Canon EOS R1 Field Report from Antarctica: A Wildlife Photographer’s Perspective
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
The answer is to work with one. Then you can agree, or disagree, or espouse whatever you like everywhere. Until that occurs, you’re reading spec sheets and opining purely speculatively, and arguing wholeheartedly against actual users of the camera.
Upvote
0
Well then maybe the factor will be specific conditions. Conditions in which with the help of cross-sensitive AF point, the DIGIC Accelerator processor (which utilizes the BSI imaging sensor to determine AF (and AE)) and the real-time metering mode with 6144-zone will master that how .
Upvote
0
No. You are not.
But per usual, photographers will continue to use the tools available to them to make great photos.
Others will get lost in specs.
As a counter to all this, there are people out there using the 5D “classic”, 5DII, 6D I, etc, talking about how they render better that current sensors.
It’s a big interesting world.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Couldn't it just be that a proven and talented wildlife photographer knows better than you?
You speak on the sole basis of specs while he uses the camera and demonstrates what he can achieve with the R1 under extreme conditions...
Did you ever actually take pictures with the R1 or are you just criticizing specs?
Upvote
0
I think it is fundamentally simple that a great camera system is better than the sum of specs.
The old sporting adage that a great team will mostly beat a team of greats. It is how it all integrates and works together that matters most, and that includes the lenses and features (see auto-focus and pre-capture etc). And what has been demonstrated and reported here, by someone who has significant experience in their field, is that the R1 is a great team/system. The images shown are quite spectacular, and unique.
This.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, you’ve clearly established your credibility here. A few dozen posts complaining about the specs of Canon cameras and lenses. Plus all the stellar images you’ve posted. Well, the one image you’ve posted…which was an image shot by someone else that you downloaded ran through Topaz. So you’ve established your solid abilities to type on a computer and pay for photo editing software. Good job.
Looking forward to you sharing your experiences with the R1. Lol.
Upvote
0
You could say that. You might even be right in most cases. I know it's not right in my case. If the R1 had a more reasonable resolution, I probably would have bought one.
I don't think it's the only relevant aspect. But I don't think there is ever a true downside to having more resolution, and I don't think 24MP is sufficient in the current era.Perhaps you are one of those people who strongly believes the MP count is the most (or only) relevant aspect of camera performance? You probably buy cars based on the top speed spec or engine displacement spec, right? Because more is always better.
Power and speed are in fact major criteria by which I purchase cars. I don't think there is ever a downside to having more capability.
I agree the GFX is fun.
Pot calling kettle black anyone?
That is precisely what I have done. Doesn't stop the 24MP defenders from being quite rabid as seen above.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The R1 was designed and built for news and sports gathering, always has been for the flagship. If you're disappointed about the lack of MP for landscape and fine art, well there are good alternatives but the R1 is what it is.
Upvote
0
There’s this thing called a buffer, and the higher the MP count the faster it fills.
Shooting at 20 fps in C-RAW, the R5II can go for 240 shots / 12 seconds, the R1 can just keep going (reported as 2000+ shots). That’s at ISO 100, and if you’re shooting subjects that benefit from 20+ fps, you’re probably using action-stopping shutter speeds and thus higher ISOs. At ISO 6400 and 20 fps, the R5II gets you 6.4 s before the buffer fills, the R1 goes for 75 s.
To me, that’s a big downside to higher MP. YMMV.
You are welcome to believe 24 MP is insufficient in the current era. Canon disagrees. So does Sony (a9 III, for example).
You are also welcome to believe that you know more about the camera industry and the needs of photographers than Canon or Sony. But you might want to consider that expressing that belief will make you look silly (to put it mildly).
Reading comprehension problems anyone? I’m not the one ascribing motives to other people’s choices. That’s you, bub.
Upvote
0
Nice review of shooting under these conditions. Would have enjoyed seeing work with wildlife that are less monolithic, and in a non pure white environment. I am most interested to see your living conditions for \"a week in a tent on a frozen lake\". What power sources did you use, what heat sources, how did your laptop, card readers, etc. perform ? Were you alone (I doubt it) ? May I ask who funds your expeditions ?
Upvote
0
Antarctica is an all-white environment - especially on the sea ice. If you are interested in images of wildlife in a non-white environment, then best look elsewhere other than Emperor penguins. Additionally, sea ice is not a 'lake' - it's a frozen ocean (sea water). We have solar panels for charging and a backup generator for power (although not required most of the time as we can generate a lot of power with solar). Tents are small mountain tents, same as you would use to climb Everest. The tents themselves get solar heated by the 24 hour sun. It can be -18C outside the tent and +15C or more inside the tent. In fact one day my tent got over 23 degrees when it was a sunny day. So there is no issue with laptops, cards batteries etc. Of course, not alone. There is an entire support staff to make an expedition like this happen. I have a trip report you can read if you want details: https://blog.jholko.com/2024/12/15/emperor-penguins-of-antarctica-expedition-report-december-2024/
Upvote
0
A wonderful contribution that you have shown here and beautiful pictures that you have brought with you. I was in Antarctica myself this year and had my R5 with me. Only when you have experienced this environment yourself and the conditions that await the equipment and the photographer do you understand how difficult and challenging it is to generate the kind of images you show here.
You clearly show how important it is to have an excellent camera with you and to be able to operate this tool blindly, and you clearly demonstrate your skills here.
Many thanks for that.
You clearly show how important it is to have an excellent camera with you and to be able to operate this tool blindly, and you clearly demonstrate your skills here.
Many thanks for that.
Upvote
0
He’s the professional, maybe they were able to get very close to the penguins to shoot them. I’d have thought 50MP and cropping would be useful for shooting penguins . They are not the smallest of birds but not that big either especially the babies. The images are beautiful , they did a great job. If I’d a choice between FPS and MP on Antarctica I’d go MP. I can understand the ergonomics, an R1 body would be much preferable to an R5 II if subzero temperatures, you’d lose fingers if you took gloves off. Maybe at some point Canon will bring out an R1 version with twice the MP and half the FPS. I think there would be a market for that.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
My friend has the A1 and I have an R6ii and we find my camera's AF tracking has a slight edge and also is less confused by grass, etc.
Upvote
0
The problem with the 'review' was that he basically just recited specs. He didn't explain how the R1 performed better than an R3 or a 1DX3, or how it took shots that those cameras couldn't. None of the subjects looked particularly challenging to focus, but did the R1 grab and hold better? What benefit was there in spending $12,000 to upgrade? None of this was discussed.
It's like a car review that gushes about tactile interfaces and MPG and acceleration times, but never says whether the car handles better than its predecessor.
Yes, the photos are lovely but that margely comes down to the lenses and technique.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, he just didn't recite specs, he related his experience with the camera under extreme conditions.
If you speak of non-challenging subjects, I guess you must have used your camera under identical conditions to be able to judge...
What did you expect, an Arctic scientific lab test with precise data? That's what you may have hoped for, but exactly what he didn't want to do. That the R1 focuses 0,0124 seconds faster than the R3? I guess you missed the subject.
So, wrong review for you.
Upvote
0
