Close Menu

    PhotonsToPhotos Results for the EOS R1

    By Updated:36 Comments Canon EOS R 3 Mins Read

    Bill Claff of PhotonsToPhotos has analyzed the RAW files for the EOS R1 and produced data on how the R1 stacks up with the other Canon cameras and the competition.

    When compared against Canon’s competition for this camera, namely the Sony A1, Nikon Z9, and the Sony A9III, they all measure in around the same for low ISO dynamic range with Nikon at 10.61, Sony A1 at 11.34, and Canon’s R1 wedged in between at 10.82 stops dynamic range.

    It’s easy to see that the flagship cameras are tuned to speed and higher ISO performance than low ISO performance, as none of the flagships perform that well. Even when compared against the EOS R3, the R1’s low ISO dynamic range is lower, but to be fair, the low pass filtering is less with the R1.

    I am slightly surprised at the difference between the R3 and the R1’s dynamic range response. It could very well be that Canon tuned that sensor for speed and high ISO performance, and the low ISO dynamic range was of secondary importance.

    The R1 doesn’t have nearly the same energy spectra results as the R3 or the R5 (original version) but has an energy spectra close to the R5 Mark II. It’s safe to assume that there is more than is happening under the hood, and either improvements in silicone or processing have resulted in Canon not being as heavy-handed in the low pass filtering department.

    That line should be more or less flat; any deviation, especially around the center and dipping lower, usually means some form of low pass filtering. You can review the EOS R1 energy spectra on PhotonsToPhotos directly and compare it to other cameras.

    As Bill mentions, it indicates low pass signal processing but not the intent. So we don’t know why there is low pass filtering; it could be due to the dual pixel AF sensor design. It could also be how Canon structures its mirrorless sensors to handle dual-pixel autofocus with a shorter focal plane distance and higher incidence angle.

    Is this significant? Not really. For instance, if we look at the energy spectra of the Sony A1, we see this. You can go to PhotonsToPhotos Energy Spectra section here. As you notice, the deviation is nearly the same as the R1. No one that I know of has considered the A1 image quality poor by comparison.

    Sony has to do this for the phase detect pixel lines on their sensor, so you can’t see the lines in RAW files. There’s also hot pixel / stuck pixel signal processing as well. None of that is cooking the RAW to the disadvantage of the user.

    All in all, what we are seeing is that compared to slower sensors, there is a performance penalty but we were kind of aware of that going into this, so it’s not a surprise. Canon’s R1 sensor is competitive when compared to its peers – so it’s all good.

    Edit: To add some further information. Bill stated that the tests were done with the mechanical shutter, but testing had not yet been done with the electronic shutter. Also, he felt that ISO 200 would be controversial, and that was something that I didn’t touch on. I think this was Canon’s attempt to improve higher ISO.

    Source: PhotonsToPhotos

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    36 comments

    1. I think the most apt comparison is against the Sony A9III since they both are $6k+ moderate megapixel fast cameras and share the same target market: PJs and sports photographers. The R1 is about even to 1/3 stop ahead of the A9III except from 800 to 1250 (where the A9III is half a stop ahead).

      The other interesting thing is that the R1 doesn’t seem to gain much additional DR at 100 compared to 200. You would usually expect close to a 1-stop gain in DR there (as on the R3, R5II, etc). Bill Claff thinks that this implies a true base ISO of 200, despite Canon stating that base ISO of the camera is 100.

      Finally, Bill Claff clarified on DPReview forums that these test results are mechanical shutter rather than ES, so dynamic range might change with ES. I don’t expect it to get better under ES though.
      • 0
    3. So many reviewers claiming exceptional High ISO yet no noone gave ANY real life comparison photos versus the R3 which goes to show how exceptional the R3 really was and still is. Also "R1 making previously impossible to capture photos now possible", then how the hell were photographers able to capture the photos before anyway? All talk, no walk.
      • 0
    4. So many reviewers claiming exceptional High ISO yet no noone gave ANY real life comparison photos versus the R3 which goes to show how exceptional the R3 really was and still is. Also "R1 making previously impossible to capture photos now possible", then how the hell were photographers able to capture the photos before anyway? All talk, no walk.
      A lot of Youtube efflunecers are desperate to please their corporate sponsors / rewarders. If you say something that canon don't like, they drop you from the top tier, next round of releases to review. Some thing similar happened to a friend of mine who was asked to review a pre-production RF 200-800, where he verbally stated that he was a bit dissapointed by the sharpness at 800mm wide open on his R5. Canon took the lens back, gave it to someone else (who just repeated the party line) to review and cancelled his funded piece of work. We all know now that this lens is a bit soft at the long end, so did Canon, but they really wanted to keep this quiet for as long as they could.

      There are very few you tube / internet reviewers that I have any time for, most are compromised in some way or other.
      The whole point of the R1 is that it's ES readout is now faster than the mechanical 1st curtain shutter. It's AF is a bit better than any previous Canon camera too. It has a bigger buffer than any other Casnon camera and the buffer last longer than any other Canon camera (this is important when you compare the R3, which shoots are 30fps max vs the R1's 40 fps). It's got the highest EVF resolution witht he fastest refresh rate. It's camera that equals or exceeds most metrics (except for resolution). This camera is the best that Canon can currently make. The big question for us consumers will be...is there a big enough difference between the vastly cheaper R3. Or even between a pair of R3's at the current price difference.

      For me, I've always admired the 1 series cameras and I really like the R3, but neither are my choice. I far prefer the R6ii or R5ii for my photography.
      • 0
    6. We still have a good laugh... we can clearly see that the R3 files are filtered, it's obvious and confirmed. It's not dramatic either, but there's no miracle here either. That said, I prefer sharp files rather than soft ones, the processing will do the rest.
      • 0
    7. Also "R1 making previously impossible to capture photos now possible", then how the hell were photographers able to capture the photos before anyway? All talk, no walk.
      I don't think that's a completely unrealistic thing to say as pre capture makes certain things soooo much easier to capture. Of course you could technically achieve everything without pre capture just through anticipation and a lot of trial and error, but the technology actually allows you to easily reproduce shots that were previously one in a million or even rarer to hit.

      So something that was previously practically impossible in a shooting day is now possible.
      • 0
    8. This is oh so fascinating, but there is nothing here that would entice me to purchase one camera over the other. The IQ differences between the 4 cameras featured in this article are so minor, likely imperceptible in practice (especially without pixel-peeping). Now, from a purely academic point, it's interesting to see that the Sony A1 sensor from years ago still performing the best on these measures. Undoubtedly Canon and Nikon sensor designers consider the slight reductions in DR performance to be more than worth it in exchange for increased speed. I know I do.
      • 0
    9. Everyone that was criticizing the Sony A9iii for its lack of dynamic range will now say: ohhh you see the Canon R1 is not that bad , it competes with A9iii , so it’s all good . That’s called hypocrisy
      But anyways , I love my R1 but it seems every camera company moving forward , makes a step backwards when it comes to image quality and It’s all about speed now .
      • 0
    10. Also "R1 making previously impossible to capture photos now possible", then how the hell were photographers able to capture the photos before anyway?
      They were not.
      The same goes for the a9 III.
      Both have captured photos that were impossible before.
      • 0
    11. Everyone that was criticizing the Sony A9iii for its lack of dynamic range will now say: ohhh you see the Canon R1 is not that bad , it competes with A9iii , so it’s all good
      I disagree.
      I predict that we will see a wave of Canon bashing.
      People can't stop complaining about the R5 II.
      • 0
    12. Just chiming in from my phone while vacation. Of course this came in while I am on vacation having taken the R5 and not my R1 (size and not needed to family functions).

      First the ISO 200 bit is odd. I am still not sure I believe it.

      Second, after some playing, yeah, I would have preferred higher DR at low ISOs (of course), but this essentially has the same low ISO performance as my 5DIV, which I thought was great. Never had an issue.

      I am very happy with the images coming out of the R1. I’ve posted them here and other places.

      My biggest issue with it was I do not want a reason to upgrade in a few years. 2028 Canon releases a R1 II with 15 stops DR. Ugh.
      • 0
    13. I don't think that's a completely unrealistic thing to say as pre capture makes certain things soooo much easier to capture. Of course you could technically achieve everything without pre capture just through anticipation and a lot of trial and error, but the technology actually allows you to easily reproduce shots that were previously one in a million or even rarer to hit.

      So something that was previously practically impossible in a shooting day is now possible.
      I like the pre-capture on my R5ii so much that it is my default mode. But, to say it allows me to easily reproduce shots that were a million to one or rarer is completely over the top. Maybe it is for some clueless shooters but not for the moderately competent.
      • 0
    14. Just so we're clear, this sensor is performing WORSE than the R5 Mark II in electronic shutter and everyone was talking trash about for the past few months. So I'm prepared for more trash to be spoken. Is this performance in electronic shutter? Is it in mechanical shutter? In either case, not impressive.

      It’s both funny and sad, the more I use my R1, the more impressed I am with my R3. That has primarily been because of ergonomic preferences, but I also haven’t personally seen any improvement in image quality at all. I was initially impressed with the R1’s high ISO performance until I took the same shots on the R3 and I conceded that the R3 was perhaps a little bit cleaner? I can’t properly test dynamic range scientifically, but it seemed just fine, but it is a bit of a shock to learn how good the R3 is - one full stop at ISO 100 better?! (I’m also exclusively shooting the R1 in electronic shutter and I would shoot the R3 in mixture of EFC and ES…the R3’s dynamic range and noise performance in ES is noticeably worse.) I would be curious to see the performance differences between the R1 and R3 in Electronic Shutter and Mechanical shutter, and if there is any improvement. I feel like the R3 may offer an advantage in mechanical shutter, but the R1 would perform better in electronic? Splitting hairs here...

      There are a lot of quality of life improvements with the R1 that make me happy and would have me second guess ever moving back to the R3…but the R3 camera body design is PERFECT in my opinion and I haven't ruled out selling the R1 and going back to dual R3s. I actually really dislike the R1 body’s size and layout right now, it’s too wide (as wide as the 1DX) and I’m going to have to learn to love it or at least like it.

      I kept one of my R3 bodies and don’t think I’ll be selling it. I’ve personally talked several R3 users out of purchasing the R1. Just by being honest...if you own an R3 and don't need full size HDMI, CLOG2, pre-capture, dual CFExpress, nearly flawless electronic shutter performance, and better AF - absolutely do not buy the R1. The market for this camera is very small and I scratch my head asking why Canon didn't or couldn't do more with the R1. Feel free to call me stupid and ignorant for acknowledging the minor improvements this camera made over the R3. They made the R3 too good? I'm not sure losing a full stop of dynamic range is a justifiable tradeoff for a stop faster readout. A full stop of dynamic range performance will absolutely be noticeable in some situations.

      Just my $.02.
      • 0
    17. The market for this camera is very small and I scratch my head asking why Canon didn't or couldn't do more with the R1. Feel free to call me stupid and ignorant for acknowledging the minor improvements this camera made over the R3. They made the R3 too good? I'm not sure losing a full stop of dynamic range is a justifiable tradeoff for a stop faster readout. A full stop of dynamic range performance will absolutely be noticeable in some situations.
      Canon targeted this camera at the exact same market as the A9III, down to the compromises in DR needed for fast readout or GS.

      Right now, Canon just doesn’t really have a flagship high res body like the A1/Z9 in the same way that Nikon doesn’t have a flagship sports camera like the A9III/R1. Out of the big three, only Sony has entrants in both markets.
      • 0
    18. I am little surprised by the chart. Subjectively, I've felt the dynamic range is easily as good as my R3's. That is to say, I certainly haven't had any issues pushing files - whether low or high ISOs - and getting excellent results.

      Whatever. Guess I'll just continue on shooting and not worry about it!
      • 0
    19. I am really surprised (or shocked) at the ISO 100 performance. I will likely set my R1 not to go below ISO 200. Odd that Canon would make the baes ISO 200 and not 100. For what I typically use the R1 for (wildlife photography) I rarely use ISO 100.
      • 0

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment