R1 or R5ii - not always a case of 'if you need an R1 you know it'

M

mmmm

Aug 11, 2024
83
76
#1
Hello!

I'm new here, so I hope I have properly adhered to the forum regs.

I have been a photographer all of my life, since my first polaroid was given to me as a kid in the 80's. I have been around the block with film, and been shooting digital since the 5dii.

I'm professional, my living is solely earnt from photography. I shoot portraits generally, normally on location and almost never in a studio. The locations are within a large city, and my clients range from models to romance shoots (surprise proposals etc), family shoots, musicians. I do occasional weddings but its only about 5 a year as that is not my focus.

The pace tends to be fast, and I have to snipe shoots in and out of traffic or tourists on occasion. Its not a case of a fully controlled environment and a sitting portrait, rather a candid journalistic type affair.

Currently I use 2 5div's and a mixture of 70-200/2.8, 50/1.2, 16-35/2.8, 100/2.8.

To keep up with my competition I think the move to mirrorless is about to become necessary - plus my cameras take a beating and although still work perfectly, are superficially falling apart!

The thing is: I dont really know much or understand cameras from a technical point of view. I'm not remotely technical in fact. I have never had a 1 series camera, because I have always been very happy with my 5d's. BUT, looking at the specs of the R1 v the R5ii the things that appeal to me a great deal are distinctly better on the R1. I need the best low light ability I can get, speed is important and so is a large buffer. The caveat may be the resolution. I crop a bit, but its for framing really, rarely to zoom, but everyone is losing their sh*t on the 'low' mp count, and its loss of detail.

I shoot portraits - more important is a classic creamy look, not all the imperfections of a human face amplified (to the view of the client).

So I think I need an R1 - but 'the internet' and other sources tell me I dont because I'm not sports photographer and 24mp is the worst thing in the world.

Can anyone offer me some words of wisdom?

Thanks! M
 
#2
Just an avid amateur here, so take this as you will. I own both the R5 and 5DIV. Both great cameras. The primary difference is in AF, EVF, and FPS, in my opinion. In terms of IQ, personally I find them very similar.
  • AF. First, you can use almost the entire sensor to AF. In terms of mode, if you are using expanded point AF, zone or point AF, they are probably more similar than different. Where they become massively different is when using subject/face/eye detect mode in the R5. "Game changer" is overused, but applies here. The R5 does an amazing job of picking the subject, then the subject's head/face, and then the eye. For birds in flight, I sometimes am not even looking through the viewfinder, but rather I have a red-dot sight that I train on the bird. It allows me to better track erratic movements. The R5 finds the birds head/eye the majority of the time. For street photography, I can imagine this would be amazing.
  • EVF. There is the whole EVF vs OVF, I will say I prefer the experience of OVFs but love all the data I get through an EVF, things like histogram and level are probably my favorites.
  • FPS...I really like the 8/12 fps options. It doesn't seem like much over 7, but it sure feels like it. Then 20 fps with the electronic shutter is simply dangerous.
  • Ergonomics. I'll add this. I love the feel of the R5 and how programable the buttons are. I've dialed it in where it is difficult to hand my R5 to someone else to say, take a group photo. But for me, dialed in and muscle memory at this point. I have 3 different AF modes depending on which button I press.
I go into this detail as the R5 II is even more advanced than the R5. That said, I am really on the fence as to how much better the R5 II is over the R5. If I was a working pro, I would actually consider picking up an R5 and save ~$2k per body. Or, you could pick up an R5 and an R1. Honestly, your description can also be met by something like the R6 II.

A very over simplified summary of options at least in the mind of this amateur:
  • R1: highest FPS (but R5 II is barely noticeably lower), best build quality, best battery life, may have some magic in IQ, best AF system, and will have a bit of gravitas with clients if that matters. Cons, size, weight and maybe 24 MP (but I have large prints from the 5DIII on my wall...so, is it a con???)
  • R3: Just below or the same as the R1 in most categories.
  • R5 II: highest resolution, great size/weight, and just below the R1 in most categories in terms of performance.
  • R5: highest resolution, great size/weight, and the same or just below the R5 II in most categories in terms of performance.
  • R6 II: Least expensive, ergonomics is not as good as R5, but basically many of the same features but at 24 MP.
My main point here is to introduce the half to one generation old bodies which are still excellent performers.

