Yeah, I was wondering if he was shooting from a shelter. If not, definitely testing the weather sealing.
Upvote
0
R1 Reviews
- Thread starter docsmith
- Start date
BYU photo is at it again. This is the most detailed assessment of the R1 and R5 II buffers I have seen. Here is a screenshot.
He also looked at CFe 2.0 vs 4.0. He did not observe in increase in buffer, but did observe a slight increase in the rate at which the buffer was cleared once full with 4.0 cards. He captured 80 extra images with CFe 4.0 cards in his test.
He also looked at CFe 2.0 vs 4.0. He did not observe in increase in buffer, but did observe a slight increase in the rate at which the buffer was cleared once full with 4.0 cards. He captured 80 extra images with CFe 4.0 cards in his test.
Upvote
0
Not sure how/when those extra images will come in handy, but I’m glad I got a few CFe 4.0 cards for my R1.
Upvote
0
Ha.
2000 + 80 isn’t a game changer for you???
Ron from Whistling Wings posted side by side comparisons of the R1 vs R5 II at with increasing ISO. The take away matches what I’ve seen, the R1 is retains remarkably good detail at high ISO.
youtu.be
2000 + 80 isn’t a game changer for you???
Ron from Whistling Wings posted side by side comparisons of the R1 vs R5 II at with increasing ISO. The take away matches what I’ve seen, the R1 is retains remarkably good detail at high ISO.
Canon R1 and Canon R5 Mk. II ISO Noise Performance Comparison
In this video I compare noise levels at various ISO settings for the Canon R1 and Canon R5 Mk. II under real-world shooting conditions. RAW images and post-...
youtu.be
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He hasn’t posted much yet but Jared Polin often shares RAWs. He just took the R1 to Africa, so hopefully some good ones.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"I don't care if you have 45MP if all that extra resolution is obliterated by noise." He sums it up succinctly for low-light, high-ISO situations.
Upvote
0
Better performance at high ISO is one of those marketing brags. But I am seeing good data out of the R1. I hadn’t yet completed a specific side by side comparison against my R5 as Ron did against the R5 II. But I am thinking one of the strengths of the R1 will be high ISO.
I have been happy with the results so far.
Upvote
0
I'll take as much improvement there as I can get. ISOs from my R3 shots, where I go up to 25600:
Canon setting 51200 as the top of the default Auto ISO range, up from 25600 on the R3, suggests there will be some improvement at the high end.
Upvote
0
I just took my R1 on its first real outing. I shot a ballet that my son's GF was in. I've not started sorting yet but I have to say that I am back to being VERY concerned about overheating. I was in a dark room in 70*F weather shooting 12-20FPS and managed to get to 3 or 4 bars in about 2-hours of shooting, 45, 30, and 30 with breaks.
Upvote
0
R1 data on photonstophotos
Apparently base ISO of 200. Dynamic range from ISO200 onward basically the same as the R3, but R3 has overall more DR at ISO100 (especially in mech shutter)
If accurate, sounds like Canon had to make some concessions to get such a fast sensor readout.
Apparently base ISO of 200. Dynamic range from ISO200 onward basically the same as the R3, but R3 has overall more DR at ISO100 (especially in mech shutter)
If accurate, sounds like Canon had to make some concessions to get such a fast sensor readout.
Upvote
0
At equivalent ISOs, it is about even to 1/3 stop better than the Sony A93 — depending on whether it is in the 2nd step of gain. The A1 is in the middle between the two cameras at higher ISO ranges.
I guess in the end if you want a very fast read out sensor (whether stacked or GS) there is a penalty to be paid in terms of DR, and the faster the readout the more penalty you have to pay.
I don’t think this matters for the target market, but then I also didn’t think the A9III’s DR issues mattered much either.
Upvote
0
Sacrificing DR for speed would be understandable, but with the R1, it's not only that. Base ISO 200 for a flagship is... unexpected.
Upvote
0
If it’s actually 200, only a relative handful of people will know (and probably not all of them will care).
The Canon specs state the native ISO range is 100-102400. Bill Claff shows ISO 100 as a pull from 200. He also indicates NR or other ‘cooking’ based on the energy spectrum, but that really looks no different from the Sony a1…except he plots that with circles instead of triangles on the PDR plot, indicating no NR. Let’s just say I’m not convinced the R1 base ISO is 200.
Upvote
0
The Sony A9III has a base ISO of 250, so not exactly unprecedented.
The A9III has a high base ISO because it has lower full well capacity -- half the photo site was occupied by a capacitor needed for the global shutter. Maybe the R1 has similar electronics in each photo site that limits capacity.
Upvote
0
I think the more interesting thing from his data is that it seems the difference in DR between the A1, A9III, and R1 between ISO 800 and 12800 shows a 1/3 stop gap between the best camera and the worst. Everyone is probably running into similar limitations with stacked sensors here, so sensor advantages between brands are pretty minimal right now.
The DR at ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO is) is more than usable for all of these cameras for their intended purposes so I am not concerned either way. If a photographer wants maximum DR at that price range, they can get themselves a GFX 100S II.
Upvote
0
Indeed, and Sony lists the native ISO range of the a9 III as 250-25600. As I pointed out, Canon lists 100-102400 for the R1. So either Canon is lying, or Bill Claff is incorrect. Thus my skepticism of his results.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
