# Multiple mentions put the Canon EOS R3 sensor resolution “around 24mp”



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 26, 2021)

> There have been multiple mentions likely from people in and around the Tokyo games that the resolution is “closer to” or “around” 24mp, and not the 30.1mp image sensor that I reported last month.
> There was a report recently suggesting that the EOS R3 would be 45mp, but I don’t think most of us thought that one was accurate.
> I think the resolution of the camera will either be teased by Canon or will make its way out of Tokyo through these sorts of sites before the Olympics are over.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## carlosalberto (Jul 26, 2021)

Wow!! If this is real, many will be screaming that Canon lost his mind!


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jul 26, 2021)

I was liking 30 ish. 24 seems like a pass for now and wait on the R1 to compare them, but we shall see.


----------



## Otara (Jul 26, 2021)

There will be sc


carlosalberto said:


> Wow!! If this is real, many will be screaming that Canon lost his mind!



Many will be screaming no matter what number it is.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 26, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Are the sources for 30.1MP sticking to their story, or are they now suggesting 24MP?

We don't know if the Olympic "leaks" are for RAW or JPEG, and if JPEG, if it's the highest quality option (as a few of us have hypothesized in the other thread).


----------



## Rocksthaman (Jul 26, 2021)

Absolutely no issue with this… With an R5/R6 24mp is exactly what my bank account wanted to hear


----------



## sfericean (Jul 26, 2021)

Sources: 24mp
The Canon Universe:


----------



## HotPixels (Jul 26, 2021)

BTW, if those 24MP images by Al Bello, Getty staff photog, are indeed taken with the R3, then you can really see him putting the 30 fps stacked sensor to work. Great images, truly freezing moments in time with those swimmers.


----------



## sanj (Jul 26, 2021)

I would rather buy another R5 and wait for R1.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> I would rather buy another R5 and wait for R1.


At 30 mp I'm ready to pre-order and sell the 1DxIII. At 24 mp, I'm inclined to keep the 1DX III, try out my R5 for sports and see how it performs and if it performs well, consider buying another R5 body instead. By the time the R1 comes out I fully expect to be retired from sports photography.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 26, 2021)

Might be setting low expectations to exceed with the 30MP announcement.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 26, 2021)

By people that have not signed NDA agreements of course. Take those with a grain of salt


----------



## 20Dave (Jul 26, 2021)

With the up-front caveat that I am not in the market for this camera, and I am not even a frequent amateur photographer (I'm more into astro-imaging at the moment), I did a quick check on the difference between a 24MP image and a 30MP image blown up to a 1:1 ratio. Here is the difference below. The sensors shown are representations of the the 24MP Nikon D3200 and the 30MP Canon 5D MarkIV, with identical pixel scales. For a pro or semi-pro photographer, is this difference really enough to say that you will or won't purchase this camera? I would think that the other aspects of the camera would be much more important than the slight gain in overall image resolution, but again, I am a weekend warrior at best, still happy with my aging 5DIII.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 26, 2021)

For birders 30MP is still a useful improvement over 24MP, that amounts to 12% extra reach. Every bit helps. Let's not forget even 30MP would be disappointing, but palatable. R1 no one has a clue about sensor or res, and at least another 12 months away and no doubt $1.5K dearer or more. We already have the 50MP A1 and Z9 is looking to be around 45MP like R5. If R3 was going to be A9II price 24MP would be more palatable, but if it's the rumoured $5.5K+ no thanks.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 26, 2021)

20Dave said:


> With the up-front caveat that I am not in the market for this camera, and I am not even a frequent amateur photographer (I'm more into astro-imaging at the moment), I did a quick check on the difference between a 24MP image and a 30MP image blown up to a 1:1 ratio. Here is the difference below. The sensors shown are representations of the the 24MP Nikon D3200 and the 30MP Canon 5D MarkIV, with identical pixel scales. For a pro or semi-pro photographer, is this difference really enough to say that you will or won't purchase this camera? I would think that the other aspects of the camera would be much more important than the slight gain in overall image resolution, but again, I am a weekend warrior at best, still happy with my aging 5DIII.
> 
> View attachment 199209


The problem is 30 megapixels was already horrible to begin with. 24 megapixels just makes it a complete joke and adds insult to injury. It ain't 2017 anymore.


----------



## Berowne (Jul 26, 2021)

Who cares ...


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 26, 2021)

Sports is an interesting market segment, because as Canon has made clear with the 1DX2 and 1DX3 being literally identical in resolution, their data must really show that the specific market they're targeting doesn't care about resolution. 

Can't forget that Canon themselves were the first to really disrupt that market, with the R5 being 20 FPS at 45 megapixels, which was double what the "high-speed high-res D850" did at the time. They had plenty of time to consider how they would continue catering to the lower resolution sports market while making a flagship camera, and I can imagine they probably decided to spin the lower resolution segment off into the R3.

If you remove the A1, R5, and Z9 from the discussions, the R3 matching the A9II's resolution and adding 10 FPS is a pretty big deal for the people who use these.

I think there's probably plenty more for Canon to surprise us with out of the R3. Canon is really going to have to show how the R3 tops the R6 which is at least $2000 less and possibly only ~4 megapixels less. I think it's an uphill battle for that to simply be "BSI means no rolling shutter" because I really don't know how many photographers out there know what that means or looks like.

Honestly using my R5 in 20 FPS mode, I barely see the rolling shutter effects in day-to-day use, and haven't been particularly bothered by it while photographing sports and wildlife. It would be more of a bonus to me if the image quality/dynamic range in electronic shutter matches the mechanical shutter, and 0 distortion would also be nice, but I just can't imagine that being 2000-to-3000-dollars-more-nice.

One thing that would particularly make the R3 more worthwhile in electronic shutter would be making us able to fine-tune shutter speed like on the Sony cameras to anti-flicker shoot at any shutter speed and in 30 fps, which is a feature I've always wanted on the R5 and even the 1DX2. It would also be great to see electronic shutter having variable burst rates.


----------



## Berowne (Jul 26, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> BTW, if those 24MP images by Al Bello, Getty staff photog, are indeed taken with the R3, then you can really see him putting the 30 fps stacked sensor to work. Great images, truly freezing moments in time with those swimmers.


Phantastic Photos by Al Bello, BTW. Wonder wheather they were taken with a 7S or an D700 or an M8?


----------



## DJPatte (Jul 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> At 30 mp I'm ready to pre-order and sell the 1DxIII. At 24 mp, I'm inclined to keep the 1DX III, try out my R5 for sports and see how it performs and if it performs well, consider buying another R5 body instead. By the time the R1 comes out I fully expect to be retired from sports photography.


As a multiple R5 owner, I would NOT recommend anyone to do that, aspeccially when the R3 comes out and for sports. The R5 autofocus is good but I do feel like I’m living in a canon R-system test lab. The R3 will def be a jump forward in that lab


----------



## Quackator (Jul 26, 2021)

30 MP was my mental sweet spot that I was willing to accept, but not below that anymore. I have enough cameras below that. "Flash with electronic shutter" (=global shutter?) would be my only argument, then. Looks like I will be waiting for the price point before deciding.


----------



## dpockett (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Honestly using my R5 in 20 FPS mode, I barely see the rolling shutter effects in day-to-day use, and haven't been particularly bothered by it while photographing sports and wildlife. It would be more of a bonus to me if the image quality/dynamic range in electronic shutter matches the mechanical shutter, and 0 distortion would also be nice, but I just can't imagine that being 2000-to-3000-dollars-more-nice.


Shooting sports is almost impossible with the electronic shutter, as soon as you pan the vertical lines | end up like / or \ in the backgrounds. Also had some odd egg shaped footballs, I haven't used elec for a while now on my R5 shooting sports.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 26, 2021)

ROFL - The sky is falling.... Who cares.... Wait for the R1 and keep shooting with you 1DXMKIII


----------



## StandardLumen (Jul 26, 2021)

I would really prefer to stay in the Canon ecosystem, but if the R3 is actually only 24mpx and the R1 is over a year away I will be eagerly waiting to see if Nikon will be able to lure me over with the Z9.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jul 26, 2021)

The scary part of this rumor is that it is likely to be true.


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 26, 2021)

24mp would make sense, considering that until recently, no sports system camera exceeded that, and Canon would have been planning this camera, developing the sensor etc, from several years back, where without industrial espionage, Canon would have been unaware that Sony and Nikon were aiming to go with 45-50mp sensors for this type of camera. 24mp is more than adequate for the type of photographer using this camera and bigger files have downsides for pro photographers needing to sort and cull large volumes of photographs and supply them very quickly.

If this is the case I think it quickly answers why Canon went with the 3 designation and not the 1 designation. In other words, that Canon have at least considered a higher resolution sensor for a 1 tier camera. Also it's possible that various resolution prototypes were in circulation.


----------



## Wildlife Junkie (Jul 26, 2021)

24 MP for the R3 would be a reason not to buy this camera. Even 30.1 MP falls way behind Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 but still k if other features are ok. But 24 MP is a no go for me.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 26, 2021)

Wildlife Junkie said:


> 24 MP for the R3 would be a reason not to buy this camera. Even 30.1 MP falls way behind Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 but still k if other features are ok. But 24 MP is a no go for me.


At 24 megapixels this camera isn't falling behind the A1 or Z9, it's matching the A9II. Sony didn't stop selling the A9II when they released the A1, and that didn't stop Sony from releasing a 12 megapixel camera either. These are totally different markets, the only reason the R3 is being compared is that the Z9 and the A1 are the most recent launches.

As it stands, the R5 is plenty of competition to those cameras for a far lower price, and the R1 will definitely take the flagship role above all of those cameras.

A year ago the entire conversation would be that the R3 has 10 more FPS than the A9II does. I remember when the original A9 came out and all the people were like, "the A9 has 4 more FPS than the 1DX2, Canon is d**med!"


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 26, 2021)

Well!!!! What a joke!!!!!. I was never going to buy this camera but this is just devesting news. I will have to show my outrage by joining the sony rumours forum.......or something. I would consider joining the nikon rumours forum but the shame would kill me. Oh. Woe to me!


----------



## Joules (Jul 26, 2021)

I wonder why they would limit themselves to 30 FPS if the sensor is just 24 MP. 30 MP 30 FPS would have matched the R5 in terms of data throughput. To do that with 24 MP, the camera would have to shoot 37.5 FPS.

What's the bottle neck? The stacked sensor should be plenty fast, and we know the processor can handle more data. Perhaps they just don't want to overwhelm the buffer, as the CFexpress cards can't keep up with this much data and therefore endless shooting like on the 1DX III isn't possible.

Seems like a missed opportunity to beat Sony in at least one metric though, as little as that may matter to practical usability. 


Or perhaps this information is simply false. I recall the original rumor that the camera would feature a' resolution trick'. What ever became of that? Is the trick just that it keeps confusing rumor sites?


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> I wonder why they would limit themselves to 30 FPS if the sensor is just 24 MP. 30 MP 30 FPS would have matched the R5 in terms of data throughput. To do that with 24 MP, the camera would have to shoot 37.5 FPS.
> 
> What's the bottle neck? The stacked sensor should be plenty fast, and we know the processor can handle more data. Perhaps they just don't want to overwhelm the buffer, as the CFexpress cards can't keep up with this much data and therefore endless shooting like on the 1DX III isn't possible.



Honestly, I was thinking about this all day.

I was just looking at the buffers of all the recent cameras on The-Digital-Picture:



Perhaps at 24 megapixels using the CF Express Type B Canon can ensure a 1000+ image buffer at full-quality, full-resolution 14-bit 30 FPS? I think there's a strong case for 30 FPS at 24 megapixels in that scenario. The A9II only has a 361 image buffer, and I honestly think the moment a former 1-series user hits a camera's buffer, they're going to wish they were using their old 1-series. 

It also could mean that the camera has more processing power to ensure a super responsive, zero blackout, 240+ fps viewfinder throughout shooting 1000+ full resolution images. Reliability and responsiveness is probably the number one request from most 1-series users, and I will say that sometimes the R5 does get a little laggy when you're shooting huge 20 FPS bursts.

Add to that, 24 megapixels would be less of a drain on the battery life.

All that said, I think there's a lot left to know about this camera even if it turns out to be 24 mp. I'd be interested to see the battery life, viewfinder buffer, responsiveness, and any other new features they pack into it before I dismiss it at all.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> I recall the original rumor that the camera would feature a' resolution trick'.


Perhaps this is good news. The R3 can shoot at 24mp for hard core sports pros, but can shoot at quad resolution (96mp) for everyone else


----------



## PerKr (Jul 26, 2021)

I for one would not be unhappy. My current cameras are all 24MP and definitely not handicapped in resolution. If you really want more, there's the R5. Getting fully functional AF at max framerate is far more interesting than whether the resolution is 24 or 30 megapixels.


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

Otara said:


> There will be sc
> 
> 
> Many will be screaming no matter what number it is.


My "screaming" would be different: Oooof I saved my money ... for now


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 26, 2021)

24MP would make sense if they still believe that is what pros want based on the research for the 1Dx to 1DxIII. Just because Sony and soon Nikon have 45 MP for their pro bodies, doesn't mean this is what pro shooters are demanding now when only a couple of years ago the bulk buyers of the 1-series where demanding around 20 MP. I am guessing stadiums haven't upgraded to 2.5/5/10/25 Gbps ethernet yet and the camera body only has 1 Gbps ethernet.


----------



## sulla (Jul 26, 2021)

20Dave said:


> [...] I did a quick check on the difference between a 24MP image and a 30MP [...]



I made a comparison using an actual image: I resized an original image to tiny size, once for 30MP and once for 24MP (ie. 89% on each side) and enlarged it in photoshop to show the inidividual pixel-raster. Thus, my example shows a tiny area (0.12% of the full image) of a whole image

Can you tell the difference? When pixel-peeping: barely...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

Wow, that is great news, if true. I already had some problems accepting 30 megapixels and was shocked when the 45 megapixel rumors surfaced, but 24 megapixels are even better than 30. I hope Canon does not do a compromise between speed and image quality though. I do not care about speed at all and offering 30 frames per second means that each image only gets a maximum of 1/30 s computing time. Of course I only use RAW, but that low computing time could even have en effect on RAWs. I hope Canon allows for computing time per image in single shot mode.


----------



## Iain L (Jul 26, 2021)

This speculation all seems to be based on looking at the JPEGs made available on Getty etc, so it could just be the case that the Canon NDA demands you resize to 24MP before uploading. But this does seem to be aiming more at spatial resolution than image size, so it’s believable.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jul 26, 2021)

For those that are in the market for the R3 and are unhappy with the 24 MP, there's always the R5 which is cheaper, the extra money you save on the R5 can be used to help buy a nice lens.

You can also wait for the R1 but going by the history of the 1 series they have never been high MP anyway, I don't think the R1 is going to match the R5 in MP since it seems like most 1 series users prefer speed, including faster post processing and smaller files to transfer.


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

sulla said:


> I made a comparison using an actual image: I resized an original image to tiny size, once for 30MP and once for 24MP (ie. 89% on each side) and enlarged it in photoshop to show the inidividual pixel-raster. Thus, my example shows a tiny area (0.12% of the full image) of a whole image
> 
> Can you tell the difference? When pixel-peeping: barely...


This camera may be perfect or close to perfect to sports photographers but as a birder I would rather have a 45mp+ camera with a big (11.1v) battery that drives big white lenses really fast.

So a comparison for me could be a R5 file enlarged to 90mp vs a 24mp file enlarged to 90mp.

EDIT: Canon is being honest by declaring it a sports camera. So we cannot protest if it has a rather low megapixel count. Now where is our R5fast ?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The problem is 30 megapixels was already horrible to begin with. 24 megapixels just makes it a complete joke and adds insult to injury. It ain't 2017 anymore.


An yet many of these professionals are taking phenomenal Olympic photos with their jokes of cameras 1DX II and 1DX III.
At the same time, I do see the benefit of a higher resolution sensor and I expect that to come in the form of the R1.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

tron said:


> Canon is being honest by declaring it a sports camera.


Not exactly, a while ago Canon sent me an email that said:


> The EOS R3 is our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera perfect for pro sports and wildlife photography and filmmaking – discover what it has to offer.


I wondered at the time how a pro sports camera would be perfect for wildlife, where reach/mpx is also important.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> ROFL - The sky is falling.... Who cares.... Wait for the R1 and keep shooting with you 1DXMKIII


I can understand why people with an R5 or a 1DX III would be disappointed.
It makes upgrading less desirable.
I am deciding between getting an R3 or a 1DX III so I do not mind at all.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 26, 2021)

Joules said:


> I wonder why they would limit themselves to 30 FPS if the sensor is just 24 MP.





H. Jones said:


> Honestly, I was thinking about this all day.


I would add to that the need to handle at 30fps:

Eye controlled AF 
AI based (various objects detection and tracking) AF
It could be a compromise that will allow Canon not to add asterisks and footprints to each specification item.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> For those that are in the market for the R3 and are unhappy with the 24 MP, there's always the R5 which is cheaper, the extra money you save on the R5 can be used to help buy a nice lens.
> 
> You can also wait for the R1 but going by the history of the 1 series they have never been high MP anyway, I don't think the R1 is going to match the R5 in MP since it seems like most 1 series users prefer speed, including faster post processing and smaller files to transfer.


I can't see Canon having both the R3 and R1 low megapixels.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

tron said:


> This camera may be perfect or close to perfect to sports photographers but as a birder I would rather have a 45mp+ camera with a big (11.1v) battery that drives big white lenses really fast.


I just ask this out of curiosity, would you be happy with a 30MP APS-C camera so you wouldn't have to crop?


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> Not exactly, a while ago Canon sent me an email that said:
> 
> I wondered at the time how a pro sports camera would be perfect for wildlife, where reach/mpx is also important.


I didn't remember that! In that case you are right. A higher than 24mp sensor is required. Maybe a 36mpixel sensor would be a compromise.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> I wondered at the time how a pro sports camera would be perfect for wildlife, where reach/mpx is also important.


Quite a lot of wildlife photographers prefer 1DX cameras for their durability.
Not all wildlife are birds.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not care about speed at all


Maybe this isn't the camera for you? Besides, you can always use a lower fps mode


----------



## peters (Jul 26, 2021)

This would be a disapointment for me and I would skip the camera.
I have 2 R5 for photo and video work. I am totaly in the market for a canon camera that wont overheat after 20 minutes of shooting, which is a big flaw in the R5. But half the resolution would be step back in image quality when it comes to product photography, landscape, wedding, architecture - all of which I do a lot. 
If this is true I will totaly skip the R3 and hope for a better model which finaly offers photo AND video in one body without crazy limitations like the constant overheating....


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Maybe this isn't the camera for you? Besides, you can always use a lower fps mode


I was really thinking that Canon was implying that R3 would be lower resolution when they stated that the main focus was speed.
That is kind of a lie anyway.
If the main focus was speed then there would be 2 CFExpress slots.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> I have 2 R5 for photo and video work. I am totaly in the market for a canon camera that wont overheat after 20 minutes of shooting, which is a big flaw in the R5.


Just out of curiosity, would the rumored R5c interest you?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Maybe this isn't the camera for you? Besides, you can always use a lower fps mode


For me it is important to have a large and heavy body with a built in battery grip. The R6 and R5 only have external battery grips that do not even align properly to the body.

Weren't the older sports bodies only limited in resolution to achive better fps? That limit seems to be gone with the new sensor design and faster cards.


----------



## dpockett (Jul 26, 2021)

Iain L said:


> This speculation all seems to be based on looking at the JPEGs made available on Getty etc, so it could just be the case that the Canon NDA demands you resize to 24MP before uploading. But this does seem to be aiming more at spatial resolution than image size, so it’s believable.



I highly doubt Getty would be resizing images from one camera body from one or two photographers, the files are being edited remotely, in some cases from people in countries other than Japan.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 26, 2021)

I’m gonna be honest, this camera looks really lopsided.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 26, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> I’m gonna be honest, this camera looks really lopsided.


It's a mirror image and out of focus. Hope it wasn't taken on another R3.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Quite a lot of wildlife photographers prefer 1DX cameras for their durability.
> Not all wildlife are birds.


Both, very true. Also, pro wildlife photographers have the time and skill to get closer to their subjects and so need less reach. Shooting a hunting cheater from a safari vehicle is probably a lot closer to a sport shot than my pictures of birds, even birds-in-flight. My doubt is would Canon design this camera for such a tight niche? Would they sell more if it appealed to more types of photographer? I guess they know better than me, and we will find out what they are offering soon enough, (certainly before anyone can order one). Perhaps I am just disappointed that I may not have to save up to buy one and will just have to buy an R5 instead.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 26, 2021)

Well, lets ask the following question, where would the R3 fit "in the R line"?. traditionally the "1" has about 20MP, the "5" is now 45MP, and the "6" is close to the "1" in terms of sensor pixel count. So if the "3" will be about 20MP than it is the "1" in disguise and will actually take its place. It won't be 45MP for then it will "kill" the "5". What is left is something in the range of 26-36MP, we know (from other rumors that Canon work on stack sensors that range). Anyway, 26-36MP sensor will "fight" the "alpha-1" and be ahead of the "Z9". I hope it will eventually be 30MP, but I don't (yet) gives advice to Canon about their product design.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> I’m gonna be honest, this camera looks really lopsided.


Yes, I would love to see some more space right of and above the mount. Of course the mount will never be at the center of the camera, but not ot is quite close to a corner.
Here is a comparison with the 1D X Mark III:


----------



## Emyr Evans (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> Perhaps this is good news. The R3 can shoot at 24mp for hard core sports pros, but can shoot at quad resolution (96mp) for everyone else


I was thinking (hoping) exactly the same as you, David!


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's a mirror image and out of focus. Hope it wasn't taken on another R3


No it’s too big


----------



## masterpix (Jul 26, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


A very wild guess, the R3 will come in not one, but three sensor sizes: R3a 24MP, R3b 30.1MP and R3c 45MP...


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 26, 2021)

I would laugh if Canon are using special prototypes of the R3 with a 24MP sensor just to protect any potential leaks and mess with the people who do spread this info.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Quite a lot of wildlife photographers prefer 1DX cameras for their durability.
> Not all wildlife are birds.


This along with battery life and ability to work in poor weather.


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

masterpix said:


> A very wild guess, the R3 will come in not one, but three sensor sizes: R3a 24MP, R3b 30.1MP and R3c 45MP...


Why only three? Why not 20, 24, 30, 36, 45, 61, 90 mp ?


----------



## sanj (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I can understand why people with an R5 or a 1DX III would be disappointed.
> It makes upgrading less desirable.
> I am deciding between getting an R3 or a 1DX III so I do not mind at all.


Personally, it would be meaningless to buy 1dx3


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

tron said:


> Why only three? Why not 20, 24, 30, 36, 45, 61, 90 mp ?


Heck, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, gives scope to expand later.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

reef58 said:


> This along with battery life and ability to work in poor weather.


But is is still a compromise. If they had all the pro features +45mp, I'm sure they would not complain.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 26, 2021)

Bummer. I was eager for the utility of extra resolution for cropping that has spoiled me since using the R5 in favor of my 1DXII. I thought 30mp was a nice sweet spot.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 26, 2021)

Otara said:


> There will be sc
> 
> 
> Many will be screaming no matter what number it is.


less screams on the more megapixel side.


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

Now that a 24Mpixel sensor been mentioned many people will be happy if it is finally 30Mpixel


----------



## AlanF (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> Both, very true. Also, pro wildlife photographers have the time and skill to get closer to their subjects and so need less reach. Shooting a hunting cheater from a safari vehicle is probably a lot closer to a sport shot than my pictures of birds, even birds-in-flight. My doubt is would Canon design this camera for such a tight niche? Would they sell more if it appealed to more types of photographer? I guess they know better than me, and we will find out what they are offering soon enough, (certainly before anyone can order one). Perhaps I am just disappointed that I may not have to save up to buy one and will just have to buy an R5 instead.


With this being the quiet season for birds in England and the restrictions on travel because of Covid, I need a supply of birds to photo, not another camera. Get yourself an R5 - it beats anything for birding that Canon has ever produced, and let those who want 24 Mpx enjoy what Canon is providing for them.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 26, 2021)

24MP vs 30MP? For those that want the latest Pro Canon body, this probably won't make much (if any) difference once they have it and are using it. They'll still love it.

For those, like me, who'd prefer to have a smaller body (like the R5 or smaller) and reasonably high MP (40+ but would accept 30) it may be enough of a difference to "tip the scale" and make them pass on the R3 and see what the next Canon bodies bring. I'll still wait to get one in hand to decide, but 24MP would make it easier to choose to "pass".


----------



## pape2 (Jul 26, 2021)

Balcklighted RP sensor ,darn i thouhgt that will be next consumer model sensor.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 26, 2021)

tron said:


> Why only three? Why not 20, 24, 30, 36, 45, 61, 90 mp ?


Well, a stretchable sensor? I am writing a patent about it!

Seriously, it was mentioned somewhere that Canon is working on stack sensors of those MP sizes.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 26, 2021)

For professionals shooting sports (or news) for print and internet media, why would they need more than 24 MP? Things like frame rate, autofocus, low-light performance, etc. would be much more important. It seems to me that Canon aim their high-end cameras towards these professionals, not towards amateur prosumers and enthusiasts.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> Perhaps this is good news. The R3 can shoot at 24mp for hard core sports pros, but can shoot at quad resolution (96mp) for everyone else


And that would be a sensible reason not to reveal the resolution.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 26, 2021)

CanonGrunt said:


> I was liking 30 ish. 24 seems like a pass for now and wait on the R1 to compare them, but we shall see.


Definitely. It would have to be a significant jump in low light peformance over my R5 to make me what to get a 24MP R3.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's a mirror image and out of focus. Hope it wasn't taken on another R3.


Oh this is just a screen grab from an Instagram story Vanessa Joy posted.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Jul 26, 2021)

You can pretty much bet that any image allowed to be published will be in a mode and/or meet a specification "arbitrarily" set by Canon to not tip the real capability of the camera. The photographers may (for example) have the real RAW files on hand, but be mandated to use a throttled version of DPP to produce compliant output. (No actual knowledge of the device or process, just conjecture about one way such a rumor could start...)


----------



## scyrene (Jul 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For me it is important to have a large and heavy body with a built in battery grip. The R6 and R5 only have external battery grips that do not even align properly to the body.



That's fair, I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 26, 2021)

The M100/M200 is 24MP too.  

For marketing purposes 30MP sounds better.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> If this is true I will totaly skip the R3 and hope for a better model which finaly offers photo AND video in one body without crazy limitations like the constant overheating....



Crazy limitations like physics, huh.


----------



## Alan B (Jul 26, 2021)

This site isn't called "CanonRumors" for nothing. This MP speculation will change once again in a couple of days...........................


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

I wonder if the people in the factory have any idea of the resolution. A 24 mepapixel sensor does not look different from a 45 megapixel sensor. So they might not need to know.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Honestly, I was thinking about this all day.
> 
> I was just looking at the buffers of all the recent cameras on The-Digital-Picture:
> View attachment 199216
> ...


The Italian video guy had the battery life at 3,500 real life shots.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> A 24 mepapixel sensor does not look different from a 45 megapixel sensor.


I think they would have a different diffraction pattern, so you could notice they are different, but probably not guess the line density.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 26, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Bummer. I was eager for the utility of extra resolution for cropping that has spoiled me since using the R5 in favor of my 1DXII. I thought 30mp was a nice sweet spot.


I was there with you.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Get yourself an R5 - it beats anything for birding that Canon has ever produced, and let those who want 24 Mpx enjoy what Canon is providing for them.


My main concern is the weather sealing. My 7DMkII has coped with some very wet weather with no problems (sometimes better than me), unlike my 40D, which did not like that sort of treatment. Hence 1-series protection on the R3 sounds appealing. Where does the R5 fit on this scale?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's a mirror image and out of focus. Hope it wasn't taken on another R3.


But where’s the camera that took it?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

As the R5 and the R6 use the same processor for example, I wonder if they could also offer two different options for the R3 without having to redesign the whole camera. My dream would be a camera with two sensors. Or a modulat one with easy interchangable sensors. We can change lenses, but not sensors. That is a problem. Imagine the possibilities. Someone could even use a 4 megapixel sensor for special usages. Some sensors could be optimized for video and after a few years you could buy an even better sensor.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 26, 2021)

24mp would be a huge disappointment for me as a wildlife photographer, if that's the case I'll wait for the R1 assuming it's around 45 mp


----------



## somebodE (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> My main concern is the weather sealing. My 7DMkII has coped with some very wet weather with no problems (sometimes better than me), unlike my 40D, which did not like that sort of treatment. Hence 1-series protection on the R3 sounds appealing. Where does the R5 fit on this scale?


I believe the R5 weather sealing is supposed to be as good as the 5D which was supposedly better than the 7D (but less than 1D). I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## sanj (Jul 26, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Crazy limitations like physics, huh.


Like what????


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

somebodE said:


> I believe the R5 weather sealing is supposed to be as good as the 5D which was supposedly better than the 7D (but less than 1D). I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.


It has to be very good judging from a member's experience in combination with the fact that the temperature is not easily dissipated. These are speculation of course but I would trust my R5 in rather bad weather conditions (worse than I would trust myself without an anorak or an umbrella!  )


----------



## sanj (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> My main concern is the weather sealing. My 7DMkII has coped with some very wet weather with no problems (sometimes better than me), unlike my 40D, which did not like that sort of treatment. Hence 1-series protection on the R3 sounds appealing. Where does the R5 fit on this scale?


Unless you are using it in the rain R5 with withstand.


----------



## tron (Jul 26, 2021)

I believe we can relax. Resolution will be between 20 and 100Mpixel  No worries!


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> Like what????


Processing video data generates heat. That's why the Canon C70 includes a built-in fan. The downside is that the fan makes the camera "fat".


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

sanj said:


> Unless you are using it in the rain R5 with withstand.


I'm not sure I understand that reply, as I said:


> My 7DMkII has coped with some very wet weather with no problems


Is there _very wet weather_, that is not rain?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> My main concern is the weather sealing. My 7DMkII has coped with some very wet weather with no problems (sometimes better than me), unlike my 40D, which did not like that sort of treatment. Hence 1-series protection on the R3 sounds appealing. Where does the R5 fit on this scale?


The weather sealing is a step up from previous: see https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/09/taking-apart-the-canon-r5-mirrorless-camera/ And very early on someone posted a video from a well-known pro lauding the weather sealing.
Edit: Privatebydesign posted this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-r5-bad-weather-capability.39961/#post-879333
In short, it is better weather sealed than a 7DII.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 26, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> For professionals shooting sports (or news) for print and internet media, why would they need more than 24 MP? Things like frame rate, autofocus, low-light performance, etc. would be much more important. It seems to me that Canon aim their high-end cameras towards these professionals, not towards amateur prosumers and enthusiasts.


For cropping reasons. Very often we have to crop the shit out of some files. 24 would be a no go for my needs. It has to be 35 ish for me to bite.
I am willing to bet Canon has either dialed down the file size or told fotogs they can not output beyond a certain size. 
Most media already have self imposed rules like max 2500 on the long size etc.
Our's is 13 inches at 300 MAX output. I save full size on my laptop but only FTP a file to their specs.

Sometimes I am really down rez'ing a file, sometimes I am not close to the 13 inch cap.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> But is is still a compromise. If they had all the pro features +45mp, I'm sure they would not complain.


Everything is a compromise. Not everyone wants 45mp. I am not sure why some people have a hard time accepting that. If no one wanted 20mp class cameras then 1dx3, 1dx2, R6, A9, A9II, D5, D6 yada yada yada would not exist and if they did they would not sell. For some the only spec that matters is the resolution of the sensor, for others it is not a big deal. 

That being said I will not get rid of my 1dx3 to get an R3 if it is 24mp. I was really hoping for 30. That way I would have 45, 30 and 20.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I think it's an uphill battle for that to simply be "BSI means no rolling shutter" because I really don't know how many photographers out there know what that means or looks like.
> 
> Honestly using my R5 in 20 FPS mode, I barely see the rolling shutter effects in day-to-day use, and haven't been particularly bothered by it while photographing sports and wildlife. It would be more of a bonus to me if the image quality/dynamic range in electronic shutter matches the mechanical shutter, and 0 distortion would also be nice, but I just can't imagine that being 2000-to-3000-dollars-more-nice.
> 
> One thing that would particularly make the R3 more worthwhile in electronic shutter would be making us able to fine-tune shutter speed like on the Sony cameras to anti-flicker shoot at any shutter speed and in 30 fps, which is a feature I've always wanted on the R5 and even the 1DX2. It would also be great to see electronic shutter having variable burst rates.


Granted we‘re not talking apples-to-apples, since I’m talking about motion/video, but global shutter is the main reason I bought a Sony F55 over an F5. At introduction the F55 commanded a ~$15K premium over the F5.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jul 26, 2021)

To many, 24MP in Full Frame is a sweat spot... pros or amateurs. Just let some people rant then... and shoot


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Everything is a compromise. Not everyone wants 45mp. I am not sure why some people have a hard time accepting that. If no one wanted 20mp class cameras then 1dx3, 1dx2, R6, A9, A9II, D5, D6 yada yada yada would not exist and if they did they would not sell. For some the only spec that matters is the resolution of the sensor, for others it is not a big deal.


I realise that, and acknowledged that Canon know their market better than any of us. My specific comment:


> But is is still a compromise. If they had all the pro features +45mp, I'm sure they would not complain.


was in the context of wildlife photographers preferring a lower res, pro 1-series camera. Quite a few of the pros I have read have both a R5 or 5Ds and 1DXiii, one for the high res and one for when they need something more rugged. My suggestion was they would be happier if they did not have to make this compromise. (But having never had any of these cameras I cannot know for sure.)


----------



## DBounce (Jul 26, 2021)

I have to admit, 45MPs was way more appealing to me than 24MPs. I’ll wait until the smoke clears on this one. But if it’s only 24MPs it’s going to need to be a really special sensor to win me over.

I already own a Red Komodo so fast readout speed alone is probably not going to be enough to get me to buy in. Perhaps amazing/super clean low light? A really nice image… thick and flexible… Idk.

While the R3 is definitely still one to watch, I’m really hoping it’s going to bring something that sets it apart from the crowd and not just gimmicks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My dream would be a camera with two sensors. Or a modulat one with easy interchangable sensors. We can change lenses, but not sensors. That is a problem. Imagine the possibilities.










Hands-On Review of The Ricoh GXR Modular Camera System


Standing out from the crowd has long been a challenge in the camera biz, and considering how much technological cross-pollinating there is nowadays among camera manufacturers, making headlines ain’t so easy. For this reason alone you have to hand it to Ricoh for introducing a camera concept...




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## degos (Jul 26, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> You can also wait for the R1 but going by the history of the 1 series they have never been high MP anyway, I don't think the R1 is going to match the R5 in MP since it seems like most 1 series users prefer speed, including faster post processing and smaller files to transfer.



The 1D APS-H family were actually very pixel-dense for their generations. The full-frame equivalent of the 1D4 would be 27MP, not bad for 2009 given that a decade later Canon still haven't achieved that in the 1DX line.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

The best that could happen to me is that it has 24 megapixels and most people hate it for that. Then the price could drop a lot. 4000 Euros would be a good price for the R3. I think I would not pay 6000 Euros.


----------



## DVaNu (Jul 26, 2021)

I didn’t read every single message in this thread so apologies if someone already shared the same thought. But knowing that there was a big probability that leaks would happen at the Olympics, would it be possible that Canon crippled down the resolution of their test bodies out in the wild to make sure they would keep that conceiled untill official release? It’s easily done and it’s not really the feature to be “tested” so perfect strategy to keep that feature hidden and create even more marketing speculation and momentum. If the test bodies are production models that don’t have to be returned by the photographers, the crippling can be easily unlocked by a software update. I know it’s a far stretch but it’s either something like that or Canon really has a very weird and inefficient marketing strategist on board because why keep the resolution info hidden if these is so many test bodies out in the wild. Anno 2021 it’s gonna leak one way or another at some point anyways (even with signed NDA’s).


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> Heck, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, gives scope to expand later.


Actually they were planning to release thirty three different resolutions but then they realized that doing so would only work in Georgia (the Mkhedruli script has 33 letters in current use).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

I have a 1D X and an EOS R. I far prefer the form factor of the 1-series, which is why I haven't bought an R5. I'd prefer 30 MP, but I'm fine with 24 MP, or 45 MP. My main need is for the camera to start shipping.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have a 1D X and an EOS R. I far prefer the form factor of the 1-series, which is why I haven't bought an R5. I'd prefer 30 MP, but I'm fine with 24 MP, or 45 MP. My main need is for the camera to start shipping.


Shipping?

What, you don't just expect some fantastic specs but you also want the minor detail of existence, too?

Daaaaaang, some people are fussy.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2021)

Oh, look, finally an upgrade to my Rebel T6i and M50...

(Well, by some people's logic anyway.)


----------



## criscokkat (Jul 26, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I have to admit, 45MPs was way more appealing to me than 24MPs. I’ll wait until the smoke clears on this one. But if it’s only 24MPs it’s going to need to be a really special sensor to win me over.
> 
> I already own a Red Komodo so fast readout speed alone is probably not going to be enough to get me to buy in. Perhaps amazing/super clean low light? A really nice image… thick and flexible… Idk.
> 
> While the R3 is definitely still one to watch, I’m really hoping it’s going to bring something that sets it apart from the crowd and not just gimmicks.


If it really is 24mp all the time, with no resolution tricks to scale up at slower shooting speeds, then my guess is something revolutionary with low light in this new sensor. If the light sensitivity is much greater, it makes sense why some of the L lenses in the R series have been creeping up on the available apertures. No need to stick to the wide open side if you can go to ridiculously high ISO's with little to no loss of quality. It doesn't help with separation of subject to shoot at higher apertures, but for sports photographers that's not nearly as important.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Jul 26, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> Absolutely no issue with this… With an R5/R6 24mp is exactly what my bank account wanted to hear


I don't think price point is going to be low regardless if this sensor is 24 instead of 30


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

Yes, why should a low resolution make it cheaper? The 1D X Mark III has a very low resolution.


----------



## shawnc (Jul 26, 2021)

A bit better weather sealing and a battery grip plus a nicer sensor than my R6. That sounds like about $700 (retail) in improvements. If it comes in around $3200 I'll buy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

shawnc said:


> A bit better weather sealing and a battery grip plus a nicer sensor than my R6. That sounds like about $700 (retail) in improvements. If it comes in around $3200 I'll buy.


About as likely that they'll give them away for free.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I just ask this out of curiosity, would you be happy with a 30MP APS-C camera so you wouldn't have to crop?


Currant apsc sensors are very noisy (7DMK2 awful even at ISO 1600) and for birding that is a big issue as feather details are super important. I actually would be happy with either a 1DX3 with higher resolution or an R3 with at least 30 mpx. Although fps is important, a mechanical shutter at 15-20 fps is more than acceptable.


----------



## carlosalberto (Jul 26, 2021)

criscokkat said:


> If it really is 24mp all the time, with no resolution tricks to scale up at slower shooting speeds, then my guess is something revolutionary with low light in this new sensor. If the light sensitivity is much greater, it makes sense why some of the L lenses in the R series have been creeping up on the available apertures. No need to stick to the wide open side if you can go to ridiculously high ISO's with little to no loss of quality. It doesn't help with separation of subject to shoot at higher apertures, but for sports photographers that's not nearly as important.


I am a photographer of polo, rugby and horseball, his statement about it is false, if I do not separate the subject from the background, the photo that garbage that will not be published. The new lenses with ridiculously slow apertures do not work in professional sports photography.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Jul 26, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Everything is a compromise. Not everyone wants 45mp. I am not sure why some people have a hard time accepting that. If no one wanted 20mp class cameras then 1dx3, 1dx2, R6, A9, A9II, D5, D6 yada yada yada would not exist and if they did they would not sell. For some the only spec that matters is the resolution of the sensor, for others it is not a big deal.
> 
> That being said I will not get rid of my 1dx3 to get an R3 if it is 24mp. I was really hoping for 30. That way I would have 45, 30 and 20.


These newer cameras have crop modes. You aren't restricted to shooting 45 mpx. And CRaw is available for smaller file sizes...


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 26, 2021)

Iain L said:


> This speculation all seems to be based on looking at the JPEGs made available on Getty etc, so it could just be the case that the Canon NDA demands you resize to 24MP before uploading. But this does seem to be aiming more at spatial resolution than image size, so it’s believable.


If Canon really wants to keep the true resolution under wraps, a better way is to have prerelease firmware limit it to 24MP right on the camera. That way they’re not relying on somebody else remembering to resize the images before publishing them when things are happening fast at the olympics.


----------



## criscokkat (Jul 26, 2021)

carlosalberto said:


> I am a photographer of polo, rugby and horseball, his statement about it is false, if I do not separate the subject from the background, the photo that garbage that will not be published. The new lenses with ridiculously slow apertures do not work in professional sports photography.


You know way more about it than I do, and I don't doubt I could be wrong. I wasn't thinking so much about the consumer f11's but more the 100-500 that's only one step larger at the long end for the extra reach. And the rumored slightly cheaper 400 f4 and 600 f5.6 lens that will might be in the 3-4k instead of 12k.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Sports is an interesting market segment, because as Canon has made clear with the 1DX2 and 1DX3 being literally identical in resolution, their data must really show that the specific market they're targeting doesn't care about resolution.



I agree. Sports shooters tend to shoot many, many thousands of images at maximum frame rate per game then quickly go through and cull out everything but the photos showing the height of the action. Having enough resolution is important, but having small enough files that you're not in a massive data crunch when culling photos is equally important. 1DX/II/III shooters have been shooting ~20MP for a while now, a bump up to ~24MP gives a nice bump up in resolution and still allows smaller file sizes and excellent dynamic range and noise performance.

I don't really shoot sports, but can say with my R5, I rarely put it in high speed shooting mode because the data size is just way too punishing. It doesn't matter what size card you have, 20fps fills it way faster than people realize.

Also, sports shooters and birders are similar use cases, but not in the same league (no pun intended).


----------



## kafala (Jul 26, 2021)

Canon should change its name to Thor since they're always killing their users with the cripple hammer.


----------



## Karlbug (Jul 26, 2021)

The photo on Jeff Cable's blog from Olympics has full EXIF. It was taken with R3 and RF 24-105mm. While the photo itself was downsized to just 1.5 MP, the EXIF has these two interesting lines:




6000 x 4000 = 24 MP

BTW This is full EXIF dumped by Exif Viewer extension for Chrome:


> Image Location: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JFU_RQWE...yrwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1483/Edit-Tokyo-Sreet-Pan3.jpg
> Image Size: 1483 x 927
> Date Time Original: 2021:07:21 19:14:45
> Exposure Time: 1/20
> ...


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 26, 2021)

If the R3 is 24mp then it would be a direct competitor to the Sony a9II (24mp) not the Sony a1, or Nikon Z9 for that matter, which are/will be those companies flagship camera bodies. A Sony a9II plus battery grip is approx. $4850.00 USD. So, I would think the Canon R3 will need to be around the $5000 mark to be competitive; again if the R3 is 24mp. I shot the Sony a9II for over a year with the wonderful 200-600mm f/6/3 zoom; which is less than $2000 USD. Also the 600 f/4, a very good lens on par with Canon's 600. These are great combos with an awesome AF system and 20 fps. Being a bird and wildlife photographer, I would not pay more than $5000 for the R3 at 24mp given what the competition has out there for the same resolution and basic skill set. I personally am hoping the R3 will be 30mp and have some other features that separate it from the a9II. For me every 1mp more helps for some of my work; up to a point of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

angrykarl said:


> The photo on Jeff Cable's blog from Olympics has full EXIF. It was taken with R3 and RF 24-105mm. While the photo itself was downsized to just 1.5 MP, the EXIF has these two interesting lines:
> 
> View attachment 199227
> 
> ...


Thanks. Still, could be a firmware limit on pre-release cameras.


----------



## Deleted member 389378 (Jul 26, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> For birders 30MP is still a useful improvement over 24MP, that amounts to 12% extra reach. Every bit helps. Let's not forget even 30MP would be disappointing, but palatable. R1 no one has a clue about sensor or res, and at least another 12 months away and no doubt $1.5K dearer or more. We already have the 50MP A1 and Z9 is looking to be around 45MP like R5. If R3 was going to be A9II price 24MP would be more palatable, but if it's the rumoured $5.5K+ no thanks.


The r5 cannot autofocus on small birds against a busy background (think passerines in a forest) anything like a DSLR. Unless Canon solves this problem, I wouldnt buy the r3 for birds. I just bought another DSLR because my r5 does not work in a forest/jungle. The r5 is great otherwise and OK for manual focus in a forest/jungle. See forums for more explanation; e.g., https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/problems-with-af-on-birds-r5.39490/page-5


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 26, 2021)

I guess the hardest thing for me to understand is why Canon ever kept the megapixels under wraps for this long.

The 1DX2 and 1DX3 development announcements jumped right on top of saying it would have a 20 megapixel sensor, and having that information from the get-go means people aren't investing months into speculation and dreaming where you end up having people think it might be 45 megapixels before they get disappointed. If it's just 24 megapixels, people understand the market and would understand what kind of camera it's aiming to be.

It just seems weird to me that they announced all these specs and gave so many people the camera but then kept the lid on the megapixels. Was that a marketing choice to avoid bad press during the hypetrain because of the higher resolution A1 and Z9 being out there?


----------



## slclick (Jul 26, 2021)

Can we at least agree it's not a flagship and therefore shouldn't be constantly compared to another brands flagship? The glass half full here is we get another body available for those who want and need it. It's pure win.


----------



## degos (Jul 26, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I agree. Sports shooters tend to shoot many, many thousands of images at maximum frame rate per game then quickly go through and cull out everything but the photos showing the height of the action.



Canon has never solely targeted the 1D line at sports shooters , particularly after the 1DX merger. Wildlife photography is always mentioned in their press releases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> ...and having that information from the get-go means people aren't investing months into speculation and dreaming...


Yes, all the buzz and speculation must be a nightmare for any marketing department.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, all the buzz and speculation must be a nightmare for any marketing department.



I get that, but it just seems like a cheap trick if the answer to all the speculation and buzz is going to basically be, "megapixels don't matter." 

24 mp is a resolution for the crowd that doesn't worry about resolution, so the fact that they chose that spec to hide this long feels a little weird to me. 

I've accepted that as a justified spec and think it will be an excellent camera, but I just can't help but think that there's more to the story about the sensor/resolution if it's been so tightly sealed. CR did report a "resolution trick." I'm not sure if maybe a 96mp pixel shift mode would quite be the answer to that.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 26, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> If the R3 is 24mp then it would be a direct competitor to the Sony a9II (24mp) not the Sony a1, or Nikon Z9 for that matter, which are/will be those companies flagship camera bodies. A Sony a9II plus battery grip is approx. $4850.00 USD. So, I would think the Canon R3 will need to be around the $5000 mark to be competitive; again if the R3 is 24mp. I shot the Sony a9II for over a year with the wonderful 200-600mm f/6/3 zoom; which is less than $2000 USD. Also the 600 f/4, a very good lens on par with Canon's 600. These are great combos with an awesome AF system and 20 fps. Being a bird and wildlife photographer, I would not pay more than $5000 for the R3 at 24mp given what the competition has out there for the same resolution and basic skill set. I personally am hoping the R3 will be 30mp and have some other features that separate it from the a9II. For me every 1mp more helps for some of my work; up to a point of course.


I would love for Canon to have a 200-600 6.3 zoom. At a rumored $5999 USD price for the R3, 4850 for an a9II that really wouldn't be competitive or undercut Sony. I agree! I was hoping for my wildlife reach.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

kafala said:


> Canon should change its name to Thor since they're always killing their users with the cripple hammer.


Which is exactly how they got to be the biggest and best selling camera company in the world.....


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 26, 2021)

degos said:


> Canon has never solely targeted the 1D line at sports shooters , particularly after the 1DX merger. Wildlife photography is always mentioned in their press releases.


True, however birders is a very small subset of wildlife. I totally get that people want megapixels, and certain types of shooting absolutely are better suited for that, but at the same time, 20-30MP is plenty for lots of use cases.

One thing I have noticed is that people tend to fall into a few camps: the body MP matters a lot less, they have really expensive lenses that give them the reach that they require for the type of shooting that they do, then there are those that tend to want as much res as possible so they can crop as much as possible, and have shorter lenses, then those that want as much as possible, but priced like an RP.

Of course there are also those that would never buy the camera for any reason at all because they're not even the target market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

kafala said:


> Canon should change its name to Thor since they're always killing their users with the cripple hammer.


Good idea, I’m going to start calling my new R3 Mjölnir. I just hope I’m worthy.

At least I know if I put the camera in an elevator, it will go up.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 26, 2021)

angrykarl said:


> The photo on Jeff Cable's blog from Olympics has full EXIF. It was taken with R3 and RF 24-105mm. While the photo itself was downsized to just 1.5 MP, the EXIF has these two interesting lines:
> 
> View attachment 199227
> 
> ...


The R5 has the following JPEG options:
- L: 45M 8192x5464 (44.8MP)
- M: 22M 5808x3872 (22.5MP)
- S1: 12M 4176x2784 (11.6MP)
- S2: 3.8M 2400x1600 (3.8MP)

I can consistently post M size 5808x3872 images from the R5 with no cropping, but that obviously does not make the R5 a 22MP camera. 

The EXIF information only has meaning if we are certain that it's the maximum possible resolution. In this case, we do not know that. This could be a lower quality output for any number of reasons previously discussed (firmware limitation on pre-production models, Canon's desire to prevent leaks and control the narrative, shooter's preference to limit file size when processing thousands of images each day, etc.). I don't think it's likely that Canon has lower MP sensors out there just for testing, but it's very possible that they have special software/firmware for testing to ensure there are no leaks as we know NDAs are not always foolproof. 

If Canon really wanted to keep this information a secret, they would not have allowed photographers to post images with the EXIF. So, either the EXIF does not have as much meaning as we think it does, or Canon doesn't really care about keeping the secret anymore.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I guess the hardest thing for me to understand is why Canon ever kept the megapixels under wraps for this long.
> 
> The 1DX2 and 1DX3 development announcements jumped right on top of saying it would have a 20 megapixel sensor, and having that information from the get-go means people aren't investing months into speculation and dreaming where you end up having people think it might be 45 megapixels before they get disappointed. If it's just 24 megapixels, people understand the market and would understand what kind of camera it's aiming to be.
> 
> It just seems weird to me that they announced all these specs and gave so many people the camera but then kept the lid on the megapixels. Was that a marketing choice to avoid bad press during the hypetrain because of the higher resolution A1 and Z9 being out there?


I couldn't find the 1DX II development announcement, but the 1DX III development announcement does not give the MP count. I believe (although there may be exceptions) that canon does not announce the MPs until the official announcement, not the development announcement.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 26, 2021)

I guess it is to be expected, but it is really funny to me how spec oriented the people on this forum are. Oh how terrible, 24 MPs instead of 30 Mp. A difference that will probably not be noticeable for any hand held shots and/or peeping at less than 100% (or maybe even 200%) or so - at least based on my experience. 

I'm sure those who actually buy the camera will find it does exactly what it is intended to do. As always with Canon.


----------



## calfoto (Jul 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Still, could be a firmware limit on pre-release cameras.


That was my thought as well - on my R5 the full frame resolution on the menu is 8192x5464 - if it were a true 4x6 ration it would be 8196. However the reduced resolution jpegs are true 4x6 ratio if you do the pixel math, since they are downsized by the camera’s software. It seems a bit too coincidental that the full resolution of the sensor would be exactly 4000x6000 px natively, much more likely it’s downsized internally in the R3 as a JPEG


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2021)

calfoto said:


> That was my thought as well - on my R5 the full frame resolution on the menu is 8192x5464 - if it were a true 4x6 ration it would be 8196. However the reduced resolution jpegs are true 4x6 ratio if you do the pixel math, since they are downsized by the camera’s software. It seems a bit too coincidental that the full resolution of the sensor would be exactly 4000x6000 px natively, much more likely it’s downsized internally in the R3 as a JPEG


The roundness of the numbers isn't an indicator; 24MP cameras really are precisely 6000x4000. At least my Rebel T6i and M50 are.

A 96MP beast might very well come in at precisely 12000x8000.

I'm not surprised that 8196 became 8192, as 8192 is precisely 8K (computer K that is).


----------



## AlanF (Jul 26, 2021)

bhacker said:


> The r5 cannot autofocus on small birds against a busy background (think passerines in a forest) anything like a DSLR. Unless Canon solves this problem, I wouldnt buy the r3 for birds. I just bought another DSLR because my r5 does not work in a forest/jungle. The r5 is great otherwise and OK for manual focus in a forest/jungle. See forums for more explanation; e.g., https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/problems-with-af-on-birds-r5.39490/page-5


This problem is overplayed (see my post in the thread you just linked to). Mirrorless do have more problems than DSLRs in focussing against a background but I now never notice the problem because I am using one back button for centre point focus and another for eyeAF and tracking, and flick between the two when tracking fails. I can even can capture small dragonflies in flight against backgrounds https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/ as well as birds flying against backgrounds. I will never go back to DSLRs although I have a couple of bodies for back up until I get a second mirrorless although I greatly enjoy using them.


----------



## timmy (Jul 26, 2021)

For me it sounds like I’ll be waiting to see what the R1 has in store. I print very large and I’m also coming from Nikon. I’ve been way too comfortable with 36mp and 45mp to go lower. This camera will be killer, but for my first canon camera, I’ll be going with the R5 or perhaps waiting to see what the R1 has in store. If resources were unlimited I’d love to add an R3 to my arsenal. Exciting days ahead.


----------



## Pixel (Jul 26, 2021)

WoodyWindy said:


> You can pretty much bet that any image allowed to be published will be in a mode and/or meet a specification "arbitrarily" set by Canon to not tip the real capability of the camera. The photographers may (for example) have the real RAW files on hand, but be mandated to use a throttled version of DPP to produce compliant output. (No actual knowledge of the device or process, just conjecture about one way such a rumor could start...)


It will only shoot in JPG, there’s no software available to process RAW R3 files. Sports photographers shooting for the wires wouldn’t be shooting RAW anyways.


----------



## BuffaloBird (Jul 26, 2021)

As a birder, 30MP was already a hard pass for me. 24MP falls into the joke range. Happy with my R5, but the R3 woulda been nice for a few things, including metering tied to focus point.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Weren't the older sports bodies only limited in resolution to achive better fps?


Believe it or not, a lot of sports shooters requested Canon keep the MP count down.
It was not just a technical limitation.
There are a lot of sports photographers with R5 cameras as well so I guess there is demand for both.
I suspect the R1 will be a high-resolution camera and those folks will travel with an R1 and an R3.
Arguably, since Canon already has the 1DX III it would have made more sense to come out with the higher resolution model first.
However, it is not like Canon to debut a new technology like their first stacked BSI sensor in the top model.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

David_D said:


> My main concern is the weather sealing. My 7DMkII has coped with some very wet weather with no problems (sometimes better than me), unlike my 40D, which did not like that sort of treatment. Hence 1-series protection on the R3 sounds appealing. Where does the R5 fit on this scale?


The R5 is very nicely weather sealed which greatly contributes to the overheating


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

RunAndGun said:


> Granted we‘re not talking apples-to-apples, since I’m talking about motion/video, but global shutter is the main reason I bought a Sony F55 over an F5. At introduction the F55 commanded a ~$15K premium over the F5.


Yet another reason that RED Komodo is so amazing at 6K.
I am also interested in the ZCAM E2-S6G which is the same price.
I have a feeling I will end up with the RED.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> If Canon really wants to keep the true resolution under wraps, a better way is to have prerelease firmware limit it to 24MP right on the camera. That way they’re not relying on somebody else remembering to resize the images before publishing them when things are happening fast at the olympics.


That would work but people would not really be testing the camera.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

calfoto said:


> That was my thought as well - on my R5 the full frame resolution on the menu is 8192x5464


That would be brilliant f those numbers were just lies but it would be easy to figure out from the resulting photos.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 26, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I guess it is to be expected, but it is really funny to me how spec oriented the people on this forum are. Oh how terrible, 24 MPs instead of 30 Mp. A difference that will probably not be noticeable for any hand held shots and/or peeping at less than 100% (or maybe even 200%) or so - at least based on my experience.
> 
> I'm sure those who actually buy the camera will find it does exactly what it is intended to do. As always with Canon.


The difference between 24 and 30mp is noticeable for me and the photography I do. Wanting or needing a certain resolution sensor to do certain work is not being spec oriented. It is wanting to have the best tool for the job. In the past, we were limited to a certain maximum resolution and fps because that is what was possible given the current state of technology. Currently, we know the technology exists to provide both high resolution and speed in the same camera body. Why should I not want the R3 to be 30-45mp and shoot 30 fps if that is what would suit my work the best? This along with improved AF, reduced rolling shutter, better high ISO performance than what the Canon R5, Sony a9II, Sony a1, or Nikon Z9 can likely will provide. It would be the best tool for the the type of photography I do to pay the bills (birds and wildlife). It is looking more and more like I will need to wait for the R1 to get the tool I have been waiting for from Canon, but that does not mean I can't hope the R3 will provide it.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

SteveC said:


> A 96MP beast might very well come in at precisely 12000x8000.


I want my 12K video camera for $6K.
Anything less than that is crippled.
Why do you hate us Canon?


----------



## StevenA (Jul 26, 2021)

Seems realistic. But what is the benefit to buying an R3 now instead of waiting for the R1? The R5 is (more than) capable enough for most people for another year or so.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

StevenA said:


> Seems realistic. But what is the benefit to buying an R3 now instead of waiting for the R1? The R5 is (more than) capable enough for most people for another year or so.


Income derived from image sales. Cost, the R1 is going to cost a lot more than an R3. Feature overreach, if an R3 does the job at, for instance, 24mp at 30 fps, why wait a year spend more money and miss out on images between then and now for more mp and fps you don’t need.

Amateurs/enthusiasts and pros look at cameras completely differently. I suspect most enthusiasts want x model but get y model because of cost. Most pros need x model because of a feature set so buy x model, they don’t buy a model because it has ‘more’ unless they need those specific features for specific output.


----------



## peters (Jul 26, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Crazy limitations like physics, huh.


Why exactly?
The Sony A1 offers *8k without overheat* (externaly) AND *50mp with 30fps.* (which is TWICHE the amount of data, compared to the Canon R3 with half the resolution). The A1 got no fan and a super compact body... 
I cant see any physical limitation in play here. Can you elaborate what you mean?

The R5 obviously suffers from a design error in the thermal heatsink design (they should have used copper). Kolarivision offers a fix for the faulty heatpipe that canon put inside: https://kolarivision.com/product-category/r5overheating/ (doubles record time, probably unlimited 4k oversampled external recording).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> The Sony A1 offers *8k without overheat* (externaly)


R5 will be the first mirrorless camera that I am aware of to record 8K externally and A1 absolutely overheats recording internally.
Sony even says that.
It is just nowhere near as bad as the R5.


----------



## peters (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Just out of curiosity, would the rumored R5c interest you?


Good question  
I think it depends on the resolution. Since I do product shots (where resolution is VERY nice to have to get a clean cutout an retouch result), wedding and landscape, I realy appreciate the R5 with the 45mp. 

I think the perfect camera for me would be the R5 without the overheat. That would be perfect. Even external withouth overheat (4k raw maybe) would be good enough. But the overheat is realy a downer for me and the only reason I look for the next canon cameras. (My camera overheats after 20 minutes of 4k60 over a 60 minute period or after 4 minutes of 4k100 in total....)
Everything else is perfectly fine - a compact body, a beautyfull image in photo an video, 4k100, excellent AF performance... 
If the R5c got 45mp and video without overheat (4k60 and 4k100) than it would be an INSTANT switch for me


----------



## miketcool (Jul 26, 2021)

Pixel said:


> It will only shoot in JPG, there’s no software available to process RAW R3 files. Sports photographers shooting for the wires wouldn’t be shooting RAW anyways.


Half my shoots are JPG. I don't have interns to sort through RAW files and spend hours editorializing. I really wish people would understand that not every shoot is an hour in the field and 3 days in the edit bay. I'm sure half the shooters at the games this year started out with film rolls.


----------



## peters (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> R5 will be the first mirrorless camera that I am aware of to record 8K externally and A1 absolutely overheats recording internally.
> Sony even says that.
> It is just nowhere near as bad as the R5.


The A1 records 8k externaly without overheat, doesnt it? 
And its not overheating in 4k60 internaly, or am I mistaken?
These are pretty important things, at least in my workfow


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> The A1 records 8k externaly without overheat, doesnt it?


Nope.


peters said:


> And its not overheating in 4k60 internaly, or am I mistaken?


Sony only rates it for 60 minutes but that is pretty conservative.
It is much better than the R5 and R6 but there is a reason that Sony came out with the FX3 with active cooling when they already had the A7SIII.
Sony is better at managing heat than Canon mostly because of larger heatsinks.
However, their cameras still overheat pretty quickly if the heat tolerance is not set to high.
Canon does not let us do that.
Canon also has much better weather sealing.
It would be nice to have more options from Canon, but no, Sony has not overcome the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That would work but people would not really be testing the camera.


Sure they would. Consider the final product for images taken at the Olympics – stock images and online posting. 24 MP is more than sufficient for that.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure they would. Consider the final product for images taken at the Olympics – stock images and online posting. 24 MP is more than sufficient for that.



They couldn't be testing the camera because the only thing that matters is the resolution.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> Why exactly?
> The Sony A1 offers *8k without overheat* (externaly) AND *50mp with 30fps.* (which is TWICHE the amount of data, compared to the Canon R3 with half the resolution). The A1 got no fan and a super compact body...
> I cant see any physical limitation in play here. Can you elaborate what you mean?
> 
> The R5 obviously suffers from a design error in the thermal heatsink design (they should have used copper). Kolarivision offers a fix for the faulty heatpipe that canon put inside: https://kolarivision.com/product-category/r5overheating/ (doubles record time, probably unlimited 4k oversampled external recording).


The devil is always in the detail. The A1 does do 30fps, sometimes, but even when it does it uses lossy compression, and the buffer fills in 5 seconds. It also has a measly 10fps mechanical shutter.


----------



## peters (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Nope.
> 
> Sony only rates it for 60 minutes but that is pretty conservative.
> It is much better than the R5 and R6 but there is a reason that Sony came out with the FX3 with active cooling when they already had the A7SIII.
> ...







Here he shows that it worked for him limitless externaly  (your miles may vary?) While the canon only offers about 12 minutes internaly in my experience (externaly may come at the end of the year, but we dont know if it realy comes and what runtime it has).

Sonys 60 minute at 4k60 is very impressive - canon only offers 15-20 minues (in my personal experience in some projects)

Weather sealing is also comparable - thats honestly a thing of the past.

Overall I cant see any physical reasons why this should be any problem. Sony managed to do it. Its not about physics, its an engeneering problem. The Heatsink in the R5 are simply made of the wrong material. The kolarivision mod shows that - simply use copper and it DOUBLES the internal recording time (!) =)


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 26, 2021)

Could RAW images really have less than the full resolution? Would they still be considered RAW? As I understood RAWs did not go through demosaicing. So if the therory with the lower resolution just for the testers is true, how could Canon make a 24 megapixel RAW file from a higher resolution without demosaicing it first? That could only work if the real resolution was 96 megapixels and the color filter would consists of 2x2 groups with the same colour. I don't see a way to scale down a RAW from a sensor with a conventional Bayer Filter without demosacing the RAW file first.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Could RAW images really have less than the full resolution? Would still be considered RAW? As I understood RAWs did not go through demosaicing. So if the therory with the lower resolution just for the testers is true, how could Canon make a 24 megapixel RAW file from a higher resolution without demosaicing it first? That could only work if the real resolution was 96 megapixels and the color filter would consists of 2x2 groups with the same colour. I don't see a way to scale down a RAW from a sensor with a conventional Bayer Filter without demosacing the RAW file first.


You’re correct, but the cameras in the field right now probably do not output RAW files. Nothing but a pre-release version of DPP could convert them, and somehow I doubt DPP is part of any commercial sports editorial workflow, and even if it was that they’d rely on what would be at best a beta version of the software.

Almost certainly, the R3 cameras in use right now are only writing JPGs to the cards, and in that case the RAW files are irrelevant.


----------



## Pixel (Jul 26, 2021)

slclick said:


> Can we at least agree it's not a flagship and therefore shouldn't be constantly compared to another brands flagship? The glass half full here is we get another body available for those who want and need it. It's pure win.


Canon told us it’s not a flagship so yeah.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 26, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I guess it is to be expected, but it is really funny to me how spec oriented the people on this forum are. Oh how terrible, 24 MPs instead of 30 Mp. A difference that will probably not be noticeable for any hand held shots and/or peeping at less than 100% (or maybe even 200%) or so - at least based on my experience.
> 
> I'm sure those who actually buy the camera will find it does exactly what it is intended to do. As always with Canon.


I've said before that having shot 50mp I don't ever want to go back to less, and even I'm a bit surprised at the concern over 24mp vs. 30mp. That's a far less consequential difference, and in a camera that's purpose built for speed. One could point to the A1. But then again, one could point to countless comments online by professional sports photographers saying they absolutely do not want to deal with large files. If we know anything about Canon, we know they are meticulous about market research. Maybe 24mp was the sweet spot for this market segment regardless of Sony's spec choices.

I absolutely love my 5Ds for sports, despite the fps and buffer limitations. But I shoot as a hobby with occasional paid jobs or print sales. I'm not trying to move thousands of images across a network in an industry where every second literally counts. I'm interested in the best possible RAW IQ because I have time that night or the next day to play around in ACR and PS. Not the best possible out-of-camera JPEG IQ because the image was supposed to be posted to Twitter and Instagram 5 minutes ago.

It's also worth noting that Canon's newer, weaker AA filters mean that 24mp is probably a lot closer to the 30mp of the 5D mark IV and R in overall IQ then some might like to admit, especially to the crowd that is pushing out-of-camera JPEGs to their employers ASAP.

Someone out there will decide that Canon is ill-fated because the R3 is only 24mp or only 30mp, and they will sell everything and move to Sony. But the reports from working professionals at the Olympics are stellar. I don't think Canon will have any problems selling this new body.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> Weather sealing is also comparable - thats honestly a thing of the past.



I heard that for every A7 generation that subsequently had failures. Do we know this? Is someone actively testing camera weather sealing? Imaging Review was going to start doing this in a scientific fashion until they scaled everything back. All I have are anecdotes from friends that the A9s work in harsh conditions, so maybe it's a solved problem with Sony. But I wish someone would test weather sealing as carefully as the industry likes to test DR.



peters said:


> Overall I cant see any physical reasons why this should be any problem. Sony managed to do it. Its not about physics, its an engeneering problem. The Heatsink in the R5 are simply made of the wrong material. The kolarivision mod shows that - simply use copper and it DOUBLES the internal recording time (!) =)



I'll give you that one. Why Canon messed this up in the R5/R6 I'll never know...


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 26, 2021)

slclick said:


> Can we at least agree it's not a flagship and therefore shouldn't be constantly compared to another brands flagship? The glass half full here is we get another body available for those who want and need it. It's pure win.


As long as they price it accordingly, yes. The R1 might be a 50-60mp sports beast at a higher price. Sony has the A1 and A9, why can't Canon split the market between an R1 and R3 so people have the choice?

I just hope their next high resolution landscape camera is positioned as an R5s and not a much more expensive R1 or R1s. I don't need 30 fps...but I wouldn't mind playing with 100mp.


----------



## lethiferous (Jul 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The devil is always in the detail. The A1 does do 30fps, sometimes, but even when it does it uses lossy compression, and the buffer fills in 5 seconds. It also has a measly 10fps mechanical shutter.



A1 and R5 owner here. You will never use the mechanical shutter on the A1, there is nearly 0 reason to. The buffer will also clears faster than the R5 if your using CF express A. thanks to SD magic on the R5 and also the R3 ( makes 0 sense for a "speed" based camera). I've never filled either buffer by actually shooting other than intentionally holding down the shutter to do so. 


peters said:


> Here he shows that it worked for him limitless externaly  (your miles may vary?) While the canon only offers about 12 minutes internaly in my experience (externaly may come at the end of the year, but we dont know if it realy comes and what runtime it has).
> 
> Sonys 60 minute at 4k60 is very impressive - canon only offers 15-20 minues (in my personal experience in some projects)
> 
> ...



Unless you set the temperature tolerance to high, you may also need to flip out the screen. Out the box settings it will pop the overheat warning shooting 4k 120/8k if the screen isn't out, for prolonged shooting the temperature threshold needs to be adjusted. I haven't tried a dummy battery though.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 26, 2021)

Been working through the seven stages of grief. Not at acceptance yet, but over the shock and denial at least. One thing that I think is bizarre is how Canon, with both the 1DxIII and the R3 (if it is indeed 24mp) makes such an effort to keep the resolution under wraps when the spec is so underwhelming. It sure seems to me that it would be better to let that leak out early or even include it in the pre-announcements and hold back on some blockbuster spec like eye-control autofocus so that when the actual announcement comes people are talking about a positive, instead of focusing on a rather bland specification that is always going to generate controversy no matter what the number is.


----------



## lethiferous (Jul 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> As long as they price it accordingly, yes. The R1 might be a 50-60mp sports beast at a higher price. Sony has the A1 and A9, why can't Canon split the market between an R1 and R3 so people have the choice?
> 
> I just hope their next high resolution landscape camera is positioned as an R5s and not a much more expensive R1 or R1s. I don't need 30 fps...but I wouldn't mind playing with 100mp.


Doubt it. It's Canon, do you remember the EOS R launch? The R5 is 3900, 1dxiii 6500. I don't see it coming lower than 5500. On FM used A1s are like 6k. Tack on the RF glass premium and the big whites all being the same price. Tough sell. All canon really has going for it is RF Glass (damn amazing glass) and what appears to me is better AI in AF currently. The whole EYE EYE AF could be amazing and could be a gimmick, loads of questions there about if glasses folks can use it etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> A1 and R5 owner here. You will never use the mechanical shutter on the A1, there is nearly 0 reason to. The buffer will also clears faster than the R5 if your using CF express A. thanks to SD magic on the R5 and also the R3 ( makes 0 sense for a "speed" based camera). I've never filled either buffer by actually shooting other than intentionally holding down the shutter to do so.
> 
> 
> Unless you set the temperature tolerance to high, you may also need to flip out the screen. Out the box settings it will pop the overheat warning shooting 4k 120/8k if the screen isn't out, for prolonged shooting the temperature threshold needs to be adjusted. I haven't tried a dummy battery though.


I wasn’t implying the A1 isn’t a good camera, nor that there were things it does better than the R5, there are. But then there should be considering you can get two R5’s for the price of an A1 in some places but even everywhere else there is a big price difference.

I was simply saying that the headline features come with caveats, so pissing on one with another without pointing out those caveats is pointless. Kind of like I just did with the price.


----------



## lethiferous (Jul 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn’t implying the A1 isn’t a good camera, nor that there were things it does better than the R5, there are. But then there should be considering you can get two R5’s for the price of an A1 in some places but even everywhere else there is a big price difference.
> 
> I was simply saying that the headline features come with caveats, so pissing on one with another without pointing out those caveats is pointless. Kind of like I just did with the price.


Not sure about other places but in the US, one or two RF Ls vs something like a Sigma dg dn. Lets just say 200-600 vs 100-500 difference and 24-70 DG DN vs 24-70 RF price difference. These 2 lens cost differences alone land you in the same price for both kits at retail just about.


----------



## Juangrande (Jul 26, 2021)

20Dave said:


> With the up-front caveat that I am not in the market for this camera, and I am not even a frequent amateur photographer (I'm more into astro-imaging at the moment), I did a quick check on the difference between a 24MP image and a 30MP image blown up to a 1:1 ratio. Here is the difference below. The sensors shown are representations of the the 24MP Nikon D3200 and the 30MP Canon 5D MarkIV, with identical pixel scales. For a pro or semi-pro photographer, is this difference really enough to say that you will or won't purchase this camera? I would think that the other aspects of the camera would be much more important than the slight gain in overall image resolution, but again, I am a weekend warrior at best, still happy with my aging 5DIII.
> 
> View attachment 199209


If you were to align those sensor (rectangles) sizes say with the bottom left corner the difference is more noticeable.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> Here he shows that it worked for him limitless externaly


Only up to 4K60. R5 and R6 can do the same.



peters said:


> Weather sealing is also comparable


I disagree


peters said:


> The Heatsink in the R5 are simply made of the wrong material. The kolarivision mod shows that


The Kolari Vision mod also overheats and they even tell you that.
It is just a big improvement.


----------



## HJN (Jul 26, 2021)

carlosalberto said:


> Wow!! If this is real, many will be screaming that Canon lost his mind!


His? Fairly sure Canon is a she.


----------



## slclick (Jul 26, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Canon told us it’s not a flagship so yeah.


Yet look how many here want to compare it to the A1. What Canon says doesn't seem to matter to the hordes of whiners and complainers. I guess where I'm going and am always going is stills shooters are so much easier to please than hybrid or chiefly video people. There really is far too much teeth gnashing. Too much math, too much spec talk, hardly any left brain activity it seems.


----------



## Kuau (Jul 26, 2021)

Since I have gotten so use to the R5, my normal cropped images is approximately 6000x4000 pixels from a 45mp image So an R3 with just 24mp will greatly limit my copping ability which for me means I have to use longer glass.. Glad I just purchased the new RF 400/2.8 and both the RF1.4 and 2.0 extenders


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That would work but people would not really be testing the camera.


Yes and no. It depends on what the purpose of the testing is. When I've done field testing of unreleased products (not cameras), we usually have a detailed plan of what features we want to exercise and what we hope to learn that we can't exercise in our development lab.


----------



## Skux (Jul 26, 2021)

What a wild ride. Critics are in despair that they're not getting 6 megapixels (out of the supposed 30 that still isn't even confirmed) that they aren't gonna need anyway, and professional 1DX sports shooters are just happy to have a little more resolution.


----------



## Copland (Jul 26, 2021)

For me its a kind of arithmetic example in practice...

20 fps on [email protected] MP in RAW normally can shoot 3 seconds of full speed with CFexpress card.

30 fps on [email protected]? MP in RAW can have at least 5 seconds (at least for a sport camera!) of full burst?

I would say 20-24 MP are realistic for this.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 26, 2021)

slclick said:


> Can we at least agree it's not a flagship and therefore shouldn't be constantly compared to another brands flagship? The glass half full here is we get another body available for those who want and need it. It's pure win.


"Flagship" is a marketing term (well, OK, it's a naval term that's been appropriated for marketing use). It conveys no special attributes or implied capabilities. If Canon prices the R3 north of $6K US, that's definitely A1 territory and comparisons are valid.

In truth, the products to compare are the ones you will consider purchasing because they have the capabilities you need.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 26, 2021)

Skux said:


> What a wild ride. Critics are in despair that they're not getting 6 megapixels they aren't gonna need anyway, and professional 1DX sports shooters are just happy to have a little more resolution.


I assume you meant 60 MP? I know resolution isn't everything but I'd be pretty disappointed with 6MP these days...


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 26, 2021)

peters said:


> The R5 obviously suffers from a design error in the thermal heatsink design (they should have used copper). Kolarivision offers a fix for the faulty heatpipe that canon put inside: https://kolarivision.com/product-category/r5overheating/ (doubles record time, probably unlimited 4k oversampled external recording).


Copper just allows heat to move faster along it. It doesn't dissipate heat faster as it doesn't have an external heatsink. Kolari doesn't specify the external body temperatures which I believe would equate to a low temperature burn and potentially damaging the rear LCD if turned in. You could say that all video would be with the LCD turned out but Canon has to allow for all options or it will be a design flaw and covered under warranty.
I recall the youtube video where a guy initially did a custom copper heat spreader and recorded the external temperatures. He gave Kolari the idea. Can't find the video at the moment though


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 26, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I assume you meant 60 MP? I know resolution isn't everything but I'd be pretty disappointed with 6MP these days...


It's a reference to 30-24=6MP.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I guess the hardest thing for me to understand is why Canon ever kept the megapixels under wraps for this long.


Probably because megapixels is a number that is easy for people to fixate on... uh... present company excepted, of course.

All kidding aside, if Canon does pre-announce that it will have 24 or 30 or 45 MP or whatever, other brands with higher resolution can control the dialog and it's an uphill battle for Canon once it's released. This way, the actual MP is one part of the entire package of features and capabilities at the time of release, and Canon has more control over the dialog.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 26, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Nope.
> 
> Sony only rates it for 60 minutes but that is pretty conservative.
> It is much better than the R5 and R6 but there is a reason that Sony came out with the FX3 with active cooling when they already had the A7SIII.
> ...


A key point for Sony is their CIPA shooting capacity vs battery capacity against Canon. It is clear to me that their prowess in video processing chips and algorithms shines in this aspect probably from their PSx division knowledge base. If Sony processing generates less heat then it doesn't need to dissipate heat and gets longer record times.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 26, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> It's a reference to 30-24=6MP.


Oh I see. Gotcha.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 26, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> Unless you set the temperature tolerance to high, you may also need to flip out the screen. Out the box settings it will pop the overheat warning shooting 4k 120/8k if the screen isn't out, for prolonged shooting the temperature threshold needs to be adjusted. I haven't tried a dummy battery though.


Appreciate the feedback. This also aligns with Canon being conservative with internal heating and spreading the heat. A copper heat spreader moves the heat faster but gives low temperature burns to the back panel and potentially damaging the rear LCD. It looks like Sony can check for this in firmware. Buying the Kolari mod won't allow for LCD turned in with potential damage.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> A key point for Sony is their CIPA shooting capacity vs battery capacity against Canon. It is clear to me that their prowess in video processing chips and algorithms shines in this aspect probably from their PSx division knowledge base. If Sony processing generates less heat then it doesn't need to dissipate heat and gets longer record times.


Sony batteries smackdown Canon batteries when it comes to mirrorless but Canon BP batteries that they use in their cinema cameras last forever.
I think Canon made a mistake by making their mirrorless batteries backward compatible since DSLRs require so little energy.
I see no reason that Canon can't come up with a competitive mirrorless battery but I do not think it can be an LP-N type.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> ...if Canon does pre-announce that it will have 24 or 30 or 45 MP or whatever, other brands with higher resolution can control the dialog and it's an uphill battle for Canon once it's released. This way, the actual MP is one part of the entire package of features and capabilities at the time of release, and Canon has more control over the dialog.



I don't really agree with that. 

It would be true if there were a long list of features and capabilities to announce, but lately Canon has been previewing those headline grabbing features several months in advance and leaving something like the resolution as the great unknown until the announcement date. 

With the 1Dx III, we knew most of the features in advance except the resolution. The resolution was disappointing and dominated a lot of the release chatter.

With the R5, Canon hyped a video spec they couldn't deliver on without massive overheating and that overheating dominated a lot of the release chatter.

Now, with the R3, we know most of the features except the resolution and the underwhelming resolution (if it is 24mp) is likely to dominate a lot of the release chatter. 

If I were advising Canon, I would have told them to either leak the resolution of the 1DX III and (if 24mp) R3 out early and take the hit in advance, or hold back on big features like eye-control autofocus and try to bury the resolution in with the discussion of these other features. In the case of the R5, I would have told them not to hype the 8K, but rather emphasize that it can shoot "up to 8K under certain conditions," while hyping features like IBIS and animal eye focus.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If I were advising Canon, I would have told them to either leak the resolution of the 1DX III and (if 24mp) R3 out early and take the hit in advance, or hold back on big features like eye-control autofocus and try to bury the resolution in with the discussion of these other features.


I would do the same thing but Canon does not seem to care about negative chatter at all.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> For birders 30MP is still a useful improvement over 24MP, that amounts to 12% extra reach. Every bit helps. Let's not forget even 30MP would be disappointing, but palatable. R1 no one has a clue about sensor or res, and at least another 12 months away and no doubt $1.5K dearer or more. We already have the 50MP A1 and Z9 is looking to be around 45MP like R5. If R3 was going to be A9II price 24MP would be more palatable, but if it's the rumoured $5.5K+ no thanks.


Resolution = Reach? Since when? Please.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't really agree with that.
> 
> It would be true if there were a long list of features and capabilities to announce, but lately Canon has been previewing those headline grabbing features several months in advance and leaving something like the resolution as the great unknown until the announcement date.
> 
> ...


Mea


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

The 5D sells more cameras than all the high resolution cameras combined.


----------



## peters (Jul 27, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Copper just allows heat to move faster along it. It doesn't dissipate heat faster as it doesn't have an external heatsink. Kolari doesn't specify the external body temperatures which I believe would equate to a low temperature burn and potentially damaging the rear LCD if turned in. You could say that all video would be with the LCD turned out but Canon has to allow for all options or it will be a design flaw and covered under warranty.
> I recall the youtube video where a guy initially did a custom copper heat spreader and recorded the external temperatures. He gave Kolari the idea. Can't find the video at the moment though






Thats the video, a very impressive channel btw  
This mod is quite difficult, but if you have the tools or the heatsink, it should be doable. It would be an easy thing for canon to do this, even for existing cameras. In my opinion it should fall under the warranty


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> For birders 30MP is still a useful improvement over 24MP, that amounts to 12% extra reach. Every bit helps. Let's not forget even 30MP would be disappointing, but palatable. R1 no one has a clue about sensor or res, and at least another 12 months away and no doubt $1.5K dearer or more. We already have the 50MP A1 and Z9 is looking to be around 45MP like R5. If R3 was going to be A9II price 24MP would be more palatable, but if it's the rumoured $5.5K+ no thanks.


Yeah but a gazillion birders publish photos every single day with 5Dmk 3.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> I would really prefer to stay in the Canon ecosystem, but if the R3 is actually only 24mpx and the R1 is over a year away I will be eagerly waiting to see if Nikon will be able to lure me over with the Z9.


Ludicrous. Then obviously you dont make a living from photography.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> I would really prefer to stay in the Canon ecosystem, but if the R3 is actually only 24mpx and the R1 is over a year away I will be eagerly waiting to see if Nikon will be able to lure me over with the Z9.


Ludicrous. Then obviously you dont make a living from photography


David_D said:


> Not exactly, a while ago Canon sent me an email that said:
> 
> I wondered at the time how a pro sports camera would be perfect for wildlife, where reach/mpx is also important.


And? Suppose you can't shoot like Jeff Cable then. Go over to his site and see his safari shots. There's simply no substitute for skill and talent. Maybe thats why he shoots for team USA.


----------



## peters (Jul 27, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Only up to 4K60. R5 and R6 can do the same.
> 
> 
> I disagree
> ...


Nope, it is 8k - as seen at 3:11 in his video, which you may want to watch, if you want to learn something about the camera: 





For example the A7R III survied COMPLETE freeze and defreeze: 



 minute 2:00
The A7R III also easily survives HEAVY rain and mist, just like the Nikon D850 and Canon 5D. And they improved in the a7R4 and a7III and a1: 



You may disagree, but the facts are just that simple. The a7 series is completely weather sealed and there is nothing wrong with it.


True, the Canon R5 still "overheats" with the mod. But the argument still stands: the Sony A1 doesnt overheat ever in 4k (which the Canon does) and it does *not *overheat in 8k external.

There is no "physical limitation". The Canon is just a faulty design. And I say that as a owner of 2 R5 cameras which I use daily in my professional workflow


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

Guess CR got the clics it was searching for. A couple of no named fantom mentions get a whole lot of attention because people just dont want Canon to control its own marketing. Same as the sensor by Sony rumour.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Sony batteries smackdown Canon batteries when it comes to mirrorless but Canon BP batteries that they use in their cinema cameras last forever.
> I think Canon made a mistake by making their mirrorless batteries backward compatible since DSLRs require so little energy.
> I see no reason that Canon can't come up with a competitive mirrorless battery but I do not think it can be an LP-N type.


"smackdown" isn't a great scientific term. The A1's NP-FZ100 battery has 2300 mAh and the R5's LP-E6NH has 2130 mAh so about 8% difference. They are practically the same size as well.

Power demand would indicate that the usage of the available power is the key difference in CIPA etc specs between the 2. The A1 processing power efficiency and the combined SD/CFe type A slots are the only other significant difference in usage.

The 1DXiii uses LP-E19 with 2700mAh but 90Whr due to 10.8v so 95% more capacity than the R5. Canon didn't update the LP-E19 battery since 2016 when it was released in 2016. The 1DXiii didn't really need more capacity 
If Canon reuses the same battery in the R3, it could increase the density similar to the +15% in LP-E6NH or could be a new battery as the R3 is physically smaller.

Are BP batteries better LP-N type batteries?
LP-E6NH is 38.4 x 21 x 56.8 mm. Not exactly rectangular in shape but approximately 45cm3 in volume @7.2V giving a power density of 340mWh/cm3
BP-A60 is 41.5 x 82.5 x 69.7 mm and approximately 240cm3 (5x the LP-E6 size) with 6700mAhr @14.4V giving a power density of 402mWh/cm3
=> BP-A60 is about 18% power density than LP-E6NH but BP-A60 is "much more rectangular" so perhaps that accounts for the difference in my rough calculations


----------



## peters (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> I heard that for every A7 generation that subsequently had failures. Do we know this? Is someone actively testing camera weather sealing? Imaging Review was going to start doing this in a scientific fashion until they scaled everything back. All I have are anecdotes from friends that the A9s work in harsh conditions, so maybe it's a solved problem with Sony. But I wish someone would test weather sealing as carefully as the industry likes to test DR.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you that one. Why Canon messed this up in the R5/R6 I'll never know...


Yeah, there are not many tests, but I found 2. One with complete freeze and defreeze and one with heavy rain. It survived both. I doubt there are any public tests for the a1, since thats crazy expensive :-D 









Yeah, its hard to tell. I think it was just a design that wasnt perfectly thought through. Maybe there are other reasons against the copper heatsink... I guess they just focused on the photo side...


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> I would really prefer to stay in the Canon ecosystem, but if the R3 is actually only 24mpx and the R1 is over a year away I will be eagerly waiting to see if Nikon will be able to lure me over with the Z9.


Ludicrous. Then obviously you dont make a living from photography


Diltiazem said:


> The scary part of this rumor is that it is likely to be true.


Yeah like the sensor manufactured by Sony.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

Sensationalism.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> With the R5, Canon hyped a video spec they couldn't deliver on without massive overheating and that overheating dominated a lot of the release chatter.


We really need some perspective on the R5's 8k spec. It was the only body that could do any form of 8k. The hype ramped up from "Canon couldn't possibly have the technology when Sony didn't have it", to "it must be 8k timelapse", to it "it couldn't possible have continuous AF", to "only for an extremely short record time".
Release of ~10 minutes of 8k raw record time and then to ~20 minutes of 8k raw record time after firmware release.

Yes, the video record time dominated the release criticism but there was nothing better on the market. Even the A1 released close to a year later and 50% higher cost can do more record time and still isn't 8K raw. What is the cost of the CFe type B card to continuously shoot 8k raw for >20 minutes??


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2021)

peters said:


> Thats the video, a very impressive channel btw
> This mod is quite difficult, but if you have the tools or the heatsink, it should be doable. It would be an easy thing for canon to do this, even for existing cameras. In my opinion it should fall under the warranty


nah, there was another one... no water cooling just the copper heat spreader that he made himself plus some better heat transfer pads to the heat spreader. Water cooling would certainly make a big difference though. 
Interesting that there has been no after-market heat transfer/fan for the back panel although some were promised.


----------



## carlosalberto (Jul 27, 2021)

HJN said:


> His? Fairly sure Canon is a she.


Sorry for my english. I think the correct thing would be "its mind"


----------



## peters (Jul 27, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> nah, there was another one... no water cooling just the copper heat spreader that he made himself plus some better heat transfer pads to the heat spreader. Water cooling would certainly make a big difference though.
> Interesting that there has been no after-market heat transfer/fan for the back panel although some were promised.


jeah, later in the video he does exactly that =) 

I think this didnt happen, because the heatpipe in the camera is so bad and the plastic on the back is such a bad conductor for heat. Thats why a fan on the backside just wont help much. The problem can only be (somewhat) fixed by changing the heatpipe inside. Than you may apply some more aircooling to the back which completely eliminates the heat problem


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

No substantial proof. Purely speculative. First your sources said 30, then someone an unknown sources said 45, now 24. Indication that none of your sources have a clue.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

peters said:


> Nope, it is 8k


There was no device to record 8K externally from HDMI until the Ninja V+ and the first camera that Atomos supports is the Canon EOS R5.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> Like what????


Small, sealed body + big data throughput = overheating. Physics.


----------



## djack41 (Jul 27, 2021)

With the Sony A1 at 50 MP, the R3 will be a failure at 24 MP. Surely Canon is not so foolish.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 27, 2021)

djack41 said:


> With the Sony A1 at 50 MP, the R3 will be a failure at 24 MP. Surely Canon is not so foolish.


You don't know if it will be a failure. Time will tell. What if it sells well? Is it a failure? I have an R5 and a 1dx3. I really prefer the 1dx3 in spite of it being a measly 20mp. Is it a failure? I do wish it had the animal AF in live view the r5 has. I wish it had internal time lapse, but I don't want it to have 45mp.


----------



## Skux (Jul 27, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Yeah but a gazillion birders publish photos every single day with 5Dmk 3.


Agreed. I'm not a professional but I've printed and sold 8x10" bird photos from very tight crops taken from a 24mp Canon 800D. Hell I have a friend who got back into photography recently and is doing event and portrait shoots with a humble 12mp Canon 450D.

The fact that people are making livings off 20mp cameras like the 1DX and R6 must be mindblowing to some people here. It's the photo that makes the photo, not the megapixels.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

reef58 said:


> You don't know if it will be a failure. Time will tell. What if it sells well? Is it a failure? I have an R5 and a 1dx3. I really prefer the 1dx3 in spite of it being a measly 20mp. Is it a failure? I do wish it had the animal AF in live view the r5 has. I wish it had internal time lapse, but I don't want it to have 45mp.


It was just a prediction on djack41's part.
Maybe right, maybe wrong but it does not harm anybody.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

Skux said:


> Agreed. I'm not a professional but I've printed and sold 8x10" bird photos from very tight crops taken from a 24mp Canon 800D. Hell I have a friend who got back into photography recently and is doing event and portrait shoots with a humble 12mp Canon 450D.
> 
> The fact that people are making livings off 20mp cameras like the 1DX and R6 must be mindblowing to some people here. It's the photo that makes the photo, not the megapixels.


In their defense, out in nature, there is often not time to change lenses and the R5 let me crop in and take shots that I would not have gotten.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

peters said:


> The A7R III also easily survives HEAVY rain and mist, just like the Nikon D850 and Canon 5D...You may disagree, but the facts are just that simple. The a7 series is completely weather sealed and there is nothing wrong with it.



You didn't actually watch the second video link you posted. The A7R III *failed* that test. In the first round water got into the battery compartment. In the second round the A7R III malfunctioned.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

slclick said:


> Can we at least agree it's not a flagship and therefore shouldn't be constantly compared to another brands flagship? The glass half full here is we get another body available for those who want and need it. It's pure win.


But then it shouldn't be priced as a flagship right? If they price it at $6k, it should have flagship features.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

Skux said:


> Agreed. I'm not a professional but I've printed and sold 8x10" bird photos from very tight crops taken from a 24mp Canon 800D. Hell I have a friend who got back into photography recently and is doing event and portrait shoots with a humble 12mp Canon 450D.
> 
> The fact that people are making livings off 20mp cameras like the 1DX and R6 must be mindblowing to some people here. It's the photo that makes the photo, not the megapixels.


Like anything else in photography, equipment doesn't matter until it does. There is a reason for higher resolutions. There are use cases. And even when it's not mandatory, it is nice.

That said: 20-24mp FF is plenty for most subjects at common print sizes. Especially when it's FF with Canon's new, weaker AA filters. 1DX mark III and R6 IQ look great unless you have to push them to a view size (or crop + view size) where 20mp isn't enough. How often do people do that? More importantly: how often do professional sports photographers delivering images for online content and magazine content do that?

The R3 will sell without a doubt.


----------



## Inspired (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Well I'm here hoping for 30mp and coming in around $5000.


----------



## carlosalberto (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> But then it shouldn't be priced as a flagship right? If they price it at $6k, it should have flagship features.


whether the price is correct or not is set by the market, not the personal wishes


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> That said: 20-24mp FF is plenty for most subjects at common print sizes. Especially when it's FF with Canon's new, weaker AA filters. 1DX mark III and R6 IQ look great unless you have to push them to a view size (or crop + view size) where 20mp isn't enough. How often do people do that? More importantly: how often do professional sports photographers delivering images for online content and magazine content do that?


I print myself with a 24” printer, I use 20mp cameras. I have never really been happy with images over 20”x30” printed from them.

I recently had a client print some of my images to 30”x40” and you can put your face to them, indeed they are in a space where people have very short viewing distances and they are encouraged to look close, and the detail is stunning. I don’t know what program was used to upsize it, it looked like vector based rather than a rastor based enlargement.

But looking at those 30”x40” prints up close convinced me that I just don’t need more than I have 99.9% of the time for commercial work, even for large high quality prints.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2021)

peters said:


> jeah, later in the video he does exactly that =)
> 
> I think this didnt happen, because the heatpipe in the camera is so bad and the plastic on the back is such a bad conductor for heat. Thats why a fan on the backside just wont help much. The problem can only be (somewhat) fixed by changing the heatpipe inside. Than you may apply some more aircooling to the back which completely eliminates the heat problem


Ah, that's why I couldn't find it! I wonder what the temperature on the back side would be if the surface material was heat conductive!!

For me, the "obvious" solution was a heatpipe to the tripod mount. When a specific grip is added, then the heat pipe is activated and the grip contains the extra battery and fan for heat dissipation. Canon charges $350 (8%) for BG-R10 grip and $1k (25%) for WFT-R10A so maybe $1k for a grip specifically for videographers with heat transfer... no need for portrait controls of course. Still be cheaper than A1 

I checked the bandwidth for the WFT-R10A and it could transfer 8k-lite (maybe 8k raw??) but seems to be only setup for image transfers and not video.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't really agree with that.
> 
> It would be true if there were a long list of features and capabilities to announce, but lately Canon has been previewing those headline grabbing features several months in advance and leaving something like the resolution as the great unknown until the announcement date.
> 
> ...


But maybe Canon don’t really care? As you say they are reading the same playbook as the 1DX III. Maybe they figure the actual intended market will be ok with whatever the resolution is and any chatter by others is just noise that keeps the Canon name a point of interest.

Lets be honest the 1 series, new, has always been an expensive niche, and a lot of people saying they want an R1 with 50-60mp are mostly talking nonsense as they are never truthfully in the market for one.


----------



## Pixel (Jul 27, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> "Flagship" is a marketing term (well, OK, it's a naval term that's been appropriated for marketing use). It conveys no special attributes or implied capabilities. If Canon prices the R3 north of $6K US, that's definitely A1 territory and comparisons are valid.
> 
> In truth, the products to compare are the ones you will consider purchasing because they have the capabilities you need.


The "flagship" is whatever Canon says it is, and right now they contend it is the 1Dx III.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> But then it shouldn't be priced as a flagship right? If they price it at $6k, it should have flagship features.


You just compared it to other brand's flagship price. This could be better than other brand's flagship $6K cameras.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But maybe Canon don’t really care? As you say they are reading the same playbook as the 1DX III. Maybe they figure the actual intended market will be ok with whatever the resolution is and any chatter by others is just noise that keeps the Canon name a point of interest.


All publicity is good publicity? The R5/6 sales are higher than expected but bodies seem to be generally available now vs lenses. 
Can't make everyone happy. I wonder how much the overhyped overheating issue lost Canon actual sales.


----------



## timmy (Jul 27, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> I would really prefer to stay in the Canon ecosystem, but if the R3 is actually only 24mpx and the R1 is over a year away I will be eagerly waiting to see if Nikon will be able to lure me over with the Z9.


I’ve been with Nikon the last 12 years. Mirrorless is a whole new world, a world in which Nikon will either not survive or will always be behind. Wouldn’t recommend jumping to them. I’m switching to Canon. The Nikon of the DSLR age that I love is dead. The Z9 will be great, but Sony already came out with their Z9 basically last year. Canon came out with it with the R5 so to speak. The Z9 will be the only flagship Nikon comes out with in the next 5 yrs and it’s already how many yrs behind? Take a deeper look at their lenses too. Canon and Sony is the future, for me it’s Canon


----------



## addola (Jul 27, 2021)

24 MP is 6000x4000 pixels.

Around 24MP could be 6000 and something x 4000 and something pixel

The 30 MP on the EOS R is 6720 × 4480, which can be interpreted as being "around 24 MP"


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> All publicity is good publicity? The R5/6 sales are higher than expected but bodies seem to be generally available now vs lenses.
> Can't make everyone happy. I wonder how much the overhyped overheating issue lost Canon actual sales.


I’m not sure it cost them many sales, it did cause them to lose face a little, which is just as bad! So I’m sure the R3 won’t have any gottchas like the R5 heating, which could be one reason there are so many R3’s out there being used in extreme situations.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But maybe Canon don’t really care?...Maybe they figure the actual intended market will be ok with whatever the resolution is and any chatter by others is just noise...
> 
> Lets be honest the 1 series, new, has always been an expensive niche, and a lot of people saying they want an R1 with 50-60mp are mostly talking nonsense as they are never truthfully in the market for one.





David - Sydney said:


> All publicity is good publicity? The R5/6 sales are higher than expected but bodies seem to be generally available now vs lenses.
> Can't make everyone happy. I wonder how much the overhyped overheating issue lost Canon actual sales.






privatebydesign said:


> I’m not sure it cost them many sales, it did cause them to lose face a little, which is just as bad!...


Generally I agree. But I have thoughts/comments.

The 1 series "market" _was_ professional photojournalists and sports photographers. But, that market has been devastated over the last few years. I can't imagine how Canon can sell two bodies (R3 and R1) to that market. I would think that both have to appeal to a larger audience of enthusiasts in order to turn a profit. The enthusiast market _does_ care about resolution and has the resources to buy. Perhaps Canon has decided that the R3 will be the "true" sports and photojournalism mirrorless and the R1 will be the luxury model for those who are not price sensitive -- in which case we might actually see a 50-60mp R1.

Are R5/R6 sales higher than expected? Or has Canon simply benefited from COVID Induced shortages? Certainly Canon has been able to maximize its per-camera profit thanks to COVID. In a normal cycle by now we'd be seeing price reductions from dealers. Instead Canon has been able to maximize it's direct to consumer sales, which it admitted has resulted in more per-product profit for the company. With the bizarre year we've had, I don't believe anyone, including Canon, can really know what the market will be like once things return to normal (if they ever do).

I agree that Canon definitely does not want a repeat of the overheating issue. Contrary to the saying, all publicity is not good publicity. 

I'm still trying to sort out my own decision. I'd really like to ditch the 1D for a mirrorless body, mostly so I don't have to keep lugging around so much duplicative equipment and keep switching back and forth between formats. I'm willing to take a hit on the 1Dx III, for the convenience of a single mount. I've never had a problem with the 20mp of the 1Dx III, so from that perspective 24mp is not a sacrifice, but it's also not really a step forward. I never believed the 45 mp rumors, although I would have found that appealing. 30 mp seemed like a reasonable option, as it would have matched the R and the 5DIV and I appreciate the cropping room of those bodies over the 20 mp of the 1Dx. 

I just looked up the shutter life of the R5 and found it's equal to the 1D series. If I'm shooting in the rain, I protect my bodies, so the 1 series weathersealing versus 5 series is not that big of a deal to me. I know many people prefer the ergonomics of the 1 series, but I'm perfectly fine with slapping a grip on the R5 when I need extra battery life and enjoying a smaller body when I'm not. I've been loving the 1.6 crop of the R5 and know that isn't really going to be a good option with the R3, but when and if Canon ever delivers on the 100-500, that gives me an extra 100 mm, which would help with outdoor sports on a 24 mp body.

Decisions. Decisions.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

timmy said:


> The Nikon of the DSLR age that I love is dead.


As a DSLR user, I do hope you are wrong.
I hope that the bad luck Nikon is having in mirrorless keeps them in the DSLR game and that keeps Canon in the DSLR game.
Although the Zfc is sold out everywhere which does show Nikon is having some mirrorless success.

By the way, as a long-time Canon user, I welcome you and you will have to get used to a lot people who say they are going to switch from Canon.
It comes with the territory.
Grass greener and all that.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Are R5/R6 sales higher than expected?


Canon has stated this is several quarterly reports and lying to investors is especially bad in Japan.
(Well not compared to China)


----------



## lethiferous (Jul 27, 2021)

Folks when you say things like:

The lower MP will allow for better iso, 24mp is still good for prints, 24mp has served me well for x amount of years etc. All these things may be true, but the your doing justification for the product and *you are the paying consumer*. This is going to be an over 5k body, it's your money expect the most out of it. If we expect more they will gives us more. Can you really say the R3 has a SD card slot and a CF slot because of the price point? Is it not PRO enough to have 2 matching card slots? Folks who buy a 5k body cant afford a CF express B cards (which was 550 for 2TB cards at BH this week daily deal!!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> Is it not PRO enough to have 2 matching card slots?


Apparently only a few of the 1-series bodies were pro enough for that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 27, 2021)

Mirrorless has provided an opportunity to break with tradition. For example we were led to believe that a flagship could not have a flip screen and now it's reality. So why does it have to have 20ish MPs? Can't it be higher and CRAW solve the excessive data issue since it's purported to be almost as good as RAW. To me, they should go for more but allow for the choice of less, in camera. Imagine if they said, you can't have 30 FPS because then when you use the camera you will get too many photos and it will cause too much culling.!

Jack


----------



## HJN (Jul 27, 2021)

carlosalberto said:


> Sorry for my english. I think the correct thing would be "its mind"


That is okay. You can use that term too, if you think of Canon the company as an entity. 

The name Canon still derived from a goddess. Why I reacted to the word "his".


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Are R5/R6 sales higher than expected? Or has Canon simply benefited from COVID Induced shortages? Certainly Canon has been able to maximize its per-camera profit thanks to COVID. In a normal cycle by now we'd be seeing price reductions from dealers. Instead Canon has been able to maximize it's direct to consumer sales, which it admitted has resulted in more per-product profit for the company. With the bizarre year we've had, I don't believe anyone, including Canon, can really know what the market will be like once things return to normal (if they ever do).


From a week ago where Canon boosts their forecast to the market
https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-boosts-forecasts-printer-and-camera-demand-strong/
"Additionally, even amid restrictions on activities linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, interest in and demand for cameras increased, resulting in sales remaining strong in each region, particularly for full-frame mirrorless cameras and interchangeable lenses."

Full results will be published soon with more details. Looking forward to it. A strong financial Canon is good for all of us in the long term and good competition will keep pricing reasonable.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 27, 2021)

HJN said:


> That is okay. You can use that term too, if you think of Canon the company as an entity.
> 
> The name Canon still derived from a goddess. Why I reacted to the word "his".


All in good fun with no need for perfect English. I had no idea: Kwanon, the Buddhist Goddess of Mercy

Canon, have mercy on me, I can't really afford a camera that's so expensive.

Jack


----------



## Berowne (Jul 27, 2021)

BTW, my R6 also has a resolution-trick (20 -> 8 Mpx) ...


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 27, 2021)

That is seriously BAD NEWS


----------



## peters (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> You didn't actually watch the second video link you posted. The A7R III *failed* that test. In the first round water got into the battery compartment. In the second round the A7R III malfunctioned.


It worked perfectly fine, even with a bit water in the battery compartment?


----------



## peters (Jul 27, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Ah, that's why I couldn't find it! I wonder what the temperature on the back side would be if the surface material was heat conductive!!
> 
> For me, the "obvious" solution was a heatpipe to the tripod mount. When a specific grip is added, then the heat pipe is activated and the grip contains the extra battery and fan for heat dissipation. Canon charges $350 (8%) for BG-R10 grip and $1k (25%) for WFT-R10A so maybe $1k for a grip specifically for videographers with heat transfer... no need for portrait controls of course. Still be cheaper than A1
> 
> I checked the bandwidth for the WFT-R10A and it could transfer 8k-lite (maybe 8k raw??) but seems to be only setup for image transfers and not video.


Jeah, a heatpipe to the bottom would be EXACTLY the solution I would have hoped for! That would be perfect - a compact photocamera and (if needed) the option to improve the video features to get a reliable videocamera... that would be perfect


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> "smackdown" isn't a great scientific term. The A1's NP-FZ100 battery has 2300 mAh and the R5's LP-E6NH has 2130 mAh so about 8% difference. They are practically the same size as well.
> 
> Power demand would indicate that the usage of the available power is the key difference in CIPA etc specs between the 2. The A1 processing power efficiency and the combined SD/CFe type A slots are the only other significant difference in usage.
> 
> ...


The LP-E19 hasn't 30% more capacity. It has 30% more capacity of a 50% more (try 1.3*1.5) which means it's about double. You forget the voltage of E19 obviously which has 1 more 3.7V element so there is the 50% I was talking about. Try Wh instead of Ah.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

Wasn't the limiting of the battery capacity quite artificial anyway? I had a 1D Mark II and it had quite a large battery, but later 1D series cameras got that much smaller battery, because there was a limit on how big a battery could be to still be allowed on a plane in some countries. I don't know how that limit was calculated. Was it the capacity in mAh or was it the amount of explodable ingredients? For me it was quite frustrating that so much space was wasted by that small battery.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 27, 2021)

Frankly, whether the R3 is 24 MP or 30 MP is of little concern to me. When I need the resolution I already have the R5. A lower MP R3 would provide superior high ISO noise at native resolution and for high speed action (e.g. birds in flight) having a camera with those characteristics is important. Will buy a R3 to compliment my R5.


----------



## Neale Smith (Jul 27, 2021)

From the EXIF it looks like 24MP, bit disappointed to be honest, was hoping for closer to 30MP, I might have just bought one if it had! Canon just don't put big MP sensors in pro spec bodies anymore, because apparently it's only sport shooters that use them?


----------



## john1970 (Jul 27, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> From the EXIF it looks like 24MP, bit disappointed to be honest, was hoping for closer to 30MP, I might have just bought one if it had! Canon just don't put big MP sensors in pro spec bodies anymore, because apparently it's only sport shooters that use them?


Unless these EXIF data are manipulated in firmware to output a lower resolution image this pretty much confirms the 24 MP resolution. With a BSI sensor and lower MP this camera should have world-class high ISO performance at native resolution.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading


Canon new report that "Will something like this be featured in the high megapixel EOS R camera? it's entirely possible. While Canon has experimented with high MP sensors before, this camera combined with DIGIC X could technically reach speeds of 10 fps at 80 to 90MP. To process data that quickly of the sensor may require Canon to do a more clever sensor design." should this be accurate, to get to 30RPS, we need to reduce the 80-90MP at the same scale, which brings us to 26.6MP to 30MP sensors for the R3.


----------



## Neale Smith (Jul 27, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Unless these EXIF data are manipulated in firmware to output a lower resolution image this pretty much confirms the 24 MP resolution. With a BSI sensor and lower MP this camera should have world-class high ISO performance at native resolution.


The ISO performance looks pretty good from the samples on the blog page I got the EXIF from, I've been waiting since the 1Ds3 to get a higher MP sensor in a pro spec body, but it just doesn't look like Canon are ever going to go down that route again. I shoot interiors, architecture and commercial work, almost exclusively on the TS-E lenses, so I would really love a slightly higher MP offering in a pro spec body. Can't see it happening though.


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I print myself with a 24” printer, I use 20mp cameras. I have never really been happy with images over 20”x30” printed from them.
> 
> I recently had a client print some of my images to 30”x40” and you can put your face to them, indeed they are in a space where people have very short viewing distances and they are encouraged to look close, and the detail is stunning. I don’t know what program was used to upsize it, it looked like vector based rather than a rastor based enlargement.
> 
> But looking at those 30”x40” prints up close convinced me that I just don’t need more than I have 99.9% of the time for commercial work, even for large high quality prints.


But it would be preferred...


----------



## masterpix (Jul 27, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> From the EXIF it looks like 24MP, bit disappointed to be honest, was hoping for closer to 30MP, I might have just bought one if it had! Canon just don't put big MP sensors in pro spec bodies anymore, because apparently it's only sport shooters that use them?


It can be that this is the maximal image size, or that is "crop" sized image. 30,24,18MP for L, M, and S sizes. I would not count on any of those having the R3 in their hands to give up this data so easily.


----------



## mpmark (Jul 27, 2021)

CanonGrunt said:


> I was liking 30 ish. 24 seems like a pass for now and wait on the R1 to compare them, but we shall see.





sfericean said:


> Sources: 24mp
> The Canon Universe:
> View attachment 199208



The “adult” canon shooters don’t obsess on resolution. We by cameras for different reasons


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 27, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Mirrorless has provided an opportunity to break with tradition. For example we were led to believe that a flagship could not have a flip screen and now it's reality. So why does it have to have 20ish MPs? Can't it be higher and CRAW solve the excessive data issue since it's purported to be almost as good as RAW. To me, they should go for more but allow for the choice of less, in camera. Imagine if they said, you can't have 30 FPS because then when you use the camera you will get too many photos and it will cause too much culling.!
> 
> Jack


Its not a flagship. Maybe cost reasons for it not being high MP...


----------



## JordanCS13 (Jul 27, 2021)

What is going on with everyone here? Do you actually shoot? Do you actually print? The difference between 24 and 30MP is negligible at best. You're talking about a linear resolution difference of 700 pixels. You will NEVER see a difference in print between 24 and 30MP. The people that the R3 is for generally do not print 50" prints of their images. It's also quite obvious that they are saving the high resolution plus speed option for the R1.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jul 27, 2021)

Perhaps Canon should have come out with an R3 at 24mp for the sports/photojournalist shooters and an R3R at 45mp for those that want need the extra resolution. Similar to the R6/R5 situation, that would have pleased everybody.

An R1 still come later when its ready.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

JordanCS13 said:


> What is going on with everyone here? Do you actually shoot? Do you actually print? The difference between 24 and 30MP is negligible at best. You're talking about a linear resolution difference of 700 pixels. You will NEVER see a difference in print between 24 and 30MP. The people that the R3 is for generally do not print 50" prints of their images. It's also quite obvious that they are saving the high resolution plus speed option for the R1.


Speaking personally, it's about the ability to crop in, generally for small or flying birds. For many people, a longer lens isn't an option (either for cost reasons where people are limited to something like the 100-500, or in my case because I already have a 600/4 with extenders). 

Having said that, I was fine with my 18 MP 1D X. Would I prefer 30 MP? Yes. Will I buy an R3 at 24 MP? Yes.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 27, 2021)

No wonder they overprice their pro gear. Nobody wants a 24mp camera nowadays, just a few sport shooters maybe... such a disappointment...


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 27, 2021)

Kiton said:


> For cropping reasons. Very often we have to crop the shit out of some files. 24 would be a no go for my needs. It has to be 35 ish for me to bite.
> I am willing to bet Canon has either dialed down the file size or told fotogs they can not output beyond a certain size.
> Most media already have self imposed rules like max 2500 on the long size etc.
> Our's is 13 inches at 300 MAX output. I save full size on my laptop but only FTP a file to their specs.
> ...


Interesting, thanks. You shoot sports professionally? I guess I had assumed that professionals usually were able to get close enough to not have to "crop the shit" (LOL) out of files. What sports do you shoot?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> No wonder they overprice their pro gear. Nobody wants a 24mp camera nowadays, just a few sport shooters maybe... such a disappointment...


Yeah, Canon has such a long track record of poor sales and poor representation at major events covered by the media, so your comment really makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 27, 2021)

Good news and bad news. The good news it delays an expensive outlay. For me it limits the flexibility of the camera. 30mp would have been the lower end of my acceptable range. Ideally it would have been 45/50 mp. This may be an amazing camera but 24mp feels stunted. I’ve the 1DXIII and it’s a great camera except it’s 20MP which means it not a great choice for birds and it could have been. I don’t know who Canon is aiming the R3 at. It’s neither top of the range or middle. I would have thought committed amateurs would be a big customer. Who is looking for a 24mp camera. More people would be looking for a 30mp or more camera. Did they hold back the 24MP news to avoid early discussions on it , hide the bad news so to speak. It makes the A1 more attractive to some photographers.


----------



## djack41 (Jul 27, 2021)

reef58 said:


> You don't know if it will be a failure. Time will tell. What if it sells well? Is it a failure? I have an R5 and a 1dx3. I really prefer the 1dx3 in spite of it being a measly 20mp. Is it a failure? I do wish it had the animal AF in live view the r5 has. I wish it had internal time lapse, but I don't want it to have 45mp.


Sony has set the bar high. The A1 does not compromise in FPS, MP or AF. Canon needs the be in the game if it wants to expand market share. The days of flagship cameras with 20 MP is over. The market has moved on. Some people will be quite satisfied owning the R6 but 45 MP makes the R5 much more versatile. JMHO and I was only wrong 4 times yesterday!


----------



## reef58 (Jul 27, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Sony has set the bar high. The A1 does not compromise in FPS, MP or AF. Canon needs the be in the game if it wants to expand market share. The days of flagship cameras with 20 MP is over. The market has moved on. Some people will be quite satisfied owning the R6 but 45 MP makes the R5 much more versatile. JMHO and I was only wrong 4 times yesterday!


I just told you a reason it is not over yet. Canon also does not think it is over. You seem to think only your wants and needs matter. If I want something similar to the A1 I have the R5. Personally I was hoping for 30mp, at 24 I am going to stick with my 1dx3. The camera will probably sell just fine in spite of you proclaiming it is over. The market will decide if it is over.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 27, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> If Canon prices the R3 north of $6K US, that's definitely A1 territory and comparisons are valid.



Canon wrote that the R3 is "positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III cameras", so it should be priced that way. That would put it somewhere in the US$5K range.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 27, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> No wonder they overprice their pro gear. Nobody wants a 24mp camera nowadays, just a few sport shooters maybe... such a disappointment...


The R6 is one of the top-selling cameras at less than 24MP.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 27, 2021)

mpmark said:


> The “adult” canon shooters don’t obsess on resolution. We by cameras for different reasons


Some reasons from Canon Europe:

"A camera designed to capture the fastest moving action. Designed to capture objects moving at high speed and built to meet the exacting demands of professional shooters, with ultra-responsiveness, high sensitivity, reliability and durability."


----------



## Squawk3000 (Jul 27, 2021)

24 is the new 20.

The people this camera was designed for are using it at the Olympics.

If you don't like it, wait for the R1. Or buy the R5.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon EOS #R3 Specs
-24mp backside illuminated image sensor
-Multi-Controller & Smart Controller
-Vari-Angle Touch Screen
-NEW accessory shoe
-Wifi 5GHz
-High speed 30fps electronic shutter with AF/AE tracking + RAW shooting at this speed
-AF down to -7.0 EV
-8 Stops Coordinated Control IS with Optical IS and In-Body IS
-4K Canon Log3
-Oversampling 4K
-Internal RAW video
-Inclusion of cars and motorbikes in AF tracking technology
-RAW internal movie recording
-Speedlite shooting with electronic shutter
-The same weather sealing as the EOS-1D series
-LP-E19 Battery
-Dual card slot SD & CFExpress

Really hope the 24mp is wrong ?


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

carlosalberto said:


> whether the price is correct or not is set by the market, not the personal wishes


Exactly, there exists flagships in the market at that price. This is not a "personal wish". It is a market driven price point


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 27, 2021)

Squawk3000 said:


> 24 is the new 20.
> 
> The people this camera was designed for are using it at the Olympics.
> 
> If you don't like it, wait for the R1. Or buy the R5.


I have the R5 and it has AF issues and some features missing that a "1 series" camera quite likely will not have. It has a lot and I'm not griping by any means but what many of us have said repeatedly is that we want a "1 series" camera with higher MPs. Let's have "1series" for both of us, the low MP guys and the high MP guys or build it so that you can choose "in camera". What makes you think the R1 will be high MPs? I'm not so sure.

Jack


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The roundness of the numbers isn't an indicator; 24MP cameras really are precisely 6000x4000. At least my Rebel T6i and M50 are.


That’s what they are because the metadata says so. Canon almost always has a bit more resolution than that in their sensors and then crop to that nice even number. This gives them a little buffer room for interpolation, etc. you can see this with raw files by using exiftool to read the raw metadata in the file or dcraw to extract the full sensor readout. All of their sensors have at least 16-32 extra pixels on each side of the image that gets cropped out.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 27, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Could RAW images really have less than the full resolution? Would they still be considered RAW? As I understood RAWs did not go through demosaicing. So if the therory with the lower resolution just for the testers is true, how could Canon make a 24 megapixel RAW file from a higher resolution without demosaicing it first? That could only work if the real resolution was 96 megapixels and the color filter would consists of 2x2 groups with the same colour. I don't see a way to scale down a RAW from a sensor with a conventional Bayer Filter without demosacing the RAW file first.


Raw only means it has not been conformed to a colorspace. It also generally means that it hasn’t been demosaiced, but that is not a requirement. They can easily do what they want with the raw data (resize it, demosaic it, etc) and it’s still raw until it’s been conformed to a colorspace. Unless you’re a purist that says raw is untouched raw sensor samples, raw doesn’t actually mean much.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 27, 2021)

Maybe the 6000 x4000 Exif data was from a 1.6 crop in camera shot which would give a 38MP sensor ?


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> Folks when you say things like:
> 
> The lower MP will allow for better iso, 24mp is still good for prints, 24mp has served me well for x amount of years etc. All these things may be true, but the your doing justification for the product and *you are the paying consumer*. This is going to be an over 5k body, it's your money expect the most out of it. If we expect more they will gives us more. Can you really say the R3 has a SD card slot and a CF slot because of the price point? Is it not PRO enough to have 2 matching card slots? Folks who buy a 5k body cant afford a CF express B cards (which was 550 for 2TB cards at BH this week daily deal!!)



Canon makes their choices based on market research and possibly sensor design/fabrication limitations. It's possible, since this is Canon's first BSI sensor, that Canon could not make a 45-50mp variant and still retain some other feature (low or non-existent rolling shutter; 30 fps). But it's also possible that the target market simply told them they wanted a SD slot and don't want high MP.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

peters said:


> It worked perfectly fine, even with a bit water in the battery compartment?



*No, it did not.* In round one water got into the battery compartment *from the top of the camera,* not from the bottom as the cameras were sitting above the table on lens tripod feet. That means over time water will work its way into/onto electronics you do not want to get wet or corrode even if the camera continues to work for the moment.

And in the second round, *it failed.*

You posted a video you clearly did not watch, and are now arguing about a video you clearly still have not watched all the way through. And it's a 5 minute video. Why would you do this?


----------



## BBarn (Jul 27, 2021)

Could be a 24MP sensor, but it's easy to make a JPG whatever size you want in DPP and the EXIF size data is modified as well.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> From the EXIF it looks like 24MP, bit disappointed to be honest, was hoping for closer to 30MP, I might have just bought one if it had!


Again, I don't understand the hand wringing over 24mp vs. 30mp. If the original rumor had been 45mp or more, then I could understand.



Neale Smith said:


> Canon just don't put big MP sensors in pro spec bodies anymore, because apparently it's only sport shooters that use them?


I would bet that yes, the R3 is very narrowly focused on the pro photography market and will be purchased primarily by that market. I would guess that the R1 will be a higher resolution R3 with sports/wildlife (reach limited) crossover. And that there will be a very high resolution R5s at some point aimed at pro/hobbyist landscape photographers as well as studio photographers.

It's possible that there will not be an R5s but that the R1 will be the highest resolution landscape/studio option.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 27, 2021)

mpmark said:


> The “adult” canon shooters don’t obsess on resolution. We by cameras for different reasons


WTH are you talking about....


Jack Douglas said:


> I have the R5 and it has AF issues and some features missing that a "1 series" camera quite likely will not have. It has a lot and I'm not griping by any means but what many of us have said repeatedly is that we want a "1 series" camera with higher MPs. Let's have "1series" for both of us, the low MP guys and the high MP guys or build it so that you can choose "in camera". What makes you think the R1 will be high MPs? I'm not so sure.
> 
> Jack


What are some AF issues besides it thinking faces are on inanimate objects? i was actually looking for a video about AF with an 1dxiii and R5


----------



## scyrene (Jul 27, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Sony has set the bar high. The A1 does not compromise in FPS, MP or AF. Canon needs the be in the game if it wants to expand market share.



Lol here we go again. We've been hearing this for longer than I've been on the forum. And yet, Canon is doing fine.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 27, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> Maybe the 6000 x4000 Exif data was from a 1.6 crop in camera shot which would give a 38MP sensor ?



I'm afraid the crop is squared so a 1.6x mode producing 24MP files requires more than 61MP full frame.


----------



## Neale Smith (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Again, I don't understand the hand wringing over 24mp vs. 30mp. If the original rumor had been 45mp or more, then I could understand.
> 
> 
> I would bet that yes, the R3 is very narrowly focused on the pro photography market and will be purchased primarily by that market. I would guess that the R1 will be a higher resolution R3 with sports/wildlife (reach limited) crossover. And that there will be a very high resolution R5s at some point aimed at pro/hobbyist landscape photographers as well as studio photographers.
> ...


I'm still shooting a 1Ds3, so 30MP odd would be a decent jump from 21MP. I'm not overly concerned, for the work I do, my 1Ds3 still performs remarkably well, most of my images are planar stitches, with everything being exclusively shot on the TS-E lenses.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> An yet many of these professionals are taking phenomenal Olympic photos with their jokes of cameras 1DX II and 1DX III.
> At the same time, I do see the benefit of a higher resolution sensor and I expect that to come in the form of the R1.




The problem is it's specialized for specialized sake. It need not be, as the A1 has already proven. I agree their are some photographers that won't care about 24mp. Great for them. There are a whole lot that do though, myself as a bird shooter included. Canon made my decision for me as to whether or not to buy this body. Indifferent about it because, one, I can almost guarantee this compromised camera for my needs, and that's what it is, a compromise for the sake of I don't know what, will cost close to $6000 and two, I already have an R5. It's nearly an identical camera when you consider what was traded for what, as far as features go. I already own one, have had one for nearly a year and it will look to have cost my nearly $2000 less. It's laughably ridiculous when you think about it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The problem is it's specialized for specialized sake. It need not be, as the A1 has already proven. I agree their are some photographers that won't care about 24mp. Great for them. There are a whole lot that do though, myself as a bird shooter included. Canon made my decision for me as to whether or not to buy this body. Indifferent about it because, one, I can almost guarantee this compromised camera for my needs, and that's what it is, a compromise for the sake of I don't know what, will cost close to $6000 and two, I already have an R5. It's nearly an identical camera when you consider what was traded for what, as far as features go. I already own one, have had one for nearly a year and it will look to have cost my nearly $2000 less. It's laughably ridiculous when you think about it.


So basically, you’re suggesting that you know more about the ILC market than Canon does.

The number of forum dwellers who have a similar belief, despite decades of Canon leading the market, never ceases to amaze.

You’re absolutely correct that Canon is indifferent about you.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The problem is it's specialized for specialized sake. It need not be, as the A1 has already proven.


Canon can't come out with an A9 competitor?



exige24 said:


> ...will cost close to $6000


Can we wait and find out before deciding that Canon is ill-fated?



exige24 said:


> and two, I already have an R5. It's nearly an identical camera when you consider what was traded for what, as far as features go. I already own one, have had one for nearly a year and it will look to have cost my nearly $2000 less. It's laughably ridiculous when you think about it.


Was 30 vs. 20/12 fps really going to radically change your bird photography if the R3 had just been 30mp instead of 24mp?


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Canon can't come out with an A9 competitor?
> 
> 
> Can we wait and find out before deciding that Canon is ill-fated?
> ...


They can, but it's not for me.



Canon will be fine. This particular body on the other hand will be born dead @$6000 afaic.



I would not buy it at 30mp either. 20 pictures at a cropable 45mp is worth more to me than a much less cropable 30mp that I have 30 of. Hell, I'll take 20 pictures at a cropable 45mp over 100 at 24mp. Lol


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 27, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The R6 is one of the top-selling cameras at less than 24MP.


The R6 is CHEAP bro... this R6 equivalent will definitely be not. Why would I buy an R3 for 6k if I can buy an R6 for 2k?


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 27, 2021)

That is so smart, a 24mpix camera. 
Who wants that?

Did someone at Canon development pulled the battery out of the clock/date five years ago?


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> I would not buy it at 30mp either. 20 pictures at a cropable 45mp is worth more to me than a much less cropable 30mp that I have 30 of. Hell, I'll take 20 pictures at a cropable 45mp over 100 at 24mp. Lol


Aside from the fact that you were never the target market for this camera: would the R3 have radically changed your birding photography with 45mp at 30 fps instead of 45mp at 20 fps?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> That is so smart, a 24mpix camera.
> Who wants that?
> 
> Did someone at Canon development pulled the battery out of the clock/date five years ago?


By all means, show us all the market research that _you’ve_ conducted to support that claim. Or try to convince us the company that has consistently sold more ILCs than any other manufacturer for nearly two decades doesn’t understand their market. Go on…prove how much smarter you are than Canon.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2021)

tron said:


> The LP-E19 hasn't 30% more capacity. It has 30% more capacity of a 50% more (try 1.3*1.5) which means it's about double. You forget the voltage of E19 obviously which has 1 more 3.7V element so there is the 50% I was talking about. Try Wh instead of Ah.


I forgot about the Whr difference due to voltage difference (14.4v vs 10.8v vs 7.2v). I've updated my original post. Thanks for pointing it out.

I was replying to "smackdown" from EOS 4 Life rather then yourself though.

One interesting thing to observe is that the LP-E19 came out in 2016 with the 1DXii and hasn't been updated since. The LP-E6N came out in 2014 with the 7Dii and updated to LP-E6NH in 2020 with 14% additional capacity. It is possible that the Canon could increase the LP-E19 similarly. No need with the 1DXii/iii but if they reuse the same in R3 then that would be welcome.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The 1DXiii uses LP-E19 with 2700mAh but 90Whr due to 10.8v so 95% more capacity than the R5. Canon didn't update the LP-E19 battery since 2016 when it was released in 2016. The 1DXiii didn't really need more capacity
> If Canon reuses the same battery in the R3, it could increase the density similar to the +15% in LP-E6NH or could be a new battery as the R3 is physically smaller.


The LP-E19 is already confirmed as the R3 battery, the bottom of the camera kicks out to accommodate the battery as shown in the early Gordon Laing videos and images.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The LP-E19 is already confirmed as the R3 battery, the bottom of the camera kicks out to accommodate the battery as shown in the early Gordon Laing videos and images.


LP-E19 form factor is confirmed or actual LP-E19 battery? Maybe LP-E19NH


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> LP-E19 form factor is confirmed or actual LP-E19 battery? Maybe LP-E19NH


"Power will be delivered by the same Canon LP-E19 battery pack that powers the EOS-1D X Mark III."
source: usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/product-showcases/cameras-and-lenses/eos-r3


----------



## Michael T (Jul 28, 2021)

My guess is the 6000 x 4000 pixel is a crop given the even dimensions. Look at the dimensions on other Canon cameras and they are not such even figures. Given the competition, I think it is fair to assume it will be north of 24MP, and hopefully more than 30MP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> LP-E19 form factor is confirmed or actual LP-E19 battery? Maybe LP-E19NH


No, LP-E19 as FrenchFry says and links to and the Gordon Laing videos demonstrate.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Aside from the fact that you were never the target market for this camera: would the R3 have radically changed your birding photography with 45mp at 30 fps instead of 45mp at 20 fps?



It'll have the ability to grab more of opportune moments at useable resolutions, so yes. It would definitely improve it. Dramatically so? Most of the time, maybe not, but during special circumstances/opprotunities? Hell yeah. As the R3 stands, it's a down grade in almost every circumstance


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 28, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> WTH are you talking about....
> 
> What are some AF issues besides it thinking faces are on inanimate objects? i was actually looking for a video about AF with an 1dxiii and R5


Since I didn't have the R5 back when others were already shooting, I wasn't monitoring R5 threads very much. My observations are in comparison to the 1DX2 , which I shot for a few years, primarily with spot AF. 

With the R5 I've noticed poor focusing on items with little vertical definition but that's a rare issue. What is much more problematic is sometimes it just can't catch subjects having busy backgrounds and all I can say is the 1DX2 never had that problem . Others, such as AlanF have explained what they perceive is going on so it's pretty well established at this point. 

I will not be going back and have the 1DX2 tentatively sold because overall for birds and wildlife the R5 is better, to a large extent due to animal eye AF. Since my big white has the focus memory ring I make sure I have prefocused if at all possible on something that is reasonably near my intended subject and that helps a lot.

I also shutter spot focus followed by back button eye AF which solves many focus issues. This is critically important or one will lose many shots and toggling between the two is instantaneous.

Jack


----------



## djack41 (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So basically, you’re suggesting that you know more about the ILC market than Canon does.
> 
> The number of forum dwellers who have a similar belief, despite decades of Canon leading the market, never ceases to amaze.
> 
> You’re absolutely correct that Canon is indifferent about you.


Nero, the camera market is changing as never before. Sony is the leader in mirrorless, not Canon. Market shares are now up for grabs, in a shrinking market. People will be selling DSLRs/lenses and deciding which mirrorless system in which to invest. Canon can not sit on past laurels.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 28, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Nero, the camera market is changing as never before. Sony is the leader in mirrorless, not Canon. [..]


No, Canon leads mirrorless as well. Sony leads only in the FF mirrorless category, the Canon M50 kits outsell pretty much every MILC out there.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 28, 2021)

I have a good question. Are specialized cameras still relevant or needed? Should a flagship still be specialized or just have all the features of the cameras below it like a top car model or a high end computer model spec out. It does cost more so why or why not. So this concerns the alleged R1 and somewhat the R3 due to it supposedly costing more than any RF camera. Let me hear it (fan)boys! Are there any women on here though....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Nero, the camera market is changing as never before. Sony is the leader in mirrorless, not Canon. Market shares are now up for grabs, in a shrinking market. People will be selling DSLRs/lenses and deciding which mirrorless system in which to invest. Canon can not sit on past laurels.


djck41, Sony is not the leader in mirrorless, Canon is. Sony is the leader in FF MILCs, but APS-C cameras far outsell FF, and the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line in Japan, and I suspect that’s true globally.

Market share is always ‘up for grabs’ and people on this forum have been claiming for years that Canon will lose out to Sony or Nikon. That hasn’t happened.

What makes you think Canon is sitting on past laurels? Canon was the last major camera company to enter the MILC market (and many here claimed they were d00med because of that). Today, they sell more MILCs than any other manufacturer. Canon entered the FF MILC market 5 years after Sony (the latter a year after the Canon gorilla entered the APS-C MILC market…coincidence?), and are actively releasing lenses and bodies at multiple price levels. Consider this – if the rumor of a Canon FF MILC launching at a price of $800 comes true, how long do you think Sony will maintain their lead in the FF MILC segment? I'd give that about 6 months...


----------



## Kiton (Jul 28, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Interesting, thanks. You shoot sports professionally? I guess I had assumed that professionals usually were able to get close enough to not have to "crop the shit" (LOL) out of files. What sports do you shoot?



NHL, CFL, Tennis, MLS, Formula 1, etc 

It isn't always about how close you can get, for the Stanley Cup finals I shot some games with a 200-400 and others with a 300 2.8. The 300 was perfect when I shot to the net on my left but too loose for the net on my right. Pix from that side required some pretty big crops. Hockey is so fast today, most often there is no time to put down the 300 2.8 and pick up another body with a 400 2.8! Same for Tennis, albeit to a lesser degree. At hostage takings, police stand offs etc, I shoot with a 100-400 and often crop out a small portion of the frame from those types of assignments.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 28, 2021)

Kiton said:


> NHL, CFL, Tennis, MLS, Formula 1, etc
> 
> It isn't always about how close you can get, for the Stanley Cup finals I shot some games with a 200-400 and others with a 300 2.8. The 300 was perfect when I shot to the net on my left but too loose for the net on my right. Pix from that side required some pretty big crops. Hockey is so fast today, most often there is no time to put down the 300 2.8 and pick up another body with a 400 2.8! Same for Tennis, albeit to a lesser degree. At hostage takings, police stand offs etc, I shoot with a 100-400 and often crop out a small portion of the frame from those types of assignments.


It's commentaries like this that remind folk that cropping is a very useful tool and that the extra MPs can come in very handy! Sounds like a cool job!!

Jack


----------



## masterpix (Jul 28, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> From the EXIF it looks like 24MP, bit disappointed to be honest, was hoping for closer to 30MP, I might have just bought one if it had! Canon just don't put big MP sensors in pro spec bodies anymore, because apparently it's only sport shooters that use them?


I must say this is kind of fishie to me, the photogepher of those pictures is Jeff Cable, however, on his own page there is no EXIF data on those pictures, and I don't think he, with his credibility, will mess up his NDA with Canon. So how those pictures "leaked"?


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For me it is important to have a large and heavy body with a built in battery grip. The R6 and R5 only have external battery grips that do not even align properly to the body.
> 
> Weren't the older sports bodies only limited in resolution to achive better fps? That limit seems to be gone with the new sensor design and faster cards.


Yes. I wanted one for the ergonomics. I find the R5/R6 poor in that regard. At 24 MP and a possible $6k price I'll stick with my 5D IV's and my 1Dx II and use the 5D's in Liveview when I need mirrorless type AF.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Jul 28, 2021)

degos said:


> The 1D APS-H family were actually very pixel-dense for their generations. The full-frame equivalent of the 1D4 would be 27MP, not bad for 2009 given that a decade later Canon still haven't achieved that in the 1DX line.


Good thought. That's probably why the 1Dx was such a huge jump in high ISO performance. But I remember the day I unboxed at 1Dx that I'd had the company buy and was shocked by the weight. Then it took me months to get used to how much less depth of field there was after years of APS-H bodies.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 29, 2021)

masterpix said:


> I must say this is kind of fishie to me, the photogepher of those pictures is Jeff Cable, however, on his own page there is no EXIF data on those pictures, and I don't think he, with his credibility, will mess up his NDA with Canon. So how those pictures "leaked"?


As of now, you can still see the EXIF data for photos posted on his site, including photos from a few days ago and photos from after the EXIF discussion started. See screenshots below. 

I find it hard to believe (but not impossible), that someone like Jeff would be posting photos in such a way that his NDA would be violated, given how important it is for him to keep in Canon's good standing (Canon offers free gear rental to all who pay for his photo tours through a "sponsorship" program.).

These photos have been up for several days, the EXIF data has gotten a lot of attention, and Canon does not appear to have forced Jeff to remove them. He did have some text in his blog about the R3 that appears to have been removed, possibly at Canon's request, but so far we have no indication that Canon has any issues with these JPG photos and their EXIF appearing on his blog. 

So, what does this mean? Does Canon no longer care about keeping the MP of the R3 a secret, after all their initial effort? Or is Canon just not worried that this EXIF data actually "confirms" anything?

The latter seems more likely to me. 

We cannot confirm that the R3 is 24MP based on this EXIF information. All we can say is that the camera is capable of taking photos at 24MP with the pre-production firmware. Maybe more is available but not being used, or maybe more will be available in final firmware, or maybe this is the best the camera can do. Nothing is confirmed.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 29, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> It's commentaries like this that remind folk that cropping is a very useful tool and that the extra MPs can come in very handy! Sounds like a cool job!!
> 
> Jack



Thank you sir!
Yes, it is a very cool job. I have met and photographed many people who make boat loads more money than I, but I have yet to photography anyone who made me think, I wish I had done that in life instead!

I checked your web gallery, man there are a lot of really nice pictures! Well done. Congrats!


----------



## masterpix (Jul 29, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> As of now, you can still see the EXIF data for photos posted on his site, including photos from a few days ago and photos from after the EXIF discussion started. See screenshots below.
> 
> I find it hard to believe (but not impossible), that someone like Jeff would be posting photos in such a way that his NDA would be violated, given how important it is for him to keep in Canon's good standing (Canon offers free gear rental to all who pay for his photo tours through a "sponsorship" program.).
> 
> ...


Thanks, that confirm one thing: nothing is confirmed at this point.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 29, 2021)

Maybe Canon has even asked Jeff Cable to publish photos with wrong EXIF data. They do not want their competitors to know the real resolution. That's an old strategy: If you can't prevent a leak, jut leak wrong information on your own. Then people do not know which leak is true. 

By the way, the image is still on his blog, but does it still contain the EXIF data about the resolution? I downloaded it and uploaded it to several online EXIF viewers and none of them found resolution data. That could be a part of the strategy: Make it appear that the leak was an accident and quietly remove the data.


----------



## Neale Smith (Jul 29, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe Canon has even asked Jeff Cable to publish photos with wrong EXIF data. They do not want their competitors to know the real resolution. That's an old strategy: If you can't prevent a leak, jut leak wrong information on your own. Then people do not know which leak is true.
> 
> By the way, the image is still on his blog, but does it still contain the EXIF data about the resolution? I downloaded it and uploaded it to several online EXIF viewers and none of them found resolution data. That could be a part of the strategy: Make it appear that the leak was an accident and quietly remove the data.


Just checked his page, the EXIF is still on there. I doubt they'd go to that length to be honest, fair play if they have, but can't see it.


----------



## Neale Smith (Jul 29, 2021)

masterpix said:


> I must say this is kind of fishie to me, the photogepher of those pictures is Jeff Cable, however, on his own page there is no EXIF data on those pictures, and I don't think he, with his credibility, will mess up his NDA with Canon. So how those pictures "leaked"?


Some websites don't show the metadata on images, depends how said site is built. Shit happens, I don't think there has been any notion to leak anything, it's just been about showing some images from a pre-production camera, and what it is capable of doing, they probably didn't even think anyone would look at the EXIF info. I'd say given the cameras speed and ISO performance, all roads lead to 24MP, I'd be more than happy to be wrong, and only time will tell, I'm sure they'll publish the full specs pretty soon, and despite some people looking for more resolution, I've no doubt for sports shooters, this will be a weapon.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 29, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> Some websites don't show the metadata on images, depends how said site is built. Shit happens, I don't think there has been any notion to leak anything, it's just been about showing some images from a pre-production camera, and what it is capable of doing, they probably didn't even think anyone would look at the EXIF info. I'd say given the cameras speed and ISO performance, all roads lead to 24MP, I'd be more than happy to be wrong, and only time will tell, I'm sure they'll publish the full specs pretty soon, and despite some people looking for more resolution, I've no doubt for sports shooters, this will be a weapon.


I don't mind it be 24MP or 30MP, having stack sensor with 30FPS is the min issue here, as my PC screen is about 6MP. But I still wonder how professional (and supported photographer who signed a NDA) would do such a "mistake" and no one in Canon (which sponsor him and give him free cameras and lenses - wish that was me) notice it. Canon learned a lot from Apple in generating a hype over their cameras and lenses (which is exciting), and I think that this "leak" is part of the hype generating. So all in all, we will need to wait for the official announcement. One thing that they don't talk about its if the R3 will ahve internal GPS or not.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 29, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> Just checked his page, the EXIF is still on there. I doubt they'd go to that length to be honest, fair play if they have, but can't see it.


Everything I can see on blog.jeffcable.com has had its EXIF scrubbed, besides copyright:

`$ exiftool jeff-cable-photography-blog-tokyo-olympics-Canon-CPS-0003.JPG
ExifTool Version Number : 12.25
File Name : jeff-cable-photography-blog-tokyo-olympics-Canon-CPS-0003.JPG
Directory : .
File Size : 230 KiB
File Modification Date/Time : 2021:07:29 19:32:20+02:00
File Access Date/Time : 2021:07:29 19:32:19+02:00
File Inode Change Date/Time : 2021:07:29 19:32:20+02:00
File Permissions : -rw-r--r--
File Type : JPEG
File Type Extension : jpg
MIME Type : image/jpeg
JFIF Version : 1.01
Resolution Unit : inches
X Resolution : 200
Y Resolution : 200
Exif Byte Order : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Image Description : Canon CPS Behind the Scene
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
Software : Google
Artist : Jeff Cable
Copyright : © Copyright - Jeff Cable Photography
Exif Version : 0220
Exif Image Width : 1100
Exif Image Height : 734
Profile CMM Type : Adobe Systems Inc.
Profile Version : 2.1.0
Profile Class : Display Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 1999:06:03 00:00:00
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Apple Computer Inc.
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer : none
Device Model :
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator : Adobe Systems Inc.
Profile ID : 0
Profile Copyright : Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Profile Description : Adobe RGB (1998)
Media White Point : 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point : 0 0 0
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Red Matrix Column : 0.60974 0.31111 0.01947
Green Matrix Column : 0.20528 0.62567 0.06087
Blue Matrix Column : 0.14919 0.06322 0.74457
Image Width : 1100
Image Height : 734
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Image Size : 1100x734
Megapixels : 0.807
My File Number : jeff-cable-photography-blog-tokyo-olympics-Canon-CPS-0003.JPG
MBP:foto koen$`


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Everything I can see on blog.jeffcable.com has had its EXIF scrubbed, besides copyright:
> 
> `$ exiftool jeff-cable-photography-blog-tokyo-olympics-Canon-CPS-0003.JPG
> ExifTool Version Number : 12.25
> ...


You can try using the Exif viewer pro plugin for Chrome. EXIF is there on every image. 

If you are looking at the images in this post, they are taken with the iPhone 12:








EXCLUSIVE Behind the Scenes: Here is a rare look into Canon's back room at the Olympics


Jeff Cable Photography, Tokyo 2020, Olympics, Summer Olympics, Team USA, USOPC, Tokyo, Japan, Canon, CPS, BTS, Loaner, Support




blog.jeffcable.com





The latest water polo shots are pretty much all R3.


----------



## lclevy (Jul 29, 2021)

Neale Smith said:


> From the EXIF it looks like 24MP, bit disappointed to be honest, was hoping for closer to 30MP, I might have just bought one if it had! Canon just don't put big MP sensors in pro spec bodies anymore, because apparently it's only sport shooters that use them?


could you please link to pictures with such exif data ?


----------



## mpmark (Aug 1, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> WTH are you talking about....
> 
> What are some AF issues besides it thinking faces are on inanimate objects? i was actually looking for a video about AF with an 1dxiii and R5


Exactly, you don’t understand, all you care about is MP count.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 1, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Exactly, you don’t understand, all you care about is MP count.


Can you read my mind? Do you know me? What do you know about me and what I care about in life?


----------



## Kiton (Aug 5, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> BTW, if those 24MP images by Al Bello, Getty staff photog, are indeed taken with the R3, then you can really see him putting the 30 fps stacked sensor to work. Great images, truly freezing moments in time with those swimmers.



Bello is a good fotog for sure, but Nick Didlick is actually producing more images of note than Al is. 
Nick is a Sony ambassador now, so that won't help much with camera data, but as fotogs go, Nick is a bigger sports power house and has been for decades.


----------

