Would you buy The Canon R1 if it were 85MP

If the Canon R1 shoots at 15fps at 85MP and allows you to lower the file size to shoot at a faster fps would you consider buying it as a replacement for a 1DX, 1DXII or 1DXIII

You should bring out your own line of perfume: Obsession, by tvstaff.

tvstaff wrote:

If the Canon R1 shoots at 15fps at 85MP and allows you to lower the file size to shoot at a faster fps would you consider buying it as a replacement for a 1DX, 1DXII or 1DXIII

Yes. I will.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

You should bring out your own line of perfume: Obsession, by tvstaff.

It doesn't even seem like that much of a stretch to hit 85MP on a full frame sensor. Isn't it true that if one scales up the 90D sensor to FF it is right around 82MP or something like that? Plus that is also a DPAF sensor so no doubt in my mind that 85MP could happen and they could bring in all the big boy features like global shutter and Dual Gain for 16 stops of DR.

And hasn't an 80-90MP sensor been rumored for years now? They probably just keep pushing it because they figure people won't understand improvements if they don't involve larger MP numbers so they have to keep pushing the launch to incorporate all the tech they want in there because as soon as this thing hits it will be endgame for 90% of the people who buy it. I'm guessing those customers don't buy another camera for 10 years.

1Dx4me wrote:

obviously it is a hypothetical question and obviously it'll be very important to the professionals that are looking for a camera like this at any price but for the average hobbyist shooter, it is a bit too much, especially storing all those huge files.

having a canon 5DsR for a year, i think 51mp sensor is just about enough for about any situation for me. also, it depends on the specs and price.

I have to imagine that the camera will do oversampled stills in camera whether it is JPG or HEIF or RAW remains to be seen.

tvstaff wrote:

If the Canon R1 shoots at 15fps at 85MP and allows you to lower the file size to shoot at a faster fps would you consider buying it as a replacement for a 1DX, 1DXII or 1DXIII

In a heartbeat, I would buy 2

tvstaff wrote:

If the Canon R1 shoots at 15fps at 85MP and allows you to lower the file size to shoot at a faster fps would you consider buying it as a replacement for a 1DX, 1DXII or 1DXIII

None of the poll options and given information are enough to make a purchase decision for me, so I guess it's a no then. I don't make purchase decisions on hypothetical / speculative arguments, unless it's monopoly money

Depends on "when" - in 5 years that spec may not sound as special as you are making it out to be.

Depends on what else is on the market, I would buy equipment that does what I need at the lowest possible price.

Depends on what it costs. If that wasn't a consideration, Canon would have already made it. It needs to sell too. Anyone voting yes, really falls in the last choice if they are honest

Also I don't understand why people whose needs are met with a lower res camera need to wait for this when we don't even have an R3 here yet. R3 might exactly be the camera for that use case, and will certainly be at a cheaper price point than R1

I guess an R1 is not close enough on horizon at this point, so this really boils down to you getting tired of creating multiple concurrent threads on this unicorn topic, or the forum having to endure this for a long long time

Personally, I would not purchase an 85MP R1 as a replacement for my 1DXM2. I would consider purchasing the R3 as its replacement. To my eyes, my 5DM4 images contain too much noise. Despite the broad support the R5 receives, the images I've seen from it also contain too much noise. I much prefer a 20 - 24 MP image with lower noise levels.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

You should bring out your own line of perfume: Obsession, by tvstaff.

+1

45MP is a really nice sweet spot for me.  I owned the A7R IV on Sony for a while, and there's no real practical difference between the 45MP on my R5 and the 61MP I had on the A7R IV, except the A7R IV files took longer to process.  40-45MP gives me plenty of resolution for large prints, room for cropping and so on.  Maybe in 10 years, when computing power and storage make the size increase more manageable, it might be nice to have that extra resolution, but it's honestly not a huge thing.  You're not going to see a palpable difference unless you're viewing very large images very close up.  I've made a few 80-100MP images via stitching, and they do print nicely and enlarge wonderfully, but the difference is fairly minimal vs. my 40+ MP images.

Also, I won't be spending $7,000 on a camera body, which is what an R1 is likely to cost.

I am not in the market for a pro body and even if was I would have zero use for 85 MP.

R1 will have around 20 - 30 MP because that is all that is needed by the fastest sports camera in the world.

There will be a super high res model, it won't be the R1.

Wclaes wrote:

I doubt it will be 85mp. Canon will keep the mp low enough to make sure the speed is at top level and not to forget, to keep file size manageable. Imagine using 85mp sized files to send images through wireless connection straight to big worldpaper newseditors..
85mp would be more for something like a r5s (like the 5Ds)

You can lower the file size to increase fps.

tvstaff wrote:

Wclaes wrote:

I doubt it will be 85mp. Canon will keep the mp low enough to make sure the speed is at top level and not to forget, to keep file size manageable. Imagine using 85mp sized files to send images through wireless connection straight to big worldpaper newseditors..
85mp would be more for something like a r5s (like the 5Ds)

You can lower the file size to increase fps.

