Close Menu

    More thoughts on the Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II from Paris

    By Updated:151 Comments Canon EOS R 5 Mins Read

    We all know Jeff Cable at this point, and he has been gracious enough to answer our questions and give a ton of images and feedback on both the Canon EOS R1 and Canon EOS R5 Mark II from the Paris Games.

    Shooting an Olympics is an extremely demanding experience, you shoot a ton, you’re on tight deadlines to go through your images and forward your best ones to the team so the images can get out into the world. It’s also not just one day, Jeff had the same demanding schedule for 22 days.

    Jeff posted some statistics to give us an idea of what it takes to do an Olympics successfully.

    I don’t think I could do it, I find after 7 days on a safari that I’m pretty exhausted. It’s early mornings, and late evenings with a lull in the middle.

    Jeff’s 22 days in Paris

    • Duration in Paris: 22 days
    • Distance walked (tracked by my Apple Watch): 210 miles
    • Average sleep per night (tracked by my Apple Watch): 5 hours and 45 min
    • Hours spent on trains: Approximately 25 hours
    • Events covered: 49
    • Total photos taken on the Canon R1 and Canon R5 MKII cameras: 85,000 photos
    • Total photos kept: 25,000 photos
    • Total capacity used: 342GB
    • Favorites images: 266

    Jeff’s thoughts on the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II

    Jeff put in a ton of time with both cameras, he mentions that he used the EOS R5 Mark II more during the second half of the games. He appreciated the higher resolution, the lighter weight and he was completely confident in the autofocus performance and didn’t feel he had to use the EOS R1.

    There are a couple of interesting bits of information about the EOS R1. One is quite strange, Canon has changed the angle of the power switch compared to the EOS R3. Jeff was a bit frustrated for the first little while using the switch and its new angle, but that passed. That said, everything on a 1 series camera is done for a reason. This is definitely worth noting for people that will be rolling with both the EOS R3 and EOS R1 like I will.

    The joystick is also subtly different, there has been some feedback that some prefer it, others do not. However, that is also something that will likely pass, but it’s another small thing that won’t be consistent with the EOS R3.

    The EOS R1 does have a lower resolution LCD as well, we think that was done for power savings, which is fine. The only time I really ever chimp is if I think I nailed something awesome and can’t wait to find out if it’s focus!

    The autofocus performance for both cameras get an A+ from Jeff. Outside of water polo, the autofocus was the best he has ever used.

    Water polo is a difficult sport to shoot, it’s only heads above the water and they’re wearing caps. Jeff notes that the EOS R1 did seem to have some trouble locking focus where Jeff wanted it. He found it would wander likely due to the camera not being able to see a body and water splashing causing the camera some confusion. Maybe Canon can add a water polo setting in future firmware.

    The conclusion in all of this? Jeff’s going to be purchasing both cameras to replace his EOS R3 and EOS R6 Mark II. Spending $10,000 of your own money on a couple of cameras really tells us Canon has a couple of winners, which we sort of expected.

    There was some stock of the EOS R5 Mark II body yesterday at B&H and Adorama, but it appears they have sold out. Adorama is listed October for availability, but it definitely won’t be that long.

    Both Adorama and B&H have stock of the EOS R5 Mark II with the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM kit.

    Jeff has a ton more thoughts on his site, including how the batteries performed and the eye AF. You can read more about the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II here.

    I’m super excited to get my hands on the EOS R1 in November and shoot some basketball and give lots of feedback on that sport, it’s my thing. I’ll also be using it on a trip through Asia in January and on safari in South Africa in the spring. I think a camera like the EOS R1 needs long term reviews and not just giving thoughts after a week of use. Those opportunities will really give me an idea of what separates the EOS R1 from the EOS R3 and I will be journaling here about it.

    Source; Jeff Cable

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    151 comments

    1. I'm trying to determine from the initial reviews if I feel like the R5mkII was a bigger than usual upgrade between versions, or just about the same. On the AF side I feel like the added tracking capability is a bigger jump than we got with say the R3 and R6mkII. Stacked sensor is a big deal, but really only kicks in in ES mode for sports and action where rolling shutter can pop up (so a big deal for some, and no deal at all for others).

      Either way seems like a lot of quality of life upgrades. I wonder how much might show up in an R6mkIII?

      I'm test driving an R3 for a weekend soccer tournament. A good test of how much I'll benefit from the stacked sensor, and how much I will or won't miss the resolution over the R5. Then I can decide on an upgrade path.

      Brian
    3. I want to see reviews by photographers in their use cases. I'm qualified to speak on basketball & wildlife. I've never considered myself a birder, but I seem to have a lot of good bird shots, so maybe that too.... I'm not qualified to speak on weddings, event, astro, landscape and other stuff.