As a case in point as to how fluid pros are between these models, Vanessa Joy, Canon Explorer of Light and primarily a wedding photographer, when from R5 for everything to R5 when better light paired with R3 for lower light at receptions to mixing in the R6 II. That is just one example. I have seen others do similar.

All very high performing cameras. But still tools to be picked depending on what you need.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#3
To make the decision a bit more tangible, you could rent an R3 and R5 to see how you like the formfactors, resolution and low light performance.
Those are very close to what you’d get in the R1 and R5II, but available to try right now :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#4
docsmith said:
Just an avid amateur here, so take this as you will. I own both the R5 and 5DIV. Both great cameras. The primary difference is in AF, EVF, and FPS, in my opinion. In terms of IQ, personally I find them very similar.
  • AF. First, you can use almost the entire sensor to AF. In terms of mode, if you are using expanded point AF, zone or point AF, they are probably more similar than different. Where they become massively different is when using subject/face/eye detect mode in the R5. "Game changer" is overused, but applies here. The R5 does an amazing job of picking the subject, then the subject's head/face, and then the eye. For birds in flight, I sometimes am not even looking through the viewfinder, but rather I have a red-dot sight that I train on the bird. It allows me to better track erratic movements. The R5 finds the birds head/eye the majority of the time. For street photography, I can imagine this would be amazing.
  • EVF. There is the whole EVF vs OVF, I will say I prefer the experience of OVFs but love all the data I get through an EVF, things like histogram and level are probably my favorites.
  • FPS...I really like the 8/12 fps options. It doesn't seem like much over 7, but it sure feels like it. Then 20 fps with the electronic shutter is simply dangerous.
  • Ergonomics. I'll add this. I love the feel of the R5 and how programable the buttons are. I've dialed it in where it is difficult to hand my R5 to someone else to say, take a group photo. But for me, dialed in and muscle memory at this point. I have 3 different AF modes depending on which button I press.
I go into this detail as the R5 II is even more advanced than the R5. That said, I am really on the fence as to how much better the R5 II is over the R5. If I was a working pro, I would actually consider picking up an R5 and save ~$2k per body. Or, you could pick up an R5 and an R1. Honestly, your description can also be met by something like the R6 II.

A very over simplified summary of options at least in the mind of this amateur:
  • R1: highest FPS (but R5 II is barely noticeably lower), best build quality, best battery life, may have some magic in IQ, best AF system, and will have a bit of gravitas with clients if that matters. Cons, size, weight and maybe 24 MP (but I have large prints from the 5DIII on my wall...so, is it a con???)
  • R3: Just below or the same as the R1 in most categories.
  • R5 II: highest resolution, great size/weight, and just below the R1 in most categories in terms of performance.
  • R5: highest resolution, great size/weight, and the same or just below the R5 II in most categories in terms of performance.
  • R6 II: Least expensive, ergonomics is not as good as R5, but basically many of the same features but at 24 MP.
My main point here is to introduce the half to one generation old bodies which are still excellent performers.

As a case in point as to how fluid pros are between these models, Vanessa Joy, Canon Explorer of Light and primarily a wedding photographer, when from R5 for everything to R5 when better light paired with R3 for lower light at receptions to mixing in the R6 II. That is just one example. I have seen others do similar.

All very high performing cameras. But still tools to be picked depending on what you need.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Plenty to think about there. What are your thoughts on 24 v 48 mp? I think thats my biggest bugbear. Everything about the R1 screams buy me to me, except that part. But I can't decide if its a benefit or a drawback, in either direction. Seemingly worse due to lower resolution, some argue better due to larger pixel size.
 
Upvote 0
#6
mmmm said:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Plenty to think about there. What are your thoughts on 24 v 48 mp? I think thats my biggest bugbear. Everything about the R1 screams buy me to me, except that part. But I can't decide if its a benefit or a drawback, in either direction. Seemingly worse due to lower resolution, some argue better due to larger pixel size.
Click to expand...
NP.

No perfect answer here. I had been hoping for 30-35 MPs. But I do think MPs gets overblown. A couple reasons:
  1. I still have images taken with my 18 MP 7D and 22 MP 5D III on my wall. Many are crops that I later enlarged to 24x16 inches. My wife's favorite frame picture is 24x16 and was cropped to 4728 x 3152 or 14.9 MPs. 4728/24 = 197 ppi and I have no issues even looking at that picture up close. So, what is your typical output size? What is the largest output you have had in the last 5 yrs?
  2. MP counts are for an area, yet resolution is linear. Doing the math, the R1 is 6000 x 4000 and the R5 II is 8192 x 5464. 8192 / 6000 = 1.365. So, while you are processing and storing 45/24 = 1.875x larger files, you are actually only getting 36.5% more resolving power. Math...it does crazy things.
While it is easy to get caught up in the megapixel war...I really get why Canon has settled in on 24 MP (R1, R3, R6 II, R8, R10, R50, and R100) as a nice sized sensor. Only the R5 and R7 have higher MP counts.

BTW, I like Koenkooi's idea of renting an R3 or R5. Get some first hand experience.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#7
docsmith said:
NP.

No perfect answer here. I had been hoping for 30-35 MPs. But I do think MPs gets overblown. A couple reasons:
  1. I still have images taken with my 18 MP 7D and 22 MP 5D III on my wall. Many are crops that I later enlarged to 24x16 inches. My wife's favorite frame picture is 24x16 and was cropped to 4728 x 3152 or 14.9 MPs. 4728/24 = 197 ppi and I have no issues even looking at that picture up close. So, what is your typical output size? What is the largest output you have had in the last 5 yrs?
  2. MP counts are for an area, yet resolution is linear. Doing the math, the R1 is 6000 x 4000 and the R5 II is 8192 x 5464. 8192 / 6000 = 1.365. So, while you are processing and storing 45/24 = 1.875x larger files, you are actually only getting 36.5% more resolving power. Math...it does crazy things.
I am tempted to get caught up in the megapixel war...I really get why Canon has settled in on 24 MP (R1, R3, R6, R8, R10, R50, and R100) as a nice sized sensor. Only the R5 and R7 have higher MP counts.

BTW, I like Koenkooi's idea of renting an R3 or R5. Get some first hand experience.
Click to expand...
Well my recent gear going back to 10 years I suppose) has been 5diii and 5div, one is less than 24 at 22ish and the other is a bit more at 30ish. (I don't really remember the precise numbers off the top of my head, which probabky says more than anything else on the matter!)

Even when I was shooting with mkii that was something like 18mp. Not one of my clients have ever said anything negative about resolution. My own prints (up to a1 printed at home) also dont really seem to look like they lack anything. Perhaps they would in comparison to 48mp?

I really think I may have answered my own question, but I'm worried about buying cameras for the next 4/5 years and slipping up by not buying enough resolution. That said the stumbling blocks are, with my style and how I shoot technique wise, the times I tend to shoot, and the places I shoot in; have been, low light issues, a little trouble with auto focus (speed really), buffer and slow down issues. I have never seen the resolution be one of those stumbling blocks, but it may be a case that I just may not have experienced an 'amazing' higher resolution before.

I have a rather artistic style and I have never gone for pixel perfect perfection, though I dont shy away from it when I feel its necessary - I prefer a natural photographic look. I can't explain it, particularly, but like when you watch certain 4k content and its so precise that to me it looks 'too realistic' and its missing something. I'm worried about that happening to my style if I basically double my sensor resolution.