How would that work?

Usually fps is limited by sensor read speed, not card write. So compression would only make it need more cpu power. Pixel bining also adds more cpu power to the mix.

So, the 2 most probable ways to increase fps would be to line skip or crop, both would leave you with less than a full frame sensor, probably significantly so.

Because, let's face it, if the sensor can read faster than 15 fps anyway, why need to lower resolution? Lower data rates? At the cost of a boat load of heat and processing power to pixel bin the images?

Jotoco wrote:

tvstaff wrote:

Wclaes wrote:

I doubt it will be 85mp. Canon will keep the mp low enough to make sure the speed is at top level and not to forget, to keep file size manageable. Imagine using 85mp sized files to send images through wireless connection straight to big worldpaper newseditors..
85mp would be more for something like a r5s (like the 5Ds)

You can lower the file size to increase fps.

How would that work?

Usually fps is limited by sensor read speed, not card write. So compression would only make it need more cpu power. Pixel bining also adds more cpu power to the mix.

So, the 2 most probable ways to increase fps would be to line skip or crop, both would leave you with less than a full frame sensor, probably significantly so.

Because, let's face it, if the sensor can read faster than 15 fps anyway, why need to lower resolution? Lower data rates? At the cost of a boat load of heat and processing power to pixel bin the images?

I think some have said I like being able to shoot at 85MP when I need or want it.... But at times I need 20MP to get OOC JPEG's to a truck or editor (sports) when shooting tethered.   Noting would stop you from doing that.  With the same modality at a lower resolution almost every camera I use can do that now. It's not advanced, it's the norm.  All we're saying is give the photographer the latitude to determine what they want from a resolution perspective. I do this now with my 1DXMKIII and II, I just start at 20MP vs. 80.

tvstaff wrote:

Jotoco wrote:

tvstaff wrote:

Wclaes wrote:

I doubt it will be 85mp. Canon will keep the mp low enough to make sure the speed is at top level and not to forget, to keep file size manageable. Imagine using 85mp sized files to send images through wireless connection straight to big worldpaper newseditors..
85mp would be more for something like a r5s (like the 5Ds)

You can lower the file size to increase fps.

How would that work?

Usually fps is limited by sensor read speed, not card write. So compression would only make it need more cpu power. Pixel bining also adds more cpu power to the mix.

So, the 2 most probable ways to increase fps would be to line skip or crop, both would leave you with less than a full frame sensor, probably significantly so.

Because, let's face it, if the sensor can read faster than 15 fps anyway, why need to lower resolution? Lower data rates? At the cost of a boat load of heat and processing power to pixel bin the images?

I think some have said I like being able to shoot at 85MP when I need or want it.... But at times I need 20MP to get OOC JPEG's to a truck or editor (sports) when shooting tethered. Noting would stop you from doing that. With the same modality at a lower resolution almost every camera I use can do that now. It's not advanced, it's the norm. All we're saying is give the photographer the latitude to determine what they want from a resolution perspective. I do this now with my 1DXMKIII and II, I just start at 20MP vs. 80.

Does it shoot faster in low resolution?

tvstaff wrote:

Jotoco wrote:

tvstaff wrote:

You can lower the file size to increase fps.

How would that work?

to be noted that you asked some relevant questions and none of them were answered

Usually fps is limited by sensor read speed, not card write. So compression would only make it need more cpu power. Pixel bining also adds more cpu power to the mix.

So, the 2 most probable ways to increase fps would be to line skip or crop, both would leave you with less than a full frame sensor, probably significantly so.

Because, let's face it, if the sensor can read faster than 15 fps anyway, why need to lower resolution? Lower data rates? At the cost of a boat load of heat and processing power to pixel bin the images?

I think some have said I like being able to shoot at 85MP when I need or want it.... But at times I need 20MP to get OOC JPEG's to a truck or editor (sports) when shooting tethered.

so you are proposing people shooting lower resolution compromise. They forego RAW, take either a cropped readout, or bin pixels, or downsample (which is more work than FF readout so won’t give faster frame rates anyway). A 20 mp FF camera won’t have those limitations if the user doesn’t want a choice of higher resolution or if they keep separate bodies like they keep separate lenses as right tool for right job.

Noting would stop you from doing that. With the same modality at a lower resolution almost every camera I use can do that now.

Name one, let’s check the same modality claim. I say not a single camera can do that today

It's not advanced, it's the norm. All we're saying is give the photographer the latitude to determine what they want from a resolution perspective. I do this now with my 1DXMKIII and II, I just start at 20MP vs. 80.

It is advanced, but then you skipped the specific questions that previous poster asked. It’s always easy if you don’t have to get into details. We can just give photographers a choice with an all in one body with an all in one lens - except it’s not the choice many of them might take once all the limitations become clear