      It's funny to see about the power switch, that is going to annoy me for a bit. What a strange thing to change. Maybe there were some situations in which the power switch is an issue with the R3 that I haven't experienced.
    4. As an astro, landscape, wildlife and bird photographer I am leaning toward the R5 II. I will wait to see what lenses come out in the next 6 months and for the price and inventory to recover from initial purchases and make my purchase then. I will still love a higher resolution R but not sure that will happen in the next few years.
    5. As an astro, landscape, wildlife and bird photographer I am leaning toward the R5 II. I will wait to see what lenses come out in the next 6 months and for the price and inventory to recover from initial purchases and make my purchase then. I will still love a higher resolution R but not sure that will happen in the next few years.

      I still get high megapixel claims, so I do feel it's coming in an R5 body. It'll have to be at least double 45mp to make sense.
    7. The thing I found most impressive, and which shows just how wrong people are in how they thing pro sport photojournalism works, is his keeper rate. He kept one out of three and a half shots. Not only is that worlds away from "spray and pray", but it is also a great keeper rate for any level of photography.

      It also means the issue of "pro sports photographers live and die on data flow and on the speed of finding the one shot out of a hundred worth keeping so they need small sensors" is totally wrong since that's a tiny number of shots taken at any one time.
    9. Get the impression that the R5 mkii is the obvious upgrade for R3 users like myself rather than the R1. I shoot freelance sports for media outlets and the R3 currently does a fantastic job for me. The only thing I'd add to its credentials is the option to shoot at higher megapixels for certain scenarios.
      The R3 stacked sensor works perfectly for me. The level of detail recoverable from shadows, even in jpeg format, is better than I ever had with any of the 1dx bodies.
      I can see me adding the R5 mkii as a replacement to my 1dx mkiii, which is my current backup to the R3, when I need the option of capturing larger format images.
    10. The thing I found most impressive, and which shows just how wrong people are in how they thing pro sport photojournalism works, is his keeper rate. He kept one out of three and a half shots. Not only is that worlds away from "spray and pray", but it is also a great keeper rate for any level of photography.

      It also means the issue of "pro sports photographers live and die on data flow and on the speed of finding the one shot out of a hundred worth keeping so they need small sensors" is totally wrong since that's a tiny number of shots taken at any one time.
    11. If anything I think it proves the point. 85,000 shots. That’s an average of 4000+ per day if he shot for 21-22 days. Sounds like a lot of data flow and editing either in-camera or later on a computer. If he’s a stringer then he’s having to do that on the fly and send his selects to an editor or client right away. If someone else sends good or better pix sooner than another photographer he/she is not going to sell his images or might not get hired again. 4000 shots per day is a LOT to chimp (edit as you go) or review later on the camera or laptop. Twice as much storage needed for larger sensors (cards and hard drives). And uploading even a fourth of those is still a ton of images, data, time. Think about it: if it took 10 seconds each to look through and narrow it down to 1000 shots ( that’s 10,000 seconds. 166 minutes. That’s 2.75 hours each day JUST spent editing them down and not including retouching or transmitting them anywhere. File size, camera processing speed, computer processing speed, etc are all important factors.
    12. I still get high megapixel claims, so I do feel it's coming in an R5 body. It'll have to be at least double 45mp to make sense.
      This is what I’d love. For a landscape shooter there’s not much in the R5 II over the R5.
    13. I'm trying to determine from the initial reviews if I feel like the R5mkII was a bigger than usual upgrade between versions, or just about the same. On the AF side I feel like the added tracking capability is a bigger jump than we got with say the R3 and R6mkII. Stacked sensor is a big deal, but really only kicks in in ES mode for sports and action where rolling shutter can pop up (so a big deal for some, and no deal at all for others).

      Based off a lot of reviews I've seen, the AF has improved better than the R6II but not dramatically, but is incredibly sticky and is really good with locating the eye or head of the subject. Plus with 14 bit on Mechanical and Electronic Shutter Modes and how much rolling shutter has been improved, Canon has a real winner here at it's price point with everything it can do/provides.

      I'm trying to determine from the initial reviews if I feel like the R5mkII was a bigger than usual upgrade between versions, or just about the same. On the AF side I feel like the added tracking capability is a bigger jump than we got with say the R3 and R6mkII. Stacked sensor is a big deal, but really only kicks in in ES mode for sports and action where rolling shutter can pop up (so a big deal for some, and no deal at all for others).

      R5ii was definitely a bigger upgrade (As technically there was never an R1, but let's be real, the R1 is a early R3ii). With all the upgrades to the sensor, i can see most people shooting in Electronic Shutter majority of the time since there will be little/no loss in majority of use cases.

      The thing I found most impressive, and which shows just how wrong people are in how they thing pro sport photojournalism works, is his keeper rate. He kept one out of three and a half shots. Not only is that worlds away from "spray and pray", but it is also a great keeper rate for any level of photography.


