Year in Review: Richard's Hits and Misses of 2024

Richard CR

Richard CR

Canon Rumors Premium
Dec 27, 2017
1,979
3,309
Canada
www.canonnews.com
#1
I can't believe another year is almost over. It hardly seems like it was just a year ago that Craig and I were trashing the R100.


My list was almost the same as Craig's, but I can't just say, "Yeah, me too, bro," and leave this at around 20 words, so I have to go off what Craig has already said a bit.

www.canonrumors.com

Year in Review: Richard’s Hits and Misses of 2024

I can’t believe another year is almost over. It hardly seems like it was just a year ago that Craig and I were trashing the R100. My list was almost the same as Craig’s, but I can’t just say, “Yeah…
www.canonrumors.com
 
#2
An S9/XM5 style compact, but capable body would be very nice! If it’s APS-C, we could use the excellent sigma lenses on that. If it’s FF, I wonder if they reuse the R8 internals wholesale or do something completely different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#3
I think the only miss by Canon this year has been the availability in quantity of the new LP-E6P battery for the R5m2. Still difficult to get here in Sydney, and whatever stock does arrive is gone very quickly (mostly to backorders).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#4
AUGS said:
I think the only miss by Canon this year has been the availability in quantity of the new LP-E6P battery for the R5m2. Still difficult to get here in Sydney, and whatever stock does arrive is gone very quickly (mostly to backorders).
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you can blame me. I have 4. ;)

It's not really a "mistake" by Canon, but it's interesting that so many major reviewers are not bothering to compare the Sony α1 II with the R5 Mark II. There are a number of ways in which the R5ii is the better of the two cameras!

Even among Canon cameras, well, I guess I'm biased as an R5ii owner, but I think that it is, in many ways, preferable to the R1, and not just because it's cheaper. (I'll admit that there are some advantages to the R1, but I think they're not that big, and, most me, anyway, outweighed by the 45MP sensor.) I would prefer the R5ii to the R1 even if they were the same price, and I think many other people would agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#5
antonio_s said:
Sorry, but you can blame me. I have 4. ;)

It's not really a "mistake" by Canon, but it's interesting that so many major reviewers are not bothering to compare the Sony α1 II with the R5 Mark II. There are a number of ways in which the R5ii is the better of the two cameras!

Even among Canon cameras, well, I guess I'm biased as an R5ii owner, but I think that it is, in many ways, preferable to the R1, and not just because it's cheaper. (I'll admit that there are some advantages to the R1, but I think they're not that big, and, most me, anyway, outweighed by the 45MP sensor.) I would prefer the R5ii to the R1 even if they were the same price, and I think many other people would agree.
Click to expand...

Whoa... Sony Northrup can't do that.....

That would be a good poll... I would not for many reasons, but yes.... maybe a lot would?
 
Upvote 0
#6
Overall, 2024 was a solid year in camera and lens releases for Canon. They released two professional grade full frame cameras (R5 Mk2 and R1) and completed the line up of hybrid L-grade lenses with the release of the trinity of 1.4 VCM lenses and the second Z-series lens with the 70-200 mm f2.8 Z lens.

For 2025, I have no interests in other Canon cameras, but I would be interested in seeing if they release any super telephoto zoom lenses and / or super telephoto DO-based lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Whoa... Sony Northrup can't do that.....

That would be a good poll... I would not for many reasons, but yes.... maybe a lot would?
Click to expand...
I didn't only mean the Northrups! PetaPixel just did a video comparing the flagships and it was the R1 in there. (To be fair, Chris Niccolls has praised the R5ii!)

To give just a few reasons to pick the R5ii over the R1, totally independent of price:
  • 45 vs. 24 megapixels is significant. With baseball, for instance, getting to crop in is really worth something. In general, with megapixels, more is still more. There are limits — especially on smaller formats. But most modern FF lenses (including later EF lenses as well as ~all RF lenses), the lenses are built for ~45MP cameras. When using older EF lenses or adapted vintage lenses, the 45MP sensor may outresolve the lens. But usually you're getting more resolution, and that's just... good. (A counterargument is that the buffer is necessarily smaller because of this, even putting aside the card slot differences.)
  • Similarly, the ability to shoot 8K video is useful for me. I did a major project on my original R5 involving hours of 8K footage (actually, ProRes RAW on the Ninja V+, because I needed 3-hour continuous clips). I don't care about 8K delivery, but being able to crop into 8K source footage was huge for me.
  • 30 vs. 40 fps is not a huge difference. 30 is plenty for sports action. I wouldn't use the ES for baseball on the R5 due to distortion but I have no problems using it on the R5ii. Yes, the R1 has a higher framerate, but, even for sports, I feel the returns are diminishing. I don't even use 30 fps all the time when shooting bursts.
  • I prefer the smaller form factor (or, at least, the ability to choose a smaller form factor). It fits into a smaller bag. It's more inconspicuous. (This is obviously subjective. I do have the battery grip, but I don't use it most of the time.)
  • The electronic shutter is fast enough for my purposes, even though it's not as fast as the R1's. It's not night and day like the R5 vs. R3. (I still prefer the R5 to the R3 spec-wise, but I at least got the argument for the R3 over the R5 on ES performance.)
Are there some ways the R1 is better? For sure. Buffer (despite resolution making it arguably apples and oranges). Card slots (I don't shoot dual, but I only really shoot CFExpress on the R5ii, so it would be nice to have two slots). The optical AF controller (seems cool, though I'm good with the joystick). GPS (I don't care that much, but it's neat).

This is not an exhaustive comparison at all. Just a few initial thoughts. But even at the same price, I'd go R5ii over R1 every time. I bought my R5 before the R3 existed, so it's unfair, but I would have made the same choice then (though I would have been more tempted by the R3's ES capabilities over the R5's, just due to distortion in baseball and the 12-bit limitation preventing me from wanting to use ES on the R5).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#8
antonio_s said:
I didn't only mean the Northrups! PetaPixel just did a video comparing the flagships and it was the R1 in there. (To be fair, Chris Niccolls has praised the R5ii!)

To give just a few reasons to pick the R5ii over the R1, totally independent of price:
  • 45 vs. 24 megapixels is significant. With baseball, for instance, getting to crop in is really worth something. In general, with megapixels, more is still more. There are limits — especially on smaller formats. But most modern FF lenses (including later EF lenses as well as ~all RF lenses), the lenses are built for ~45MP cameras. When using older EF lenses or adapted vintage lenses, the 45MP sensor may outresolve the lens. But usually you're getting more resolution, and that's just... good. (A counterargument is that the buffer is necessarily smaller because of this, even putting aside the card slot differences.)
  • Similarly, the ability to shoot 8K video is useful for me. I did a major project on my original R5 involving hours of 8K footage (actually, ProRes RAW on the Ninja V+, because I needed 3-hour continuous clips). I don't care about 8K delivery, but being able to crop into 8K source footage was huge for me.
  • 30 vs. 40 fps is not a huge difference. 30 is plenty for sports action. I wouldn't use the ES for baseball on the R5 due to distortion but I have no problems using it on the R5ii. Yes, the R1 has a higher framerate, but, even for sports, I feel the returns are diminishing. I don't even use 30 fps all the time when shooting bursts.
  • I prefer the smaller form factor (or, at least, the ability to choose a smaller form factor). It fits into a smaller bag. It's more inconspicuous. (This is obviously subjective. I do have the battery grip, but I don't use it most of the time.)
  • The electronic shutter is fast enough for my purposes, even though it's not as fast as the R1's. It's not night and day like the R5 vs. R3. (I still prefer the R5 to the R3 spec-wise, but I at least got the argument for the R3 over the R5 on ES performance.)
Are there some ways the R1 is better? For sure. Buffer (despite resolution making it arguably apples and oranges). Card slots (I don't shoot dual, but I only really shoot CFExpress on the R5ii, so it would be nice to have two slots). The optical AF controller (seems cool, though I'm good with the joystick). GPS (I don't care that much, but it's neat).
Click to expand...

<opinionated>Trigger Warning: I detest cropping and any mention of it beyond perspective and some subtle composition. Use the right lens or get closer. :p </opinionated>

  1. EVF (Night and day)
  2. Dual CFe (I never need another SD card again)
  3. Ergonomics/Integrated Grip. I don't like small bodies or battery grips and there are way more well placed buttons to customize so I rarely need to hit the menu button.
  4. GPS
  5. Smart Controller (Can never go back)
  6. Smaller file sizes (Never needed more than 24 for any reason, more is just "cool". I've owned cool, it just took up NAS space.)
  7. Faster readout (It matters for what I and others do)
  8. Better AF potential in certain situations
  9. Bigger battery, I don't want half a dozen LP-E6Ps to lose.
  10. Even better build quality (It may save you one day)
  11. Mystery Sensor behind a window

8K... sure... I will never use or need it. I'm sure others do. How much are you cropping to notice a difference between 6K and 8K?

As always there are going to be varying needs, wants, desires.

Re Small Cameras: I'm cool with small bodies as long as the lenses are proportionate. Fuji X for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#9
Hit: Without any doubt, for me, the R5 II. This camera has everything I was waiting for. It also looks like Canon have settled on one intelligent ergonomics concept and have stopped inventing strange ergo-features (R7 dial or R touch-bar).
Miss: RF 35mm f/1,4, mostly because it isn\'t the expected optically corrected 35mm f/1,2!
 
Upvote 0
#10
Del Paso said:
Hit: Without any doubt, for me, the R5 II. This camera has everything I was waiting for. It also looks like Canon have settled on one intelligent ergonomics concept and have stopped inventing strange ergo-features (R7 dial or R touch-bar).
Miss: RF 35mm f/1,4, mostly because it isn\'t the expected optically corrected 35mm f/1,2!
Click to expand...
Well, they'll sell a lot more $1500 lenses than $3000 lenses AND when they do a 1.2, a bunch of people that bought the 1.4, will buy it as well. Genius.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Canon Rumors Guy said:
<opinionated>Trigger Warning: I detest cropping and any mention of it beyond perspective and some subtle composition. Use the right lens or get closer. </opinionated>
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don't generally love cropping either. But sports are my hobby, not my actual job. When I do landscapes or my work-work, I hardly ever crop. But with baseball, I generally don't the opportunity to shoot longer than 400 or 500 (though I know longer lenses exist). And, well, I'm not allowed to get closer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
antonio_s said:
To be fair, I don't generally love cropping either. But sports are my hobby, not my actual job. When I do landscapes or my work-work, I hardly ever crop. But with baseball, I generally don't the opportunity to shoot longer than 400 or 500 (though I know longer lenses exist). And, well, I'm not allowed to get closer!
Click to expand...

True, it can always depend on the facility and/or their rules.

I used to shoot for an OHL team. We had the only arena in the league without photographers holes in the glass, it made for some challenging angles and focal length choices. I even offered to buy the hole saw to solve the issue.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Canon Rumors Guy said:
[…]
<opinionated>Trigger Warning: I detest cropping and any mention of it beyond perspective and some subtle composition. Use the right lens or get closer. </opinionated> […]
Click to expand...
Any rumours about a 400-ish 1:1 macro lens? That would be a great lens for dragonflies and amphibians, the gap between 0.34x at 500mm (focus breathing makes it closer to 300mm) and 1:1 at 180mm is noticeable.

Getting closer would mean entering the water, I’m not that motivated yet :)
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#15
Del Paso said:
Hit: Without any doubt, for me, the R5 II. This camera has everything I was waiting for. It also looks like Canon have settled on one intelligent ergonomics concept and have stopped inventing strange ergo-features (R7 dial or R touch-bar).
Click to expand...
I would say both the R5 II and R1 were hits, in different ways. I would also say that the 70-200 2.8 Z was a hit too.
I just did not happen to be a buyer of any of those for various reasons that matter to me.
Now a R1s with body, EVF and AF same as the R1, but a higher res sensor, that I would be interested into! Super fast frame rates be damned

Del Paso said:
Miss: RF 35mm f/1,4, mostly because it isn\'t the expected optically corrected 35mm f/1,2!
Click to expand...
I do agree with you this was a huge miss :mad: no big surprise coming from me I guess :LOL:
The 35 1.4 is not bad but it is not "magic" like the 2 1.2's either - IMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#16
It's a lot of fun arguing about which camera is the better when--as illustrated by the above discussion--they have different strengths and target different shooters.

I am very unlikely to acquire a sub-40MP camera again, but if I were under deadline, I'd appreciate not having to deal with those large files. I'm sure that I'd pony up the $6k+ to purchase an integrated body with 45-50MP (not more!) and all the other advances of the R1. And yes, I would be fine with 25-30fps. Even 20fps would probably be acceptable. But saying that Canon clearly made the right decision in limiting the R1's MP count because they sold out their first batch or two is more than a bit disingenuous without more data. What if Canon decided to produce less because they didn't expect the demand to be very high for the R1? Or, how many more R1 would Canon have sold if the MP count was 45-50MP? The latter question is probably unanswerable and Canon probably won't answer the former.

Anyway, in the best of all worlds, I'd own both--24MP is plenty for shooting large mammals and many sports events--and I'd also have infinite time to shoot wildlife!
 
Upvote 0
#17
I think the funniest part of the argument between whether the R1 or R5 mark II is superior is that... they both do exist, and you can choose which one you buy.

I've always loved the pairing of my R3 and R5 - smaller files but faster when I need it, and bigger files and a smaller body when I need it. Until Canon releases a QPAF sensor that can switch between 80 mp raw and 20 mp raw, I'm going to stick with the combination that gives me the most options when I need them. Ideally, with an unlimited budget, I'd upgrade both to an R1 and an R5 mark II, but until I win the lottery, I'm pretty content with these two!

I do wish Canon would release something akin to a X100, I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to focus on cameras that don't sell accessories, but as much as the X100 series interests me, I do much prefer staying in-house with Canon, especially with how great having Canon Pro Services is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#18
Who ever says R5 Mark II over R1 for sports clearly doesnt shoot sports professionally, indoor or in bad lightning and in more challenging scenarios. My R3 sometimes shows some rolling shutter effects in fast action sports such as fast ball kick/hit or swing, and it has a faster readout than R5 Mark II.
ISO due to 45MP is heaps terrible compared to R1/R3. Period.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#19
Billybob said:
It's a lot of fun arguing about which camera is the better when--as illustrated by the above discussion--they have different strengths and target different shooters.

I am very unlikely to acquire a sub-40MP camera again, but if I were under deadline, I'd appreciate not having to deal with those large files. I'm sure that I'd pony up the $6k+ to purchase an integrated body with 45-50MP (not more!) and all the other advances of the R1. And yes, I would be fine with 25-30fps. Even 20fps would probably be acceptable. But saying that Canon clearly made the right decision in limiting the R1's MP count because they sold out their first batch or two is more than a bit disingenuous without more data. What if Canon decided to produce less because they didn't expect the demand to be very high for the R1? Or, how many more R1 would Canon have sold if the MP count was 45-50MP? The latter question is probably unanswerable and Canon probably won't answer the former.

Anyway, in the best of all worlds, I'd own both--24MP is plenty for shooting large mammals and many sports events--and I'd also have infinite time to shoot wildlife!
Click to expand...

How many times does it have to be said?

1 series cameras are designed based on the input from the people that will be using and buying them. Canon does not care how many they sell through retail. These cameras are purchased in bulk by agencies and CPS programs globally. 1 series cameras are a very small percentage of Canon's total shipments.

Canon does not care what the internet thinks or what other brands are doing. They are taking care of their customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Best of Canon 2023: #3 RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Replies
22
Views
4K
john1970
J
D
Chances of IBIS in next R>7?
Replies
6
Views
748
dr croubie
D
PierreB
Missing files on SD and CF Express B cards
Replies
2
Views
3K
Frodo
F
axtstern
Thoughts on the folly of buying an exciting camera of the future but then being stuck in the past.
Replies
18
Views
5K
scyrene
S
axtstern
R7 and the Viltrox Speedbooster
Replies
3
Views
6K
axtstern
axtstern
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu