# The Canon EOS R3 will be 24mp, confirmed by EXIF data



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 27, 2021)

> It looks like the resolution of the sensor in the Canon EOS R3 has been confirmed at 24mp. It looks like EXIF data that made it out of Tokyo Olympics images have made their way to the Canon Rumors Forum.
> The EXIF data shows an image size of 6000×4000 pixels, which puts us at 24mp.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 27, 2021)

_Roma locuta, causa finita..._


----------



## csibra (Jul 27, 2021)

Any EXIF data editable


----------



## Rocksthaman (Jul 27, 2021)

Even though I’m not going to buy it (I think) That is a baaaad camera when you look at the run down of specs considering the usability vs other systems. 

Anyone that uses it to create will not be disappointed. Nay sayers are *******.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

As I asked in the other thread, could these cameras not be restricted in firmware to output max 24 MP JPG files?


----------



## BuffaloBird (Jul 27, 2021)

Ouchhhhh. Guess I'm sticking with the R5!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I asked in the other thread, could these cameras not be restricted in firmware to output max 24 MP JPG files?


I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the corner and gimp them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Well the best thing is I just leapt over 3/4 of the people that said they were going to preorder.....


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

BuffaloBird said:


> Ouchhhhh. Guess I'm sticking with the R5!


R5 is a very nice camera to stick with! I have it too and I have not regretted it (I sold my R though). I would like a R5 with R3's body and battery though...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the corner and gimp them.


It seems a little conspiratorial to me but the thing that makes me think it might be possible is the video resolution. Full width DCI 4K doesn’t divide nicely into 6,000 pixels.


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

I guess R3 will be a fantastic astrophotography camera...


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

On the positive side this looks a lot like R6MkII. Now where is our R5MkII ?


----------



## Alex784 (Jul 27, 2021)

csibra said:


> Any EXIF data editable


Sure, buy why bother ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well the best thing is I just leapt over 3/4 of the people that said they were going to preorder.....


Sorry, but not me.


----------



## sfericean (Jul 27, 2021)

Sources Confirm: 24mp
The Canon Universe:


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It seems a little conspiratorial to me but the thing that makes me think it might be possible is the video resolution. Full width DCI 4K doesn’t divide nicely into 6,000 pixels.


I do hope you are right and they have cooked these numbers.
On the negative side I like my 5DMkIV and a 30Mp R3 would make it redundant!


----------



## Joe4Sho (Jul 27, 2021)

maybe R1 on the same day as a surprise


----------



## David_D (Jul 27, 2021)

It could all be preparing a big reveal for the launch... all the pro sports photographers who said more than 20mp would be too slow have just shot the Olympics with a 45mp camera, set to output M jpegs


----------



## SV (Jul 27, 2021)

I guess Jeff Cable exported without scrubbing the exif - oops or intentional??


----------



## roby17269 (Jul 27, 2021)

Lovely... more money left for new lenses then!


----------



## miketcool (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon sells plenty 1DX mkiii’s at $6499 with 20mp. Why? In sports you don’t gain much from pushing in and a higher quality sensor with less pixels is demanded.

If the R3 doesn’t warp high speed objects during bursts, it’ll be a hit with professionals. The crowd that spends hundreds of dollars accessorizing and babying their equipment that they don’t make a penny off of will wail. I’m excited for this jump into the future.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2021)

Good. No remorse I got my R5 then. But 24Mp is not surprising at all. When Canon was advertising the R3 on Instagram positioning it between 1DXIII and R5, I simply asked in the comments about the megapixel count. To my huge surprise they answered "I think you know the answer". So I guessed it would be between 20 and 45Mp, not very precise but...

Looking forward to seeing the high-MP version of the R5.


----------



## snapshot (Jul 27, 2021)

the thing is that if true, each camera could have a different exif signature -- then the NDA violator could be identified.


privatebydesign said:


> It seems a little conspiratorial to me but the thing that makes me think it might be possible is the video resolution. Full width DCI 4K doesn’t divide nicely into 6,000 pixels.


----------



## geffy (Jul 27, 2021)

starting to compete with sony, wonder if the fan boys will buy a new cloth to keep it shiny while watching the pros that use the idx's


----------



## Tidy Media (Jul 27, 2021)

Actually pretty happy about this, I'm looking for a gimbal pairing for my c200 and if it can shoot RAW at 50p I'll be set. 8K RAW from the R5 is just overkill, but they'll be a killer photo duo.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the corner and gimp them.


The firmware may allow multiple sizes of RAW but be currently limited to the smallest. They could be working out issues with the higher resolutions. Zero evidence of this but still possible.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 27, 2021)

In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.

1. The loss of OVF
2. Two Different Format Cards
3. No significant jump in resolution
4. Transition to RF Glass

These four factors will make us wait until the R1 is released. Also 30fps is no inducement we know all that is required is 15fps RAW for stills for any sport.

This does leave one to wonder if Canon will double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII for the R1. We are seeing people shoot sports with the Fuji GFX100s and the work is amazing, stunning, beautiful, sharp, crisp with exceptional detail and resolution.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2021)

snapshot said:


> the thing is that if true, each camera could have a different exif signature -- then the NDA violator could be identified.


There's lens serial number. If the lens was provided by Canon or registered with Canon... 

However there's another interesting detail - it looks like the R3 may have a GPS.


----------



## mpmark (Jul 27, 2021)

tron said:


> On the positive side this looks a lot like R6MkII. Now where is our R5MkII ?


you've got GAS, I suggest you seek help lol


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but not me.


I knew you’d be one of the 25% left...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

snapshot said:


> the thing is that if true, each camera could have a different exif signature -- then the NDA violator could be identified.


Well all EXIF carries the lens and body serial number so that is covered.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> There's lens serial number. If the lens was provided by Canon or registered with Canon...
> 
> However there's another interesting detail - it looks like the R3 may have a GPS.


That would be a real win for me personally.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 27, 2021)

Was really hoping for 30mpix.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX *1DXMKII* or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.
> 
> 2. Two Different Format Cards


The EOS-1D X Mark II has two card slots, one each for CF and for CFast 2.0.


----------



## degos (Jul 27, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Canon sells plenty 1DX mkiii’s at $6499 with 20mp. Why? In sports you don’t gain much from pushing in and a higher quality sensor with less pixels is demanded.


Why? Largely because there's no option, if you're in the Canon system and need a truly rugged camera then the 1DX line is your option.

Remember how they used to split the 1D and 1Ds lines? That was a great way to leverage R&D and production cost whilst catering to the needs of photographers. Sadly the 'merged' 1DX was a step back in many ways.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.
> 
> 1. The loss of OVF
> 2. Two Different Format Cards
> ...


Well I am a 1DX II shooter and have been a 1 series shooter for 20 odd years, I’ll be getting an R3.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> 1. The loss of OVF
> 2. Two Different Format Cards
> 3. No significant jump in resolution
> 4. Transition to RF Glass



1 - is not a loss! After a few months with the R5 I never want to go back to an optical viewfinder. The R3 will almost certainly be even better.
2 - Yep.
3 - 20%.
4 - Not necessarily a bad thing, and the EF-RF adapters for legacy glass are transparent in use.


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2021)

Let the record show that user @Chaitanya was the first to guess 24MP on the June 2 thread (although they made 2 guesses).
So much for my guess of 20...


----------



## amorse (Jul 27, 2021)

Didn't Jeff Cable also say there are a lot of new features not yet disclosed to the public? I'm not in the market for this, but I am definitely curious about what other goodies have been packed into this thing.


----------



## tcphoto (Jul 27, 2021)

And the expectations for an R1 are suddenly lower...


----------



## mpmark (Jul 27, 2021)

So who's the Photographer that messed up their NDA? LOL!!


----------



## amorse (Jul 27, 2021)

Considering the comments on resolution, I would bet that if Canon thinks there's a market for higher resolution higher speed shooting, they'll produce something to fill that need. Canon doesn't seem to be one to leave money on the table.


----------



## amorse (Jul 27, 2021)

tcphoto said:


> And the expectations for an R1 are suddenly lower...


I don't know, part of me wonders if expectations should be higher for the R1 now. For all we know, the R3 could have been intended as an R1 but got rebranded late in development because it wasn't seen as completely filling the 1D niche in testing. Re starting development of a camera body late in the game isn't really feasible, but giving it a "lower tier" name and creating something above it later could be a reasonably quick way to pivot.


