8fps on a Nikon F5 was such a BIG deal back then ...

I use the A7iv for sports at 6 FPS because AF is not able to deliver at higher frame rates. I'd love 15 FPS, not sure to use 20 if available.

Yes, except for the extremely rare situations. A baseball player is at 599 home runs, for example, and having the image of the 600th home run ball on the bat. But for other sports, like tennis, the ball is in contact with the racket long enough for 1/30 to get the job done.

Honestly, I still feel great shooting a 1DX series camera (I've shot both original and Mark II) with 12 and 14 fps. I have never missed a shot that I wanted having those numbers.

Sports Illustrated used Hulcher cameras for high speed film cameras. I can see using a high frame rate for Track & Field, and Skiing. Even soccer and football can become a high speed sport.

And it was listed the R1 having a APC-S senor on the Adorama site, that was the hint for me it was invalid information. Adorama already taken it down. So I'm not putting any value on what's being leaked.😅

@@jhenry248Who made them take it down?

@@bngr_bngr I have no idea

@@bngr_bngr Probably Canon because specs have not been released by them yet. I'm sure that put them on Canons bad side for a while.

I thought Tony said at 1m 14s that the specs were leaked by Petapixel, why are you saying Adorama? Do they own Petapixel?

I heard the R3 was supposed to be the R1 but after Sony dropped their flagship they went back to the drawing board

Same. Not sure how it could be the "master of all", when it has a lot less MP than Sony's A1.

@@OhhhBugger totally agreed, master of nothing frankly. The high DR is good, but the MP is disappointing, matches my Canon from 2016... sad.

Yeah agreed… but the specs are not confirmed… it’s just rumours for now.

@@Reportageandart Not so sure about that....

I suspect they're accurate. Particularly since I suspected a minor advancement over current cameras.

😂

😂😂

😂😂😂

Doubt it will be $800 anytime soon. They (Canon, Sony, and Nikon) are good at not cannibalizing their product line up. The R1 will be $6,500 easy and the R3 may see a $500 drop overall. There is enough separation in price right now to warrant $3500 for a used R3.

@@sn4rl277 I saw last week a r3 on eBay in a mint condition for £2,900

Not even close.

True. But this is an Olympic games year. And the manufacturers want top of the line cameras for the Summer games and they usually bring out bodies that are designed for the Olympic games.

That's more of what I was expecting. SLR fight back against the cell phone cameras. Doesn't' look like we got any of that.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head. We're getting to the point that phones are at now. I would've been fine with a Z9 or A1 copy which looks like that's what the r5ii is. I could buy this camera, and I don't even want it because I don't need 240fps. I already had a r3 and 30fps was plenty. I'd rather have improvements like what you mentioned. We're basically plateauing in tech right now to the point of "yeah these are cool spec bumps, but nobody actually needs this speed" like I don't even think bird photographers or sports photographers need 120 or 240fps lol.

Translate: The problem is not the camera, the problem is that the famous Tony thinks he knows about photography, lighting, and video. But he is just a smoke seller.

I noticed that too. Maybe those specs didn't leak?

All cameras today are hybrids (or should be). You can run, but you cannot hide.

Wrong Specs tho...

The specs they posted are wrong tho!

R3 also does not have pre-release! R6 mark II and maybe R8? But youre right, the Canon system is very clunky

Right? Hahaha i want a beautiful picture... not like sony a9iii lousy picture output due to lousy DR and low light

The A9iii takes beautiful pictures for me. I have no complaints about the image quality @@mbismbismb

Why would canon want to spill the tea to the competitors? Hahaha the a9iii dont even spill it until the release date but anyway that camera is lousy ... lousy DR, low light performance hahaha

@@mbismbismb They're the last ones to the show. What are they hiding from? Regardless, Specs are deceptive because if it doesnt work well they mean nothing anyway. Hope it does because more competition is always better for us.

I am looking for an "R" replacement over the next 6 months... problem is that the R8 has horrible reviews for battery life. I regularly do night time lapse work - so we're talking colder temps and 2 hours/600 shots... Is the R8 realistically going to be reliable for such work? I have looked at solutions such as off brand battery grips that hold 2 batteries = hit/miss... Thoughts?

@@07wrxtr1 It definitely goes through batteriies. I have an SL3 so I have 5 batteries and it uses the same ones. I use the Artman brand for non-Canon brands. The R8 can also work with a PD with USB-C.

​@@07wrxtr1just put a dummy and use a Sony npf type or a gold/v mount type battery..

Not spelling though

@@nicksmall428 Says who?

Have you tried the SONY A9III together with the SONY HVL-F60RM2 flashes. You can shoot at up to 120fps (Hi+), 1/16000, f/1.8, ISO 250 without any problem. Perfect timing, perfect focus and WB. You can freeze any action. It is currently the cheapest high speed, high fps flash combo on the market. I use 3 flashes, all wireless controlled. And best of all, you can do it now.

sports is where canon targets, as these are highly professional field and they dont need ton of megapixel. wildlife and landscape photographers are mostly doing for themselves. 30fps is NOT good for me in this era. usable but not great.

Agreed. I am a birder and is clear in my mind now that this is probably a good time to migrate away from Canon. They just don't have the goods. I would argue for birding Sony has the best body with the A1 while Nikon has the best selection of reasonably priced lenses.

I can think of only a few situations where the A1 or Z9 struggle, including professional sports.

Yes, I agree. I have both, the A9III and A1. Except for the higher resolution, and DR below ISO 1000, the A9III is the better camera. Above ISO 1000, they are on and even slightly better than the Z8/Z9. In practice, it is irrelevant. There is simply no media to show more than 10 stops of DR.

@@renestaempfli1071 The most important sentence: "In practice, it is irrelevant." Thank you!

Yes you can even go higher and use up scaling on a 12Mpx camera. I do that often on my Canon Pro 1000.

Not the point bub. This camera was suppose to be revolutionary. Besides, one good print out of 100 doesn't make for anything to write home about.

That caught my eye as well... would love to see pre-release capture added to my R3!

They may have decided that 80-100 mp sensors are poorly suited for full-frame, so those are left to the 'medium format' sensors in the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X series cameras.

They went this route to maintain their pro sports photographers, who were already jumping ship to other brands. Which is also why they put out this announcement so much earlier than they normally would I think.

Uh. Fuji 100s

@@hautehusseyI doubt most professionals are going to dump all their lenses and cameras then take a financial loss to try out a new system.

The R5 is not better the the 90D you resolution is like the 80D 6000x4000. The 90D has more battery life and does 4k clean -1.6 crop, which can be worked with. I shoot with two batteries so I know your R5 gone to die first lol. Rip r5

yeah R5ii is looking like the more interesting camera for a lot of people even some working professionals I know. All the professionals I know are all saying the same thing "I don't need 120fps I need more resolution" lol

They could instead tidy up their messy menusystem. It's total garbage

At this point, cameras have reached their ceiling. Dynamic range will be the only thing left to improve.

@@Camera64video the Japanese mentality has its advantages and disadvantages... They are beating on a fine horse, but they are stuck in the 2000s...

@@Keyboardwarrior42 No it's not. Only for the clueless.

I saw that too and then watched all the KZfaq videos saying we don’t have any specs and I was really confused 😅

@@987dcm I’m pretty sure someone on Adoramas team made a mistake and didn’t mean to post them

That camera was a game changer because it leap-frogged MP... 12 to 20. The 1 series kept it close with around 18mp so at least they were similar. Now the 5 series is still the high MP, but the 1 series is so far behind it's embarrassing. I'm an art photographer and let me tell you, I DO need the high MP. I'm printing 30" x 40" or larger prints and 30mp shows vs 60 or 100 or even 45. If you crop even a little bit you're loosing a HUGE amount of detail as well. On top of that the higher ISO kills sharpness so the higher MP can make up for that. They used to have a 1 and a 1s where the s was a higher MP. They need to bring that back, I want the vertical grip, higher weather sealing and durability of the 1 series, but with high MP for my printing. I'm so disappointed in these specs... total bummer. I'm already switching, the other camera manufactures figured it out 2+ years ago with better specs, embarrassing for Canon.

@@ProfessorStone The R1, and all the pro body 1D camera is, and were designed for photojournalists and sports photographers, not "art photograpers" or individuals who require high MP files.

Its already possible with the last 1d, r3 and r5, so will definitely be possible with the R1

There is nothing revolutionary here. Simply a mere step to the nest level.

Interesting take. (I'm not an r3 user nor making a living from photography)

Where does it say 16 stops?

@@hautehussey It was in the first announcement. DGO 16 stops.

Totally agree

As it was a decade ago.

@@krane15 What's wrong with a decade old camera?

@@sn4rl277 it's a fine camera, but it's decade old specs. People that talk about "megapixel sweet spots" are the reason why Canon doesn't bother trying to match or give something similar to the Z9 and A1. Literally nobody was asking for 120 or 240fps. People just wanted a Z9 or A1 copy from Canon. It's so strange to me seeing these comments from people who are like "well the 1 line was always about speed and low megapixels" and you know what also was speed and low megapixels? The Sony A9 which was 24mp and the Nikon D6 which was 20mp. The Sony A1 replaced the Z9 and proved it was possible to have resolution and speed, and Nikon buys their sensors from Sony so they also have resolution and speed. Canon's marketing has also contradicted themselves too saying that "professionals don't want more resolution" meanwhile every working professional and wildlife photographer is jumping systems or complaining to Canon that they have to use a R5 for it, but want the R3 speed. People just wanted a 50mp 30-40 fps flagship from Canon and they were gonna be happy. The workflow for 120-240fps is going to be disastrous lol. It doesnt' even make sense. Canon said that they wanted the lower megapixels so they could publish photos quickly... but then are going to give them even more photos than is already a pain to go through. Like it doesn't even make sense from a workflow perspective. Like I was saying originally though like 20mp was fine a decade ago but seeing people defend and say "you can get good photos on 20mp because national geographic was using 1dx's to take the photos" is true, but also why purposely handicap your creativity by old specs? It doesn't make sense. You can have speed and resolution now why handicap yourself with bad specs.

There must be a million dentist out there to prop up an entire industry.

Ben-Q

That might have been a mistake.

@@UnconventionalReasoning maybe. But it was in two places. Something to think about.

@@JohnDrummondPhoto Two places and two *independent places are different. Okay, I thought about it. And discarded it as very unlikely.

Several people claim that the specs posted by Adorama were previously on Canon rumors, so all this is likely still speculation

Inflation forcing him to revert to cell phone camera!

In the days of photographic film Kodak Instamatic was the gold standard... 😊

Lol you can certainly do billboards with 30mp my friend.

@@rumporridge1 When you put it that way you can do it with 20mp. Thing is, retro specs is not the point.

@@krane15 finally someone that's smart. I dont' know why these people defend mp standards of the pass with technological improvements. Yeah you could go make a billboard with 5mp. Doesn't mean it's going to look good though lol.

Don't let common sens and logic get in the way of marketing.

The 5D mk4 would actually be better. AF points not on the sensor.

I loved my 5Dmk4 the only down side, I have a lot of fast primes. It was so hard to shoot at 1.2 and be perfectly focused. I shoot quickly and I find the R5 and R3 plus being mirrorless is a game changer for me. All depends on what you are photographing. But if you have the 5Dmk4 Its still a great camera.

The advantage of the R1 over the 5D cameras would be the RF lenses.

I moved to the R5 from the 5DIV specifically because 1, the autofocus is much better and 2, the added pixels are wonderful because it seems that birds never want to be close enough to fill the frame, even at 600mm. So cropping is much better with the R5. As far as prints go, all things being equal, there will be little difference. I used to print my stuff at home and sell them. The largest I printed were a couple of 17X35 (odd size requested by the customer using an Epson P800) but most of my prints were 16X24 and the two camera results in print form were pretty much indistinguishable.

tbh, specs are one thing, hands on is another

I do think the new autofocus is the main difference maker among all these impressive cameras. It’s about getting the highest chance for optimal focus in the frames you need.

@@noctwice right

@@truthseeker6804 What is inadequate about the AF in the current cameras being discussed?

That's why I use a grip. Yea, it adds weight, but that's no concern for me.

@@DavidPavlich the frame rate still drops when the grip batteries fall below 60%.....

I didn't know that. Mostly because my son always takes my R5 when we go shooting, leaving me with the R7. But now that I've gotten him his own R5 C I'll be able to test it!

@@christophercarl8039 Maybe so, but I've never had that happen, so for me, there is no 60% problem. Further, I've been in the woods shooting wildlife in -20C weather and the frame rate was fine. YMMV.

Maybe the R5 Mk2 will not have this 60% limitation. We shall see in the next 2-3 weeks. I also expect the R5 Mk2 AF to be as good as if not better than the R3 because it is a faster stacked sensor than the R3.

Yes, I noticed this and was wondering if I'd missed something on my R3's. Must be an error.

@@smurgy99 - Pretty common mistake, to be expected in videos where they don't actually own or use the cameras they're talking about. I really hope Canon does a firmware update for the R3 to enable this though. Sad that the R6 Mk2 has it, but not the R3.

So that hardly means the specs are not true. If they stated that, maybe that would be more believable. So clearly by just admitting they got the Specs from somewhere is almost proving them to be the most likely what we shall see.