoulder. After my years on this forum, and not always lovey-dovey, I see zero reason for your seething resentment.
Perhaps you also post about politics, and you think vitriol is necessary to make a point? Forgot to shift gears? Just speculating!
But happy holidays anyway!
Upvote
0
Would a 96 MP sensor (which is what you'd need to pixel bin down to 24 MP) have the 'incredible performance' of 40 fps and a very deep buffer? I think not.
Upvote
0
You might think it's a downside that the top speed of my car is 130 mph instead of 250 mph, but that's only a downside if I need to drive faster than 130 mph.
Some people want/need more than 24 MP. Some don't. For those that don't, there's no downside.
Upvote
0
It was kind of crazy to see how well the R3 performed and my tests was pretty controlled imo. Even at 12,800 the R3 was a lot cleaner. I wanted every reason to sell the R3 and get the R1, but couldn’t justify it after seeing those results.
Only downfall of the R3 in the video mode is color profiles and codecs. Just give us a firmware update on the R3 that adds that and I’m happy. The rest is practically the same. AF is obviously different too, but the R3 isn’t bad by any means.
Upvote
0