      ^^ One of the most under-rated comments. That keep rate for the amount of photos taken is very impressive. There's not many times where i kept about 30% of the photos taken from shooting sports. And I'm suspecting he's using pre-shooting too.
    14. If anything I think it proves the point. 85,000 shots. That’s an average of 6000+ per day if he shot for 14 days. Sounds like a lot of data flow and editing either in-camera or later on a computer. If he’s a stringer then he’s having to do that on the fly and send his selects to an editor or client right away. If someone else sends good or better pix sooner than another photographer he/she is not going to sell his images or might not get hired again. 6000 shots per day is a LOT to chimp (edit as you go) or review later on the camera or laptop. Twice as much storage needed for larger sensors (cards and hard drives). And uploading even a fourth of those is still a ton of images, data, time. Think about it: if it took 10 seconds each to look through 1500 shots (or 2.5 seconds to look through each of the 6000. Just spitballing here.) that’s 15,000 seconds. 250 minutes. That’s 4+ hours each day JUST spent editing them down and not retouching or transmitting them anywhere. File size, camera processing speed, computer processing speed, etc are all important factors.
      The number of pictures doesn't change with resolution. The difference is transmission and loading speed.

      That number of pictures breaks down to about 600 per hour or ten per minute. Sending a picture over a high-speed data line in 6 seconds isn't a problem regardless of size. The loading speed is also a trivial difference in that workflow since that means a few dozen shots of each event with the editor picking the dozen to keep.

      If the number of pictures were a "spray and pray" level where it was a "Shoot a few 100 frame bursts at top burst speed, transmit those hundreds of shots to an editor and have the editor load and select the three keepers out of the hundreds of shots of that event" thing, it would be.
    15. That keep rate for the amount of photos taken is very impressive. There's not many times where i kept about 30% of the photos taken from shooting sports.
      When I taught photography (back in the neolithic when we used a thing called "film") I used to tell my students that if they got one keeper in a 24 exposure roll that was doing well and if they got a lot more they either weren't shooting enough and were keeping the best they got because it was all they got or they weren't being sufficiently critical.

      To get a keeper rate eight times that level at the quality bar for professional work under massive time pressure shows just how good top pros are.
    16. It's funny to see about the power switch, that is going to annoy me for a bit. What a strange thing to change. Maybe there were some situations in which the power switch is an issue with the R3 that I haven't experienced.
      They changed the angle but it is the same direction.
      I think the change makes sense.
      The angle looks the same from both landscape ans portrait.
    17. This is what I’d love. For a landscape shooter there’s not much in the R5 II over the R5.
      Agree. I had an R5 and it’s a great camera. Firmware eliminated a lot of the overheating issue if video is your thing. I shoot stills.
      But I did it and got another R3. I don’t see a need to upgrade to an R1. I don’t shoot sports so the R3 is perfect for me. And at $4000 now it’s a bargain. If anyone really needs huge files there are two options. Medium format is one. I bought a Fuji GFX100. Barely use it. It’s beautiful and its images are fantastic. I just rarely NEED that much resolution. Second solution: software like Gigapixel AI. If for some reason 24MP’s just isn’t enough (hardly ever) I can run an image through Topaz and double the size (or more. Up to 6X). So my 24MP R3 can be a 48MP resolution producer for a couple hundred bucks more and it does an incredible job. Once I used that software I stopped chasing the big sensor game. The R3 is more than enough for 95% of photographers IMHO. Now that Fuji has the new GFX 100S Mark II, take that $4000+ you would spend on an R5 Mark II and apply it towards a 100MP medium format sensor that REALLY shows a difference in a package that’s not much larger. Granted, that means buying new lenses, too. But you wouldn’t regret it IF you really need that much resolution or IF Gigapixel somehow didn’t work wonders.
    18. It's funny to see about the power switch, that is going to annoy me for a bit. What a strange thing to change.
      That's the kind of change to UX that you don't change without a compelling reason and once you change it, the change becomes permanent across the line.

      I can't imagine what was compelling enough to change it but there clearly had to be one. I would expect that power switch direction to be "the new normal" for every new body for decades.
    19. They changed the angle but it is the same direction.
      I think the change makes sense.
      The angle looks the same from both landscape ans portrait.

      It'll just take getting used to, Jeff said it took a couple of days. I changed that paragraph a bit.. "angle" is a better word.... no coffee brain writing that.

      That's the kind of change to UX that you don't change without a compelling reason and once you change it, the change becomes permanent across the line.

      I can't imagine what was compelling enough to change it but there clearly had to be one. I would expect that power switch direction to be "the new normal" for every new body for decades.

      Everything is for a reason on the 1 series. Who knows, maybe I'll prefer it and not even know it.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment