The Canon R1 is a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT

MISTAKE: The Sony a9 III does have a flip screen so that's not an advantage for the Canon. I was thinking of my Sony a1.

Tony, no matter how boring the cameras get, please promise us that you'll never stop ripping off the glasses and yelling BREAKING NEWS!

I was certain that the R3 was meant to be the R1 until Canon learned of the A1 and Z9 high res sensors, and the R1 was going to have at least a 45 mp sensor. Now I'm just confused.

Watched a professional sports photographer for F1 whose using R3s, his feeling is that the R1 is going in the right direction and can't wait to get a pair of them.

Everyone when Canon releases a camera: "Oh wow, crippled, too expensive, disappointing." Everyone a year or two later: "Actually the Canon is my favorite to use."

The A9III does have a flippy screen but can tilt up or down when not flipped out (Same as the A7R5).

In my mind, R1 is an R3 mark ii. But Canon needed an Olympic flagship out named the R1 before the opening and saw this as the compromise (perhaps also a panic action to keep shareholders happy, we'll never know).

Interesting comparison… one point, the Sony A9III has a tilt flip screen. So it’s perfect for both photography and video. I think this is a better option than the R1.

People on the YouTube complaining about the resolution of the R1 really need to consider the audience for this camera. It is for high-speed sports photography and photojournalism where typical print size is rarely larger than 8x10. Going back over a decade the 1-series has always been a lower resolution sensor for the best low-light performance. The R3 was a test bed for new technology (stacked sensor, Eye Control AF) just like the EOS-3 before it.

2:20 you’re confusing the R1 buffer with the R5 Mark II. The R1 can basically shoot unlimited raw files. Canon lists it as 1000 raw files on their spec sheet.

Jared polin reviewed the R1 and he has said the AF is better than the A9III’s for sports.

I'm mostly a Canon shooter, and this is hugely disappointing. The Z8 appeals to me more with more fps, and it's really useful for air shows. It's in jpeg but can still do 120fps. And letting Rudy Winston is a big disaster for canon. He's been pretty much driving camera sales single handedly, and can sell anything. I just don't see those buying this except for those who need even the smallest refresh, and hobbyists with very deep pockets.

Personally I think the trade-off between FPS and dynamic range needs a thorough assessment and comparison before you can call this worse than the A9III.

And this comes from someone who's never shot with the camera?

Should have called it the R3 mark II and waited on the R1.

Doesn't the A9 III have a tilty flippy 3d screen???

I don't care the R1 because it is not for me. Since it is not for me, I don't need to trash it in any shape and form. But I do pre-order the R5II which is I think an awesome camera.

Really interested to see how Sony responds with an A1II but honestly after this launch from Canon they might just keep sitting on whatever tech they've been banking for a while longer. I keep saying if they just released a new A1 with the same exact internal specs but a better body (like with a way better rear screen, bioauthentication, that kind of stuff) it'd still be a big win for them. Like why do camera companies insist on neglecting the back screen? Just put an high-nit OLED on there already! Those panels have come way down in price and we're talking about their flagship camera anyway. They can afford it. Make the screen a flagship feature! Release an "A1 OLED" that's the same in every other way and they'd still sell like hotcakes.

It's horses for courses, I don't think comparing the R1 to the Nikon Z6III is a very good idea as they are catering for different market segments. The R1 is for professionals that are going to spend months on end sitting in a hide in the remotest part of Pakistan waiting for the elusive snow leopard for example or outdoor sport covering Rugby in the driving rain in the middle of winter in northern England. One of the biggest selling points of these cameras are the ruggedness and longevity and most of the tech is nice to have.

People...as in everyone, is so dumb about this. The "1" line was never a high mpx fashion ad or landscape camera. Theyve always been lower res work horses for journalists and sports photogs. What scenerio do journalists need 45 mpx? They dont. They need long buffer, leading edge AF and great lowlight/high iso. Check, check and check. As if they werent designing this with feedback from actual working pros that are shooting for news in conflict zones, shooting sports at the olympics etc etc. "Im not putting them down because...its bc its what we, (as youtubers that rely on views that come from jumping on the critique bandwagon) believe"