Will Canon make an R1-like Pro2?

If Canon took the sensor that's in the Fujifilm F-10 and used that in the Pro 1 and add IS, then I'd own the "perfect" camera. They don't need a larger sensor. They don't need a greater zoom range (zoom is for cowards and creeps - get close). They could use a focus assist lamp though.

"Almost the same zoom range - R1 is 24-120, 17-85IS is 27-136. "

I don't understand why anyone would buy a R1when you can get the Xt and that lense you describe for similar money. The speed and control would demolish the R1.

Montana500 said:

"Almost the same zoom range - R1 is 24-120, 17-85IS is 27-136. "

I don't understand why anyone would buy a R1when you can get the Xt
and that lense you describe for similar money. The speed and
control would demolish the R1.

Click to expand...

R1 is $999 dollars. The 17-85IS is over $500 dollars alone. That's without the XT.

You can find the XT, body only, in the $600 range.

vision63 said:

R1 is $999 dollars. The 17-85IS is over $500 dollars alone. That's
without the XT.

Click to expand...

--
Peru:
http://stevenanderson5270.fotopic.net/c747533.html
Death Valley:
http://stevenanderson5270.fotopic.net/c749109.html
New Zealand:
http://stevenanderson5270.fotopic.net/c746865.html
Germany:
http://stevenanderson5270.fotopic.net/c749178.html
Czech Republic:
http://stevenanderson5270.fotopic.net/c749075.html
Salt Lake City:
http://stevenanderson5270.fotopic.net/c765232.html

vision63 said:

Montana500 said:

"Almost the same zoom range - R1 is 24-120, 17-85IS is 27-136. "

I don't understand why anyone would buy a R1when you can get the Xt
and that lense you describe for similar money. The speed and
control would demolish the R1.

Click to expand...

R1 is $999 dollars. The 17-85IS is over $500 dollars alone. That's
without the XT.

Click to expand...

It's $1000 versus $1225 at B&H. Not a lot of difference for all that extra performance and flexibility.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

You're right. That's not a lot of difference. Especially with the Sony being so bulky. If I have that kind of money, I might be compelled to step up to a 20D.

ljfinger said:

vision63 said:

Montana500 said:

"Almost the same zoom range - R1 is 24-120, 17-85IS is 27-136. "

I don't understand why anyone would buy a R1when you can get the Xt
and that lense you describe for similar money. The speed and
control would demolish the R1.

Click to expand...

R1 is $999 dollars. The 17-85IS is over $500 dollars alone. That's
without the XT.

Click to expand...

It's $1000 versus $1225 at B&H. Not a lot of difference for all
that extra performance and flexibility.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

Lee,
it is perfectly feasable to construct a small digicam around a large sensor.



Here is the "Pentax auto 110" of the 1970's with three 'primes' (18, 24, 50 mmm at f 2.8).
Body and three lenses weigh in at a total weight of 290 g.
The 'sensor' (film) is APS like (=auto 110).

For interchangeability the lenses could be arranged on a revolver as is known from movie cams of old times. This would mean: no dirt on the sensor.

Many a prime lens of the old days is small and light weight despite apertures up to f 2.

Let's have a small non zoom APS size digicam with a choice of sensible lenses and then see if their is a market for this choice.

Regards, Guenter

ljfinger said:

Rebel XT+17-85IS will pretty much beat the R1 at everything.

I'd rather see them make a Pro 2 in the same sized body as the
current Pro 1 but add DIGIC II, IS and the latest sensor technology
in a 2/3" size.

I no longer see a real point to an APS-C sensor in a fixed-lens
camera. It's as big and expensive as a dSLR and it's less flexible
so what's the point? If I'm going to sacrifice the flexibility and
optical viewfinder of the SLR, I at least want a significant cost
and size savings.

If I were going to buy an R1-like camera (fixed lens, large size,
low cost), I'd probably go for a Nikon D50 and 18-200VR.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

fiebl said:

Lee,
it is perfectly feasable to construct a small digicam around a
large sensor.

Click to expand...

Right, but not with a good zoom range.

Your example using primes is absolutely true but, I believe, that approach will not be tolerated by the target audience.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Lee,

if you put 5 lenses on the revolver you would have a 'five step' zoom eqivalent. If the sensor is large cropping is a alternative to zooming.

The 'focal range' utilized primes could be quite large without so much problems that this causes with a zoom lens. Aperture values below f 2 would be feasable as well as focal length below 24 mm.

Perhaps more people would like the develpment of a small digicam with a large sensor.

Kind regards, Guenter

ljfinger said:

fiebl said:

Lee,
it is perfectly feasable to construct a small digicam around a
large sensor.

Click to expand...

Right, but not with a good zoom range.

Your example using primes is absolutely true but, I believe, that
approach will not be tolerated by the target audience.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

fiebl said:

Perhaps more people would like the develpment of a small digicam
with a large sensor.

Click to expand...

I think so too but the people (like me) that appreciate primes and lens speed tend not to be the people who want a compact camera. My 5D with 35/1.4L is a stunning performer but it's not very compact. I think most of the people who appreciate that already have a dSLR and are looking for a compact because it's compact. That's why I don't get these not-very-compact P&S cameras like the FZ-30 and R1.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

agreed . . . I do not 'get' big compacts either . . . the 828 was huge compared to the pro1, as was the oly 8080 . Any photographer willing to lug a camera as big as the R1 or the Oly 8080 would probably be willing to carry a smallish DSLR like the xt.

When I bought my pro1 I considered Sony and Olympus cameras seriously and rejected them because of their large size, I did not care for the build, performance and operating system of the Nikon so I went with the Canon and I have been very happy with it - my biggest complaints are high noise and slow performance.

I want portability and high performance above all. Interchangeable lenses are nice but a zoom would suit me fine if it was of a modest ratio from wide to tele (read low distortion) . I never understood why the OLY 8080 with its modest zoom ratio was so darn big!

I want an excellent, high quality tool that will have a niche in my life like my M-4 leica did. I want a camera I can carry with me at all times that is capable of professional work when I need it.

Price matters, but I see no reason why it should have to sell for less than inexpensive DSLR cameras - in fact I expect that it would cost about the same or less than a 20d - I would not say ouch to that.

I think there are many others out there who share this point of view who are really sick of lugging around the big bags full of equipment they needed a decade ago.

Lee,

why not have a more compact camera than your massive 5D?

As a matter of fact the Pentax auto 110 is a SLR with APS size format film. The whole set, body and three lenses, can be put into a normal shirt pocket.

It could and should be developed into a light-weight P&S camera with some primes and an optical view finder affixed. There is a lot of leeway to add larger lenses and still keep it very compact.
One wonders....

Kind regards, Guenter

ljfinger said:

fiebl said:

Perhaps more people would like the develpment of a small digicam
with a large sensor.

Click to expand...

I think so too but the people (like me) that appreciate primes and
lens speed tend not to be the people who want a compact camera. My
5D with 35/1.4L is a stunning performer but it's not very compact.
I think most of the people who appreciate that already have a dSLR
and are looking for a compact because it's compact. That's why I
don't get these not-very-compact P&S cameras like the FZ-30 and R1.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

justin said:

agreed . . . I do not 'get' big compacts either . . . the 828 was
huge compared to the pro1, as was the oly 8080 . Any photographer
willing to lug a camera as big as the R1 or the Oly 8080 would
probably be willing to carry a smallish DSLR like the xt.

Click to expand...

For me, once you get past something you can put in your pocket, it matterws little whether the size is the Pro1 or C-8080. The R1 and 828 might be stretching it.

justin223998 said:

When I bought my pro1 I considered Sony and Olympus cameras
seriously and rejected them because of their large size, I did not
care for the build, performance and operating system of the Nikon
so I went with the Canon and I have been very happy with it - my
biggest complaints are high noise and slow performance.

Click to expand...

That's why I waiting for the next issue with a faster processor.

justin223998 said:

I want portability and high performance above all. Interchangeable
lenses are nice but a zoom would suit me fine if it was of a modest
ratio from wide to tele (read low distortion) . I never understood
why the OLY 8080 with its modest zoom ratio was so darn big!

Click to expand...

More glass = less vignetting and Big mounting = more robust physically.

justin223998 said:

I want an excellent, high quality tool that will have a niche in
my life like my M-4 leica did. I want a camera I can carry with me
at all times that is capable of professional work when I need it.

Price matters, but I see no reason why it should have to sell for
less than inexpensive DSLR cameras - in fact I expect that it would
cost about the same or less than a 20d - I would not say ouch to
that.

I think there are many others out there who share this point of
view who are really sick of lugging around the big bags full of
equipment they needed a decade ago.

Click to expand...

Agree. Technology is fast getting there wherher Canon wants to be part of it, I don't know.

--mamallama

fiebl said:

Lee,

why not have a more compact camera than your massive 5D?

Click to expand...

I'd love to have one. I was hoping the S2 was going to be it but the IQ is too low. Now, I've decided it has to be compatible with my EX flashes so I looked at the G6 and Pro 1. I like the Pro 1 feature set and the G6 sensor. I'm hoping for a Pro 2 that combines the good sensor of the G6 in a larger size (so it's even better) with the features of the Pro 1 and S2 (namely, IS).

If they come out with that, I might just buy it. It would be preferable if it used CF and BP 511s like the Pro 1. If not, I can live with SD (though I hate it) and AA batteries.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

such as silence in operation, live preview, movie mode, etc. While I also prefer a smaller size--I have a Pro1 and it's about as large as I would wish for a digicam-- I can also understand the appeal of the Sony. Some of us who have been through the "40-lb camera bag" days with film SLRs are very reluctant to go there again. I'd be happy if the Pro2 just had better low light performance; all the rest is nice to have, but better high ISO performance would solve a lot of problems,and is one thing the Sony seems to have done pretty well. Unfortunately, it just isn't happening yet with the smaller sensors.

Sam Cotten

SCotten said:

such as silence in operation, live preview, movie mode, etc. While
I also prefer a smaller size--I have a Pro1 and it's about as large
as I would wish for a digicam-- I can also understand the appeal of
the Sony. Some of us who have been through the "40-lb camera bag"
days with film SLRs are very reluctant to go there again. I'd be
happy if the Pro2 just had better low light performance; all the
rest is nice to have, but better high ISO performance would solve a
lot of problems,and is one thing the Sony seems to have done pretty
well. Unfortunately, it just isn't happening yet with the smaller
sensors.

Click to expand...

My camera bag weighs over 40 pounds but my travel kit is under 10. I've carried a bag that heavy every day on every trip I've ever been on. I've even had it on roller coasters.

There are times, though, when I don't want to take any of it or when I want to take that kit plus a second camera for my wife. That's what I want the Pro 2 for.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I forgot to mention that the R1 comes with a 2.8 lens versus the 4.5 lens that you mention (18-85IS)

ljfinger said:

vision63 said:

Montana500 said:

"Almost the same zoom range - R1 is 24-120, 17-85IS is 27-136. "

I don't understand why anyone would buy a R1when you can get the Xt
and that lense you describe for similar money. The speed and
control would demolish the R1.

Click to expand...

R1 is $999 dollars. The 17-85IS is over $500 dollars alone. That's
without the XT.

Click to expand...

It's $1000 versus $1225 at B&H. Not a lot of difference for all
that extra performance and flexibility.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

As XT and R1 owner I can clearly say: no way! The distortion and corner to corner resolution ist cleary inferior to the Sony/Zeiss lens. And the 24mm wideangle range is also missing. Also the 17-85 shows up much more PF than the R1-lens.

Regards,
Andi
--
http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos
pbase supporter

I might as well buy a DSLR?

R1 = Waist Level Viewfinder!
R1 = No Loud Shutter Noise!

Some guy already mentioned this and then a few responses down you get another saying "I might as well buy a DSLR" and people go around talking in circles with no resolution.

Go buy a DSLR! Why would you wanna look trough an EVF anyway?
Get your 350D and slap on a Sigma there you go..

There is a market for the R1 and it appeals to people who love shooting discreetly, with rangefinders, street photographers and the list goes on.
There is no comparason!

If Canon does not respond Sony wins!

vision63 said:

I forgot to mention that the R1 comes with a 2.8 lens versus the
4.5 lens that you mention (18-85IS)

Click to expand...

And the XT comes with 1-2 stops better high ISO performance.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)