Waffling now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#8
mmmm said:
Well my recent gear going back to 10 years I suppose) has been 5diii and 5div, one is less than 24 at 22ish and the other is a bit more at 30ish. (I don't really remember the precise numbers off the top of my head, which probabky says more than anything else on the matter!)

Even when I was shooting with mkii that was something like 18mp. Not one of my clients have ever said anything negative about resolution. My own prints (up to a1 printed at home) also dont really seem to look like they lack anything. Perhaps they would in comparison to 48mp?

I really think I may have answered my own question, but I'm worried about buying cameras for the next 4/5 years and slipping up by not buying enough resolution. That said the stumbling blocks are, with my style and how I shoot technique wise, the times I tend to shoot, and the places I shoot in; have been, low light issues, a little trouble with auto focus (speed really), buffer and slow down issues. I have never seen the resolution be one of those stumbling blocks, but it may be a case that I just may not have experienced an 'amazing' higher resolution before.

I have a rather artistic style and I have never gone for pixel perfect perfection, though I dont shy away from it when I feel its necessary - I prefer a natural photographic look. I can't explain it, particularly, but like when you watch certain 4k content and its so precise that to me it looks 'too realistic' and its missing something. I'm worried about that happening to my style if I basically double my sensor resolution.

Waffling now.
Click to expand...
I have 20*30 inch prints of 16 MP (1D Mk IV) and 22MP (7D Mk II) and no-one has complained about image quality. I have found that with large prints 120-140 dpi is enough resolution. The viewing distance is larger because of the size of the prints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#10
One thing to remember is that the R1 is larger and heavier than the R5. This can be a minus if you are hand holding the camera all day. Most of your lenses are not huge so from a weight perspective a R5 Mk2 could be a good choice. Definitely rent a R5 and R3 to try out. Remember you can always downsample a R5 image to lower resolution to reduce noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
john1970 said:
One thing to remember is that the R1 is larger and heavier than the R5. This can be a minus if you are hand holding the camera all day. Most of your lenses are not huge so from a weight perspective a R5 Mk2 could be a good choice. Definitely rent a R5 and R3 to try out. Remember you can always downsample a R5 image to lower resolution to reduce noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks, yeah I gather there is a large weight and size difference. Especially as I dont add a grip to my current cameras. But I think I'll manage that difference, I like the idea of dual grip and I really really like the idea of more buttons to customise.

I'm going to rent and see what I prefer. I'm really on the side of the r1 at the moment. It's the speed of it thats attracting me. Potentially r3's even, if the wait for the r1 turns out to be close to a year or something.
 
Upvote 0
#12
mmmm said:
Thanks, yeah I gather there is a large weight and size difference. Especially as I dont add a grip to my current cameras. But I think I'll manage that difference, I like the idea of dual grip and I really really like the idea of more buttons to customise.

I'm going to rent and see what I prefer. I'm really on the side of the r1 at the moment. It's the speed of it thats attracting me. Potentially r3's even, if the wait for the r1 turns out to be close to a year or something.
Click to expand...
If choosing between the R3 and R1 I would go with the R1 if your finances allow for it. You mentioned in your original post that a large buffer is important. If that is the case the R1 has the largest buffer in the Canon R ecosystem. You can also use CRAW instead of RAW to improve buffer performance (depth) but I always prefer to shoot in RAW so I know that I retain all the details in shadows and highlights.

Lastly you might consider preordering a R1 today to ensure you would not have to wait a year for stock. If you live in the United States you can always cancel your preorder at any major retailer like B&H up to the day or two before the announcement. Also R1 is a bit heavier than the R3.

Good luck
 
Upvote 0
#13
john1970 said:
If choosing between the R3 and R1 I would go with the R1 if your finances allow for it. You mentioned in your original post that a large buffer is important. If that is the case the R1 has the largest buffer in the Canon R ecosystem. You can also use CRAW instead of RAW to improve buffer performance (depth) but I always prefer to shoot in RAW so I know that I retain all the details in shadows and highlights.

Lastly you might consider preordering a R1 today to ensure you would not have to wait a year for stock. If you live in the United States you can always cancel your preorder at any major retailer like B&H up to the day or two before the announcement. Also R1 is a bit heavier than the R3.

Good luck
Click to expand...
I don't live in the US, but I should still do as you advise.

The other thing to consider is cost. It does pay for itself so its definitely not my primary concern, but I could buy a couple of r3's for only a touch more than a single r1. I do need to consider lens adapters and potentially switching my current lenses for rf equivalent's.

Obviously the r1 is Canons bleeding edge tech, but from what I gather the r3 isn't by any means a slouch today either. I wonder how it compares to the r5ii speed wise with focussing etc. Obviously it has very little buffer in comparison. On the other hand if its close enough speed wise, then I could get two and a few rf lens replacements for the same price as a single r1.

Either way I'm sure any of either the r1 , r3 or r5ii - all will wipe the floor with my 5div's for speed, focus accuracy and buffer limits. I suppose in that order too.

I feel like I'm getting bogged down with minute technical advances, none of which I understand really.
 
Upvote 0
#14
mmmm said:
I feel like I'm getting bogged down with minute technical advances, none of which I understand really.
Click to expand...
So, did you do anything about this or not yet? I just got the R1 and an R52. I briefly had the R3 and an R5. Knowing these were finally coming, I sold those several months ago.

My first dslr was the 1Ds and then I had each 1Ds2 and mark 3. My work is more about image quality than features so while I LOVED the full size "pro" body design, I switched to 5D line as the Mp grew with the last one being of course the 5DsR which I still have as a back-up/2nd tripod body.

So my answer to your post question, which is simply, "R1 or R52?", my simple answer is yes ;-) LOL
I say this because they are different. You mention "low light" but that must mean hand held or else it would be mostly irrelevant. Low light in what scenario? What lenses? etc. The lovely RF 28-70/2 is fun for low light or the now crazy bright choices with IS can go very low on shutter speed vs the 5D4.

Then there's the IBIS that you have not had as a helper and it's amazing for low shutter speed. IBIS is the biggest help for wider lenses and body IS is the most help for long lenses but when combined it's like magic.

Both cameras have IBIS. Isn't the goal to be at a proper iso like 400 or better than relying on "better noise at high iso for low light" ? Fast lenses are better than magical iso in my opinion but IBIS changed that a lot.

Mp... I love me some Mp. I started my career on 4x5 and drum scans for commercial work. It took a very long time for digital to even compete with the end results and at a point it was actually the work-flow of dslr that won over resolution at first. "getting the shot vs not getting the higher resolution shot" is a thing sometimes.

I've seen 30x40 prints from 16 and 20 Mp so in reality, 24 Mp is plenty for most things even commercially. If I had a client who was planning on wall size imagery, which I have before, then I'd be using my 100Mp Fuji GFX 100II anyway which is next to never used without a tripod.

If I want to take book quality shots of my cats, well it depends but probably I'd grab the faster to work with pro body even if it were a 1Dx3 which I also had for a while and loved. ....Ah, the last dslr....

Oh, hey, dual CFE cards in the R1 but still goofy CFE/SD in the R52. So silly of them. Also, I HATE bolt-on battery grips, hat them, have had them and this time wouldn't use on if you gave it to me, I'd sell it. The experience of having the pro body shape for hours really works for me.
 
Upvote 0
#15
JWest said:
So, did you do anything about this or not yet? I just got the R1 and an R52. I briefly had the R3 and an R5. Knowing these were finally coming, I sold those several months ago.

My first dslr was the 1Ds and then I had each 1Ds2 and mark 3. My work is more about image quality than features so while I LOVED the full size "pro" body design, I switched to 5D line as the Mp grew with the last one being of course the 5DsR which I still have as a back-up/2nd tripod body.

So my answer to your post question, which is simply, "R1 or R52?", my simple answer is yes ;-) LOL
I say this because they are different. You mention "low light" but that must mean hand held or else it would be mostly irrelevant. Low light in what scenario? What lenses? etc. The lovely RF 28-70/2 is fun for low light or the now crazy bright choices with IS can go very low on shutter speed vs the 5D4.

Then there's the IBIS that you have not had as a helper and it's amazing for low shutter speed. IBIS is the biggest help for wider lenses and body IS is the most help for long lenses but when combined it's like magic.

Both cameras have IBIS. Isn't the goal to be at a proper iso like 400 or better than relying on "better noise at high iso for low light" ? Fast lenses are better than magical iso in my opinion but IBIS changed that a lot.

Mp... I love me some Mp. I started my career on 4x5 and drum scans for commercial work. It took a very long time for digital to even compete with the end results and at a point it was actually the work-flow of dslr that won over resolution at first. "getting the shot vs not getting the higher resolution shot" is a thing sometimes.

I've seen 30x40 prints from 16 and 20 Mp so in reality, 24 Mp is plenty for most things even commercially. If I had a client who was planning on wall size imagery, which I have before, then I'd be using my 100Mp Fuji GFX 100II anyway which is next to never used without a tripod.

If I want to take book quality shots of my cats, well it depends but probably I'd grab the faster to work with pro body even if it were a 1Dx3 which I also had for a while and loved. ....Ah, the last dslr....

Oh, hey, dual CFE cards in the R1 but still goofy CFE/SD in the R52. So silly of them. Also, I HATE bolt-on battery grips, hat them, have had them and this time wouldn't use on if you gave it to me, I'd sell it. The experience of having the pro body shape for hours really works for me.
Click to expand...
I know they’re different, it’s kind of why I’m asking the question. I have never had a 1 series camera, but actually most of the things I feel like I’m missing (better low light, bigger buffer, and as fast as possible), could be solved with one.
I mention that, along with which lenses I tend to favour in the OP.
I mention low light because I shoot really a lot very early in the morning, very late in the evenings and in low lit buildings on occasion - I mentioned what I shoot and where in the OP also, so yes, handheld. Don’t know many people that shoot fast paced portraits with a tripod!

My work is also about image quality - I assume everyone’s is. But MP doesn’t always equal IQ, which is part of why I’m stuck in deciding. I mean - a jump from the 5d4 to the r1 is a massive jump, we’ll all agree, but it’s less MP in fact. So jumping from the 5d4 to the r52 will be a massive jump, but also a lot more MP. Now from this, I cannot deduce that the r1 is going to be in any way, shape or form be worse IQ than the 5d4, even though looking at MP suggests it. So I cant now warrant the jump in MP to the r52 be the be all and end all.

So thats the crux for me. And no, I still haven’t decided but I’m leaning towards th r1 massively. It seems to fix the few drawbacks I had the the 5d4, bigger buffer, faster, better low light. All the rest is just a bonus.
 
Upvote 0
#17
mmmm said:
Just ordered an R1 today. Found the deal of the century on Panamoz. Whoop. I’m excited.
Click to expand...
Hey, sorry about the messy reply to you previously. I've been out with my R1 several times now and meant to point out that, for me anyway, one of the cool things about the pro body layout is several of the extra buttons for direct access to things. The half size bodies just don't have this degree of fast access workflow. Also the touch controller is dual press if desired like the shutter button. The still/video switch is more intuitively places and has the start/stop within it which just works better for me.

Maybe in part it's because most of my hand-held shooting was always on 1Ds or 1Dx bodies and the 5D bodies were pretty much always on a tripod using only iso 100, f11, and time for stills.

I've been mostly using the R1 with an EF 200-400/4 and sometimes with an additional EXT1.4/III. The ibis is very good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
R1. I got one!
Replies
35
Views
958
mmmm
M
P
R1 Overheating issues
Replies
9
Views
1K
Beta1961
B
werunhsv
R1 Overheating!
Replies
18
Views
868
Ryrock77
R
docsmith
R1 Reviews
Replies
146
Views
9K
SvO2
S
docsmith
EOS R1 Image Thread
Replies
2
Views
607
docsmith
docsmith
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu