R1 Reviews

docsmith

docsmith

Canon Rumors Premium
Sep 17, 2010
1,474
2,008
#1
I thought a thread for reviews of the R1 might have already existed. If so, please let me know and I'll delete this one.

Anticipating many reviews coming with the R1 about ship, I thought I'd consolidate those that I am aware of and start the thread.

Earlier today Jan Wegener posted his R1 review. He has had a pre-production model for a while and put it through its paces. Short answer, he calls it the best camera body he has ever used and mentioned a scenario where he might make it his primary body with the R5 II used for special circumstances. Cited better AF, apparent better DR, great colors, great EVF and being able to use the AF-On button to go from 20 fps (half press) to 40 fps (full press). He admitted his cons were for extreme situations, namely the buffer (which he did hit) and the 24 MPs (an issue with small birds at a distance according to Jan).

Another wildlife photographer that has his hands on a pre-production model is Fabian Fopp. He talks about falling in love with the camera even though he wasn't all that interested before using it. Cons were MPs and wanted even higher fps.

Of course, there is a long thread on Jeff Cable's comments from the Olympics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
#2
docsmith said:
I thought a thread for reviews of the R1 might have already existed. If so, please let me know and I'll delete this one.

Anticipating many reviews coming with the R1 about ship, I thought I'd consolidate those that I am aware of and start the thread.

Earlier today Jan Wegener posted his R1 review. He has had a pre-production model for a while and put it through its paces. Short answer, he calls it the best camera body he has ever used and mentioned a scenario where he might make it his primary body with the R5 II used for special circumstances. Cited better AF, apparent better DR, great colors, great EVF and being able to use the AF-On button to go from 20 fps (half press) to 40 fps (full press). He admitted his cons were for extreme situations, namely the buffer (which he did hit) and the 24 MPs (an issue with small birds at a distance according to Jan).

Another wildlife photographer that has his hands on a pre-production model is Fabian Fopp. He talks about falling in love with the camera even though he wasn't all that interested before using it. Cons were MPs and wanted even higher fps.

Of course, there is a long thread on Jeff Cable's comments from the Olympics.
Click to expand...
I just watched Jan Wegener's review, and it was interesting that, he too, was not really interested in getting an R1 either. He says, "I really did not want to like it." But he did and found it basically better than any other camera out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#3
As an R3 owner I will be upgrading, but the limited buffer at 40 fps is a concern. I would also be curious on what the buffer performance is at 20 and 30 fps. You would think that after having 3 years since the R3 that they would have made it deeper. Even 500 RAW images (not cRAW) would have sufficed. I will likely shoot it at 20 fps and set 40 fps to AF-ON button.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#4
john1970 said:
As an R3 owner I will be upgrading, but the limited buffer at 40 fps is a concern. I would also be curious on what the buffer performance is at 20 and 30 fps. You would think that after having 3 years since the R3 that they would have made it deeper. Even 500 RAW images (not cRAW) would have sufficed. I will likely shoot it at 20 fps and set 40 fps to AF-ON button.
Click to expand...
I believe I have seen this somewhere but can't find it. However, I have seen a couple of times that the max in-camera write speed for the R5 is 520 MB/sec. For example, here. If that holds for the R1, then 520 MB/sec / ~28 MB/file = 18.6 files per second sustained transfer speed. File size does vary with Canon, especially with ISO, so 28 MB/file is an assumption.

So, quick guess, you will be able to use 20 fps and not hit your buffer in most real world situations.

Using the buffer capacity of 230 files from TDP, and assuming files will clear continuously without an issue, you would have to continuously hold it down your shutter for 2.7 minutes at 20 fps, about 3,285 frames. At 30 fps, you'll have ~20 seconds before hitting your buffer (230 frame buffer capacity / (30 fps - 18.6 files per second cleared)), or about 600 frames. Same math at 40 fps indicates you'll get about 10.7 seconds of continuous shooting before hitting the buffer, or about 430 frames.

We'll see with testing, but that is my best guess. BTW, 230 files, 28 MB/file = ~6 GB memory buffer.

Edit. I found 230 shot burst for RAW on Canon's specifications under "Electronic Shutter" (40 fps) and over 1000 shot burst for "Mechanical Shutter" (12 fps). Canon also assumes file size of 27.5 MB/file. It says this includes writing to the card, so the above may not hold. Based on this, I think the buffer is ~3.4 GB, and you'll have the following burst:
  • 40 fps: 230 frames, 5.75 seconds of continuous shooting
  • 30 fps: ~330 frames, 11 seconds
  • 20 fps: ~2,220 frames, 111 seconds
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#5
docsmith said:
I believe I have seen this somewhere but can't find it. However, I have seen a couple of times that the max in-camera write speed for the R5 is 520 MB/sec. For example, here. If that holds for the R1, then 520 MB/sec / ~28 MB/file = 18.6 files per second sustained transfer speed. File size does vary with Canon, especially with ISO, so 28 MB/file is an assumption.

So, quick guess, you will be able to use 20 fps and not hit your buffer in most real world situations.

Using the buffer capacity of 230 files from TDP, and assuming files will clear continuously without an issue, you would have to continuously hold it down your shutter for 2.7 minutes at 20 fps, about 3,285 frames. At 30 fps, you'll have ~20 seconds before hitting your buffer (230 frame buffer capacity / (30 fps - 18.6 files per second cleared)), or about 600 frames. Same math at 40 fps indicates you'll get about 10.7 seconds of continuous shooting before hitting the buffer, or about 430 frames.

We'll see with testing, but that is my best guess. BTW, 230 files, 28 MB/file = ~6 GB memory buffer.

Edit. I found 230 shot burst for RAW on Canon's specifications under "Electronic Shutter" (40 fps) and over 1000 shot burst for "Mechanical Shutter" (12 fps). Canon also assumes file size of 27.5 MB/file. It says this includes writing to the card, so the above may not hold. Based on this, I think the buffer is ~3.4 GB, and you'll have the following burst:
  • 40 fps: 230 frames, 5.75 seconds of continuous shooting
  • 30 fps: ~330 frames, 11 seconds
  • 20 fps: ~2,220 frames, 111 seconds
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to do the above calculations even if there are some errors in your assumptions. I really hope Canon improves the buffer in the MkII version come 2028. With the R3 at 30 fps we had a 150 shot buffer and with the R1 at 40 fps we have a 230 fps buffer. Yes 230 is greater than 150, but in terms of time both buffers fill in 5 seconds. Frankly, I would have expect Canon to give the R1 a more generous buffer in terms of time.
 
Upvote 0
#6
docsmith said:
I believe I have seen this somewhere but can't find it. However, I have seen a couple of times that the max in-camera write speed for the R5 is 520 MB/sec. For example, here. If that holds for the R1, then 520 MB/sec / ~28 MB/file = 18.6 files per second sustained transfer speed. File size does vary with Canon, especially with ISO, so 28 MB/file is an assumption.

So, quick guess, you will be able to use 20 fps and not hit your buffer in most real world situations.

Using the buffer capacity of 230 files from TDP, and assuming files will clear continuously without an issue, you would have to continuously hold it down your shutter for 2.7 minutes at 20 fps, about 3,285 frames. At 30 fps, you'll have ~20 seconds before hitting your buffer (230 frame buffer capacity / (30 fps - 18.6 files per second cleared)), or about 600 frames. Same math at 40 fps indicates you'll get about 10.7 seconds of continuous shooting before hitting the buffer, or about 430 frames.

We'll see with testing, but that is my best guess. BTW, 230 files, 28 MB/file = ~6 GB memory buffer.

Edit. I found 230 shot burst for RAW on Canon's specifications under "Electronic Shutter" (40 fps) and over 1000 shot burst for "Mechanical Shutter" (12 fps). Canon also assumes file size of 27.5 MB/file. It says this includes writing to the card, so the above may not hold. Based on this, I think the buffer is ~3.4 GB, and you'll have the following burst:
  • 40 fps: 230 frames, 5.75 seconds of continuous shooting
  • 30 fps: ~330 frames, 11 seconds
  • 20 fps: ~2,220 frames, 111 seconds
Click to expand...
I think you are ignoring the write speed to the CFexpress card in your calculation. This means that you are (significantly) over-estimating the buffer size.

You have two processes: A producer and a Consumer of image files. The producer is the sensor/image file creator system, and the consumer is the CFexpress filesystem porcess and CFe memory card.

In the 1Dx Mk III, the consumer process was faster than the producer, so you had an "infinite" buffer size, only limited by the size of the memory card.

The burst capacity is set by the buffer size divided by the speed differential of the producer and the consumer processes.

I checked Bryan/TDP for the R3's shooting rate after the buffer limit is hit, but did not see an measurement. I thought he used to do that on previous models (1Dx Mk I), but I can't find this now.
 
Upvote 0
#7
john1970 said:
Thank you for taking the time to do the above calculations even if there are some errors in your assumptions. I really hope Canon improves the buffer in the MkII version come 2028. With the R3 at 30 fps we had a 150 shot buffer and with the R1 at 40 fps we have a 230 fps buffer. Yes 230 is greater than 150, but in terms of time both buffers fill in 5 seconds. Frankly, I would have expect Canon to give the R1 a more generous buffer in terms of time.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Unless something changes, I suspect this is going to be a common nitpick with the R1. If what I am seeing is correct (230 shot buffer at 40 fps), then I view the buffer as sufficient, but not anything better than that.

But, talking about the buffer is only part of it. If write speed is limited to 520 MB/sec, you can put the fastest CFE cards in there, and it really will not matter. Canon specifies the R1 has CFe 2.0 technology when 4.0 is out there. Granted, 2.0 can do better than 520 MB/sec. So, if Canon unlocks the transfer speed, then buffer could become much less important as files will just be transferred directly to the card and no buffer is needed.

So far, all indications are that Canon did not increase the buffer and still has a limited write speed to the card. This is all from the user manual and those using pre-production cameras.

kaihp said:
I think you are ignoring the write speed to the CFexpress card in your calculation.
Click to expand...
I laid out the calculation in the text that did include write speed. The 18.6 files (frames)/sec part when I was assuming 28 MB/file, which became 18.9 with 27.5 MB files Canon assumed in their specs. This is how I accounted for writing to the card. If you click the first link I provided, you will see where others have tested the R5 (and I am hearing the same with R5 II, just no links yet) had a limited write speed, max 520 MB/sec, once you get to a certain level of CFe card. Thus, 520 MB/sec / 27.5 MB/file = 18.9 Files (frames) per second. Its in there. A bit more on the observations/calcs, if you watch Jan's video, when he is talking buffer the display gets up into the high 90's. If you take the reported 230 shots/frames / 40 fps you get 5.75 seconds. 230 frames x 27.5 MB = 6.325 GB. Assuming the 520 MB/sec transfer speed for 5.75 seconds is 2.99 GB. Thus, the buffer is estimated to be 3.3 GB. At 27.5 MB/frame, that is 3.3 GB/0.0275 GB/frame = 121 frames, not much higher than we saw in the video with Jan, and he never let it fully recover (that I saw).

Anyway, big picture, for those wanting to us 30-40 fps it does appear that the R1 will be limited to 5-12 second cumulative bursts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#9
docsmith said:
Agreed. Unless something changes, I suspect this is going to be a common nitpick with the R1. If what I am seeing is correct (230 shot buffer at 40 fps), then I view the buffer as sufficient, but not anything better than that.

But, talking about the buffer is only part of it. If write speed is limited to 520 MB/sec, you can put the fastest CFE cards in there, and it really will not matter. Canon specifies the R1 has CFe 2.0 technology when 4.0 is out there. Granted, 2.0 can do better than 520 MB/sec. So, if Canon unlocks the transfer speed, then buffer could become much less important as files will just be transferred directly to the card and no buffer is needed.

So far, all indications are that Canon did not increase the buffer and still has a limited write speed to the card. This is all from the user manual and those using pre-production cameras.
Click to expand...
So, why are there CFE cards at 1700 and now I'm seeing 3300, etc like from Delkin Black and Sony Tough G and the newer Delkin black "4.0" ? If the camera can only do about 520, any of those cards on sale that have minumum sustained write of 900 (the ones above), then the 4.0 Delkin black is a waste aside from the deal right now on a 1.3T 4.0 for $550. Can the video side, in R1 or R52, at least make use of these faster cards or not ?

(While ignorant to these details, I've been a commercial photog since the late 90's, having perfected 4x5 shooting architecture on trans film, and extensive supplemental lighting, but am not up on the nuances of digital such as write speed issues.)
 
Upvote 0
#10
JWest said:
So, why are there CFE cards at 1700 and now I'm seeing 3300, etc like from Delkin Black and Sony Tough G and the newer Delkin black "4.0" ? If the camera can only do about 520, any of those cards on sale that have minumum sustained write of 900 (the ones above), then the 4.0 Delkin black is a waste aside from the deal right now on a 1.3T 4.0 for $550. Can the video side, in R1 or R52, at least make use of these faster cards or not ?

(While ignorant to these details, I've been a commercial photog since the late 90's, having perfected 4x5 shooting architecture on trans film, and extensive supplemental lighting, but am not up on the nuances of digital such as write speed issues.)
Click to expand...
The benefit of CFe 4.0 cards is faster offloading of images/video to your computer. In camera, slower cards should perform the same. I say should, though I haven't actually tested it. For me, the 4.0 cards are an insignificant additional expense, so I picked up a set of 3 for my R1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#11
I picked up 4.0 cards as well with the same rationale and the hope that additional speed might be obtained with the R1.

All sorts of things could be the limiting factor in a camera body, many of which could be a very good reason (ie. heat control).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
docsmith said:
I picked up 4.0 cards as well with the same rationale and the hope that additional speed might be obtained with the R1.

All sorts of things could be the limiting factor in a camera body, many of which could be a very good reason (ie. heat control).
Click to expand...

I've had the Delkin 4.0 cards for a while, but I had to buy the ProGrade card reader, which bugged me a bit haha. Just need thunderbolt/USB-4.


docsmith said:
I thought a thread for reviews of the R1 might have already existed. If so, please let me know and I'll delete this one.

Anticipating many reviews coming with the R1 about ship, I thought I'd consolidate those that I am aware of and start the thread.

Earlier today Jan Wegener posted his R1 review. He has had a pre-production model for a while and put it through its paces. Short answer, he calls it the best camera body he has ever used and mentioned a scenario where he might make it his primary body with the R5 II used for special circumstances. Cited better AF, apparent better DR, great colors, great EVF and being able to use the AF-On button to go from 20 fps (half press) to 40 fps (full press). He admitted his cons were for extreme situations, namely the buffer (which he did hit) and the 24 MPs (an issue with small birds at a distance according to Jan).

Another wildlife photographer that has his hands on a pre-production model is Fabian Fopp. He talks about falling in love with the camera even though he wasn't all that interested before using it. Cons were MPs and wanted even higher fps.

Of course, there is a long thread on Jeff Cable's comments from the Olympics.
Click to expand...

I think it will take a couple of months of professional use to start to get good reviews. The Jan review was painful... I have to stop watching those.

I look at how the C70 reviews were in the first month... and then the longterm reviews. They're night and day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#13
Canon Rumors Guy said:
I think it will take a couple of months of professional use to start to get good reviews. The Jan review was painful... I have to stop watching those.

I look at how the C70 reviews were in the first month... and then the longterm reviews. They're night and day.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do my best to take early reviews for what they are worth. Some are loaded with preconceptions and I find little value. I did find several good nuggets in Jan’s and general tend to agree with his conclusions.

But it is always more impressions than anything else.

While long term reviews are great for those buying in a year or two, my R1 arrives today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#14
Buffer Performance of Canon R1 (preliminary and odd results)
  • Cards are Prograde Cobalt 1.3 TB v 4.0 cards
  • Pre-capture is enabled
  • Test performed at 20 and 40 fps
  • Lens is wide open at f2.8
  • Image type is RAW not cRAW
I have found that the buffer pauses at around 11 seconds, but it empties very quickly so one can continue to shoot. It pauses at 11 seconds regards of if it is set at 20 or 40 fps.
  • With Pre-capture disabled
20 fps: 15 seconds
40 fps: 15 seconds

These results seem odd to me and I would be curious if others obtain similar results.

With that said, I am thrilled to have a 10+ second buffer at 40 fps.

Update: I turned off all Lens Aberration Correction, but buffer performance is very similar. I might be getting an extra second or two in buffer, but it is not a huge improvement. With that said I will gladly take an extra second or two.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#15
john1970 said:
Buffer Performance of Canon R1 (preliminary and odd results)
  • Cards are Prograde Cobalt 1.3 TB v 4.0 cards
  • Pre-capture is enabled
  • Test performed at 20 and 40 fps
  • Lens is wide open at f2.8
I have found that the buffer pauses at around 11 seconds, but it empties very quickly so one can continue to shoot. It pauses at 11 seconds regards of if it is set at 20 or 40 fps.
  • With Pre-capture disabled
20 fps: 15 seconds
40 fps: 15 seconds

These results seem odd to me and I would be curious if others obtain similar results.

With that said, I am thrilled to have a 10+ second buffer at 40 fps.
Click to expand...

Do you have any of the correction stuff turned on?
 
Upvote 0
#18
john1970 said:
Are you referring to the Lens aberration correction menu? I have peripheral illm door ON and Digital Lens Optimizer set to Standard. Should these be turned OFF?
Click to expand...

Turn off all of that and try again. If you're not shooting JPG output, those still take processing power and can affect the buffer speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R1 & impressions by professional sports photographer Jeff Cable
Replies
107
Views
7K
Navism
N
Canon Rumors
More thoughts on the Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II from Paris
Replies
151
Views
12K
bbasiaga
B
Josh-H
EOS R1 Pre-Capture Feature Unable to assign to 'Hot Button'
Replies
16
Views
1K
john1970
J
S
!DX mk lll, where to go from there ?
Replies
9
Views
350
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
docsmith
Huge Gap in Price Points-How will Canon fill it?
Replies
5
Views
347
MikeGalos
MikeGalos
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu