neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I didn't think 1-1.5 stops of DR was big deal over a decade ago when Canon was 'behind' Sony and Nikon, and I don't think it's a big deal now.

Click to expand...

That's fair, though the drop was more than 2 stops (max DR of 11.42 on the D800 vs 9.25 on the 5D3) between the 5D3 and D800.

Richard CR said:

My only beef was that they make it a Mark III of an existing line, so it's less obvious that you would take both a dynamic range and a significant noise hit upgrading to a new model.

Click to expand...

Looks like a drop from 10.9 to 10 between A92 and A93 in maximum DR, and for equivalent ISOs maybe 1/3-stop at worst.



In fact this is almost the same performance drop between the R3 and the R1 (11.9 to 10.8 in maximum DR, and 1/3-stop drop at equivalent ISOs -- with worse results in the intermediate ISOs because of the higher 2nd gain step and lack of a 3rd gain step in the R1).

I guess technically the R1 is a new line instead of an existing line, but still at least Sony got a global shutter sensor out of it of the large DR drop.

Gogo7 said:

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 .

Click to expand...

Personally, I didn't think 1-1.5 stops of DR was big deal over a decade ago when Canon was 'behind' Sony and Nikon, and I don't think it's a big deal now. I do criticize Sony for claiming there was no less DR on the a9 III (even though I get their logic was the DR is essentially the same at ISO 250 on the a9 II, that's disingenuous at best).

The only difference between the R1 and R3 is at ISO <200 (and as I stated, 1-stop is not a big deal). For me, 6% of my shots with the R3 are at ISO <200 anyway. If someone wants to choose the R3 over the R1 for an extra stop of DR at low ISO, that's their choice. IMO, saving 1/3 of the cost is a far better reason to choose the R3.

The first photo was intended as for the "Mushrooms" (and I will post one in the "Mushrooms" topic!) until I got home and found more than the mushrooms and a fly: Millipede! These are creepy enough for participating in some movies (The Lord of the Rings?)! They are not fast but in the movies they can make even a snail chasing Ferrari (on Nurburgring!!!) so, it should not be a problem !
After that a small gem that needs a macro lens and focus stacking and one more Monarch - just to get out of the Land of the Darkness!

Gogo7 said:

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 .

Click to expand...

My only beef was that they make it a Mark III of an existing line, so it's less obvious that you would take both a dynamic range and a significant noise hit upgrading to a new model.

john1970 said:

These results do make me wonder if Canon or Sony will really be able to improve low ISO DR performance for very fast (or global) stacked sensors.

Click to expand...

not easily for a full frame sensor.

I only use full ES as well for almost all of my shooting. I would only use mechanical for something like landscape or waterfalls and if I'm shooting those, I am using my R5m2.

It's good to see these charts. They happen to be with mechanical shutter (I only use full Electronic shutter, which I absolutely *love* to use), so I'd be interested in charts for that. I wish there were image comparisons to show us as they're easier to me to decide what I like.

But there's something just as important or more (well, to me) to these dynamic range charts, which is the R1 having cross-green AF sensors in the entire image. It can now sense focal information along both up & down planes while the others (AFAIK) only sense 1 and are blind to the other. A sharper/high focus rate image is much more important to me than one with just a slight touch more dynamic range. A poor focused image is just poor. It'd be nice to see how the AF (and in-focus %) compares between them.

And where is the focus trap firmware? EG: I want to catch my hummingbirds near a feeder for photos, and stop taking photos when they're not there, over many hours of time on a tripod. This is more important to me than it just following a basketball played in a game.

I've looked through my pictures from the R3, R5, R5M2, and R1 and do not see this phenomenon in my pictures. With it not doing it with the mechanical shutter then it has to be something with the ES.

Quack said:

Unfortunate about your friend, but I am personally very surprised at how sharp my 200-800 is at the long end, wide open. Granted, I am using it on a 24 MP R8, not the R5. Now, maybe I have a really good copy, maybe your friend had a poor copy. But to say "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," is just not accurate, in my experience, and also according to some of the other wildlife reviewers.

Click to expand...

TDP's sample ISO12233 crops do indicate that the lens is sharper at 600mm than 800mm.

I'm sure that as time goes on there will be improvements in these areas, I cannot imagine the tradeoff is unavoidable. Technology is only getting better, honestly, some of it is getting too good in my opinion. I say this as I watch technology make man more and more replaceable.

GMCPhotographics said:

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.

Click to expand...

Unfortunate about your friend, but I am personally very surprised at how sharp my 200-800 is at the long end, wide open. Granted, I am using it on a 24 MP R8, not the R5. Now, maybe I have a really good copy, maybe your friend had a poor copy. But to say "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," is just not accurate, in my experience, and also according to some of the other wildlife reviewers.

Beautiful landscape!

Very nice series, Murkle.

. Another beautiful shot, Snudel.

These results do make me wonder if Canon or Sony will really be able to improve low ISO DR performance for very fast (or global) stacked sensors.

Ha yup

john1970 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm usually at iso 800 and above. So, iso 100-200 aren't on my priority list either.

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.

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!

The underside of crimped gill or crispling (Plicaturopsis crispa or Plicatura crispa) on a branch which broke off from a tree and landed on the ground. I put the branch on my mini tripods that I use for my Lumecubes to get separation from the ground and arranged some brown colored leaves as background.

I only noticed that I had photographed the underside of the crimped gill when I looked up the species at home.
This is a stack of 40 photos (with Helicon focus). R5 Mk II with EF 180mm f3.5 L macro, with polarizer to remove the glare from the rainwater.

LSXPhotog said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Oooh, no sign of Pythagoras’s obsession.