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 27, 2021)

degos said:


> Why? Largely because there's no option, if you're in the Canon system and need a truly rugged camera then the 1DX line is your option.
> 
> Remember how they used to split the 1D and 1Ds lines? That was a great way to leverage R&D and production cost whilst catering to the needs of photographers. Sadly the 'merged' 1DX was a step back in many ways.


Not really. The people who wanted the higher resolution rarely needed the durability of the 1D, and Canon put out the 5DS R (which itself is hardly flimsy) for that crowd. As much as the 1Ds mk II will always have a special place in my heart, ultimately they were all work tools and when they effectively scrapped the 1Ds line and moved that function over to the 5D body, it was quite a relief. Having the 1D X set-up ready for action and the 5DSR sat in the studio tethered was a perfect working pairing.



GoldWing said:


> In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII


Canon literally said this was not a 1D replacement. They have always, from the first second they publicly acknowledged the development of this camera, been very explicit about what it was intended for (sports, i.e. low resolution) and where it would fit in the product line (i.e. below the 1D and eventual R1). They've even said they called it the R*3* specifically because it was not worthy of the '1' designation and that they didn't feel RF tech was far enough along for anything to be called '1' yet.



In any case, 24mp is high for a sports camera.

I know several full-time sports pros in this area who use the 1D X mark III exclusively in the medium jpg setting (12.7mp) because even 'just' 20mp jpgs is overkill and pointlessly inconvenient for fast turnaround. Moving up to native 24mp isn't going to help them; at a certain point oyu're just paying for parts you're not actually using and adding on to the CPU's processing load for no benefit. I'm moving to sports full-time soon myself and I was not anticipating using anything above the 24mp mark myself; I always like 24mp for the neat 6000x4000 which satisfies my brain's fixation on having everything rounded off to clean values, but realistically I know that it might be too much at times and I was _dreading_ the rumoured 30mp. 
Sometimes I _do_ want higher pixel density. For wildlife I've already got the 7D2 (I don't hold out much hope an R7 will actually be up to the task, but we'll meet that when we come to it) and for anything closer or moving slower I've got the R5 and R. The R3 was never going to be taking the place of any of those, it was never designed to be as per Canon's own statements, and I was never hoping it would. They said it'd be a sports body, I wanted it to be a sports body, and sure enough it's turning out to be a sports body. Brilliant.

If someone wants very high resolution (I'm loathe to say "need" because approximately 0.00001% of shooters actually ever _need_ such high resolution), the R5 is right there and cheaper than this R3 will be. The 5DS R is already there, too, for even more detail than the R5, at least at low to medium ISOs. There's also the Nikon D850, the Sony a7R line, and the Fuji GFX cameras, all ready and waiting. If someone is the kind of person who insists on always buying the most expensive camera no matter what then they can go drop their platinum cards on the 150mp Phase One.

Not every product is designed to meet every requirement or desire. Let the stills cameras be stills cameras, the video cameras be video cameras, the studio cameras be studio cameras, and the sports cameras be sports cameras. I am looking forward to the R3 more now that it seems they are indeed keeping it as optimised for sports as they first promised.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 27, 2021)

I am not sure how I feel about this. I think it will depend on the eye driven AF and how well it does in low light. I was hoping for a bit more cropping ability for low light performances. I have an R5 which performs very well for most of my use-cases, I am in no hurry so R1 vs R3, I guess I have more time to save.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the corner and gimp them.



When I edit in Photoshop those data is updated to the size I have scaled the image to. F.ex. this which shows 1380x920, but originally was much larger.
But if the image is not the same dimensions as the exif-data suggests, it is of course a realistic guess it is the original dimensions we see there.


----------



## mbike999 (Jul 27, 2021)

The sky is falling! Sell all your Canon and switch to Sonikon!


----------



## SilverBox (Jul 27, 2021)

Still more mpix than my current EOS 3 body


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

This looks like a hoax for me. I checked the EXIF data of that photo with multiple EXIF viewers and none of them shows the 6000x4000 resolution and even if it would, it could easily be edited.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 27, 2021)

Not all hope is lost for those hoping for more. Sports photographers are one of the few that use Small and Medium JPEGs almost exclusively. On the R5, I can output a file that will show the 22MP dimensions with the click of a few buttons. Additionally, that screen shot mentioned 3 bits per channel which is odd, as I thought JPEGs were 8... maybe someone knows why that is? But most importantly its odd that the dimensions don't have a normal over pixel count. The fact that is cuts off exactly at 24MP suggests that it could be a setting (but note, Canon Rebel bodies in the past have the same size). Don't jump to conclusions yet. All that said, I do believe it will be 30MP and under, so I'm quite happily holding on to my R5 and likely letting this one fall in to obscurity like the last three 1Dx's.


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2021)

This discussion is overkill. How many times?....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> This discussion is overkill. How many times?....


Sanj you know the answer to that, the site is driven by clicks and views, there is no point in saying anything one time if you can repost it and get it clicked on ten times.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.
> 
> 1. The loss of OVF
> 2. Two Different Format Cards
> ...


----------



## Markeran (Jul 27, 2021)

Good camera but... I'll stay with my 1DXmk3, 5D4 and 5Ds for many years to come. Too great investment in 14 EF (mostly L) lenses and frankly, what will the R3 really do MUCH BETTER than my 1DX?


----------



## goldenhusky (Jul 27, 2021)

I mainly shoot wildlife, so I was hoping for at least 30MP. 24MP and $6k US price tag means this is not a camera for me.


----------



## Wildlife Junkie (Jul 27, 2021)

If 24 MP becomes true - what a massive disappointment. I was hoping to add a fast R3 to my 2x R5 but with 24 MP the difference to R5 resolution is too large. A 30 MP sensor would be ok for me. Sony with the A 1 does 50 MP with 30 fps.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Not doubting the EXIF, but what if the NDA says "you can only publish 24MP images", and so they set the RAW+JPG size to 24MP JPG in camera?


----------



## Wildlife Junkie (Jul 27, 2021)

No major step up to 1dx mark iii but falls way behind R5


----------



## TW (Jul 27, 2021)

Well, we shall see. We shall see…


----------



## Canonite (Jul 27, 2021)

Bummer...... 
Will have to use the R5 a while longer... lol


----------



## Billybob (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well the best thing is I just leapt over 3/4 of the people that said they were going to preorder.....


Add me to that list. I was grumbling about 30MP, but convinced myself that the camera would be otherwise amazing, so I planned to preorder. Not anymore.

While I'm still convinced that the R3 will be otherwise amazing, I need more cropping ability. Hopefully the Nikon Z9 won't disappoint.


----------



## Canonite (Jul 27, 2021)

SV said:


> I guess Jeff Cable exported without scrubbing the exif - oops or intentional??


They have disclosure agreements, so this maybe be BS...


----------



## xps (Jul 27, 2021)

what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...

But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Canon sells plenty 1DX mkiii’s at $6499 with 20mp. Why? In sports you don’t gain much from pushing in and a higher quality sensor with less pixels is demanded.
> 
> If the R3 doesn’t warp high speed objects during bursts, it’ll be a hit with professionals. The crowd that spends hundreds of dollars accessorizing and babying their equipment that they don’t make a penny off of will wail. I’m excited for this jump into the future.


This is a new generation. Using that logic you could say "they sell plenty of 5d Mark4s at 30mp). Previous generation cameras should not be the benchmark. The industry competition should be the benchmark. 24mp for a $6000 camera is pathetic


----------



## nemophoto (Jul 27, 2021)

Maybe it is 24MP (in which case, I'll be very disappointed) and maybe it's not. The EXIF does NOT differentiate RAW from JPEG for the little bit of data shown. I shoot RAW+JPEG on my R5. I shoot medium JPEGs. The EXIF data shows dimensions 5808x3872 for the JPEGs. The exifviewers.com only works on JPEGs (at least for me). For some other EXIF data viewing, it isn't until way down do you see the file type. The EXIF viewer info in Fastone shows the file type at the top of info panel.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 27, 2021)

csibra said:


> Any EXIF data editable


It's interesting that the EXIF data shows a picture of what seems to be an R3. If the camera is not officially released, how does the EXIF program know what an R3 looks like?

Plus I haven't seen any images with EXIF data unless I'm missing something?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

For me it would be quite shocking if Canon continued the R5/R6 route of giving the higher end camera the higher resolution sensor. For me the biggest downside of the R3 is that it does not have a "1" in its name. It seems if I want a mirrorless camera with a 1, I will be forced to buy a camera with much smaller pixels.


----------



## frjmacias (Jul 27, 2021)

At this point, I understand this camera is not for me, but it is a bummer. I was hoping for 30 megapixels because I have gotten used to the R5 resolution and the ability to crop in and still produce an amazing image. I am not a sports photographer, however, so I understand this camera is not intended for me. I will anxiously wait to see what the R1 has to offer and shoot with my R5 longer. The good news is now I get to spend my preorder money on new RF glass!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Add me to that list. I was grumbling about 30MP, but convinced myself that the camera would be otherwise amazing, so I planned to preorder. Not anymore.
> 
> While I'm still convinced that the R3 will be otherwise amazing, I need more cropping ability. Hopefully the Nikon Z9 won't disappoint.


Woohoo!

Personally I don’t see why anybody who is paying >$6,000 currently for a 1 series at 20mp will be disappointed at <$6,000 for a comparable R camera with 24mp.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 27, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Good. No remorse I got my R5 then. But 24Mp is not surprising at all. When Canon was advertising the R3 on Instagram positioning it between 1DXIII and R5, I simply asked in the comments about the megapixel count. To my huge surprise they answered "I think you know the answer". So I guessed it would be between 20 and 45Mp, not very precise but...
> 
> Looking forward to seeing the high-MP version of the R5.


I agree. The Sony A1 flagship has 60mp and why is Canon releasing a 24mp camera at a reported $6K. If sports photographers need low resolution, then a dumbed-down camera would work. It just doesn't seem realistic to sell an almost flagship camera with 10-year-old resolution?


----------



## sulla (Jul 27, 2021)

I'm not buying it.

I'm not buying those numbers.
Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
Anybody ever seen a camera with resolutions this "round"?

In a decimal world, 6000 and 4000 might make sense, but we're living in a digital world where those numbers are not good. In a digital world 6144 by 4096 would make sense, but not those decimally-round numbers.

No, I'm not buying it. This has got to be firmware-modified numbers.


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2021)

How do all the people saying "24MP is a massive disappointment" feel about the 1DXiii that shoots 20MP? This honestly feels like a resolution upgrade for the types of photogs presently using the 1DXiii, and that's clearly the sort of photographer Canon is targeting with this body.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon shouldn’t be messing by not disclosing the MP. I think it leads to disappointment in the end. They announced almost everything so must be concerned at the MP count. I could under stand if it were 50MP because it would be like a cherry on top. 24MP feels like a damp squid. The minimum possible was always going to be 20MP so it’s barely above that. It still feels like a 30MP camera to me. If it’s 24MP it’s putting a big “but” in every review. Sony would be delighted.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Woohoo!
> 
> Personally I don’t see why anybody who is paying >$6,000 currently for a 1 series at 20mp will be disappointed at <$6,000 for a comparable R camera with 24mp.


For a person willing to pay $6500 for a 1dxiii right now, you are right. They won't mind paying $6000 for a 24mp camera. For the rest of the market, and people trying to decide between the sony a1 and the canon r3, no, they will not be happy paying $6k for a 24mp camera


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 27, 2021)

How in the world can adult people not simply wait for the official announcement by Canon? Those shown EXIF data are kind of 'Kaffeesatz lesen'. and of not much or no use at all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> For a person willing to pay $6500 for a 1dxiii right now, you are right. They won't mind paying $6000 for a 24mp camera. For the rest of the market, and people trying to decide between the sony a1 and the canon r3, no, they will not be happy paying $6k for a 24mp camera


I paid close to $7,000 for one of my 1DS III's over ten years ago.

I'm not saying you are wrong, more that it is interesting what many people think they need and what commercial image creators actually have to have.


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> I'm not buying it.
> 
> I'm not buying those numbers.
> Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
> ...


Canon Cameras with 4000x6000 resolution sensors

77D
80D
SL2
SL3
T6i
T6s
T7
T7i
T8i
M3
M5
M6
M100
M200
M50
M50ii

Granted these are all crop sensor cameras, but clearly there's no reason that a sensor can't be a nice round number for the resolution.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> How in the world can adult people not simply wait for the official announcement by Canon? Those shown EXIF data are kind of 'Kaffeesatz lesen'. and of not much or no use at all.


because of excitement and genuine interest. it's kind of like Christmas Eve for grown ups, what will Santa leave for us?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 27, 2021)

I've come around to the view that this resolution makes sense, even as it's not for me. The R3 was *designed to be a wedding camera* and sports camera (but the wedding side of things is 2x the sports market). The smaller, lighter form factor and the entire constellation of other specs seems to make this suddenly the first semi-flagship camera appealing to the now-majority female wedding photography segment that is 2x the size of the sports 'togs population. 

Canon can't directly market it this way, as it will be more appealing to both genders by focusing on manly-man content. That's just how tech marketing works in the human heads. 

Canon has generally stopped using the "sports and wildlife" phrase with it, but they're unlikely to say out loud the "sports and weddings" bit, as there's still going to be much bias against a product that appears to be marketed to a segment involving less testosterone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

RMac said:


> Canon Cameras with 4000x6000 resolution sensors
> 
> 77D
> 80D
> ...


And zero of them have well rated 4k video, which is an absolute must for any camera now.


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And zero of them have well rated 4k video, which is an absolute must for any camera now.


Yeah, I think the R3 will have good 4k. Just as long as you don't need it for more than 30 minutes at a time.


----------



## DBounce (Jul 27, 2021)

Well this camera just fell into the "wait and see" category for me. I'm not saying that I would not buy it. But with what is know as of this writing, it is about 30% less desirable to me. I really wish this was a high megapixel monster. I guess this sort of confirms that the R1 will be that beast. No more will the 1 series be a low MP sports shooter, it is destined to be a high megapixel flagship. Expect north of 45MP on the R1.


----------



## Red Dog (Jul 27, 2021)

Just found a few more R3 images with full Exif data included. I'm shocked, he's using Aperture Priority.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Red Dog said:


> Just found a few more R3 images with full Exif data included. I'm shocked, he's using Aperture Priority.


Why? I use Av a lot, both with and without Auto ISO with a range set.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> This is a new generation. Using that logic you could say "they sell plenty of 5d Mark4s at 30mp). Previous generation cameras should not be the benchmark. The industry competition should be the benchmark. 24mp for a $6000 camera is pathetic


The number of MPs can vary greatly depending on what the camera's target market is. For sports, that number is low MPs because that is works best for that market. The Sony A9 is not cheap either and is 24 MP. So, apparently, the "industry competition" is indeed the benchmark, just as you state.


----------



## Red Dog (Jul 27, 2021)

Just jesting to clear the tension from the air on here. 


privatebydesign said:


> Why? I use Av a lot, both with and without Auto ISO with a range set.


Just jesting to clear the tension from the air on here. It all looks good.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

Red Dog said:


> Just found a few more R3 images with full Exif data included. I'm shocked, he's using Aperture Priority.


I always use aperture priority. I think the photographer should choose the aperture, as it has a huge influence on the look of an image. Usually I set it to f/8 or f/11 if there is enough light and to the largest aperture, if light is limited.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> How in the world can adult people not simply wait for the official announcement by Canon? Those shown EXIF data are kind of 'Kaffeesatz lesen'. and of not much or no use at all.


It is not that people can't wait...it is that the vast majority of forum users take rumors to be fact. That is the problem.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> I'm not buying it.
> 
> I'm not buying those numbers.
> Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
> ...


80D, M5, M50, and a bunch of rebels are all 6000x40000, but based on the scaling in the R5, 6kx4k is also a likely resolution for an MJPEG from a 48 MP sensor and from a competitive perspective, that would be a good number, so waiting a bit longer before drawing conclusions from inconclusive data is probably wise.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


----------



## Daan Stam (Jul 27, 2021)

I would have expected a litle more to be honest. At the very least like 30. But i guess they could market this with extreme low light and high DR performance


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And zero of them have well rated 4k video, which is an absolute must for any camera now.


And they were all released before Canon had a processor that could scale, so no useful data.


----------



## Steve BXL (Jul 27, 2021)

Nobody asks himself how comes exifviewsers.com has already updated its software to include an unreleased camera avatar picture even before the camera official release?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 27, 2021)

Having read through the thread and established that 24 mp would be a disaster can someone explain to me why the Sony a9 is 24mp ?


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

With due respect for Carnac, I predict 48MP.


----------



## rbr (Jul 27, 2021)

This will be a great camera for those who need it. For people wanting to crop heavily into shots taken with the 100-500 this probably isn't the best camera choice. Hopefully an R7 will come along before too long. For all around nature and wildlife photography that included landscapes and birds and everything in between. I could be an R5/R7 combination being a better choice if that ever happens.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 27, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> _Roma locuta, causa finita..._


_Carthago Canon delendam est_


----------



## frjmacias (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


I cannot speak for anybody else, but for me personally, it is a combination of GAS and the ruggedness and ergonomics. I have larger hands, so I am always looking for ways to mitigate any discomfort with a tool I will have in my hands for a large part of a day. I was not expecting it to match the resolution, but 30 would have been nice. That said, I was not planning on replacing my R5. I was simply going to expand my camera body use. The R5 is an amazing camera as you mentioned.

Also, side note: Badass nametag. I just bought the new Record Store Day Czarface album/comic, but have not had a chance to play it yet.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Canon shouldn’t be messing by not disclosing the MP. I think it leads to disappointment in the end. They announced almost everything so must be concerned at the MP count. I could under stand if it were 50MP because it would be like a cherry on top. 24MP feels like a damp squid. The minimum possible was always going to be 20MP so it’s barely above that. It still feels like a 30MP camera to me. If it’s 24MP it’s putting a big “but” in every review. Sony would be delighted.


Yes Sony will be delighted because Sony is all about specs. Personally, I give Canon credit. They seem to be far more concerned about making cameras that work for photographers. With photographer input. No doubt, in today's world of internet forums and YouTube influencers, they will be ridiculed and mocked. But, luckily for photographers, they are not going to go Sony's route and care more about internet popularity than making quality cameras that are geared toward their target markets. Just my 2 cents having owned Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras. 

Keep in mind that Canon doesn't usually (or perhaps ever) announce the MPs until the official announcement. This only "messes" with rumor site participants and YouTube idiots who are too impatient to wait for a camera's actual release. Pretty sad they they are running the narrative.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2021)

So much denial here. Just let go and move through to acceptance. All this talk about manipulating the data or limiting the resolution strikes me as silly. The Olympics (even the disaster that the 2020/21 Olympics are) remains in the President's words, a big f'n deal. 

Canon is not going to hand out crippled cameras to photographers and Getty is not going to agree to use crippled cameras. No one is violating an NDA by posting photos of this uber major sporting event. 

If you are disappointed (I am too, but I'm working through it) that's okay. But let's stop with conspiracy theories. There are enough of those going around these days anyway.


----------



## milkod2001 (Jul 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.
> 
> 1. The loss of OVF
> 2. Two Different Format Cards
> ...


'We are seeing people shoot sports with the Fuji GFX100s' LOL. What sports? Like chess? Fuji GFX100 is more for portraits, landscapes, reproduction work etc. For sports is has very slow AF. You sure can take some nice pics with it but it's wrong tool for shooting sports.


----------



## Finn (Jul 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> But let's stop with conspiracy theories. There are enough of those going around these days anyway.


I heard the Aliens made Canon give them the extra 6.1 MP of each shot for surveillance purposes because they were disappointed about the Jewish space laser causing fires on flat, hollow Earth.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2021)

kaihp said:


> _Carthago Canon delendam est_


The original quote is _Carthago delenda est_, _Carthage must be destroyed_, from the Roman troll Cato. But, I suppose _Canon delendam est, Canon destroyed_, does accurately sum up some of the comments here. Though, there are no doubt some S... trolls who would approve _Canon delenda est. _I wish I had learned Spanish or German or Italian as a schoolboy rather than Latin.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


Sensor speed and a full body are the biggest drivers for me. The R5 is a great camera and will have to do me for the next 5 or so years as this was the only thing on the horizon that got my interest (no interest in a $8k R1, nor do I have the faith that it will even meet my expectations). As far as other reasons someone who brought a $4000 body a year ago would consider jumping is, I hate the AF-On button on the R5 and I hate the extended grip as well, and any improvement to the AF system is always welcome. Couple that to the fact that the R5 still has a really strong resale value, its almost a no-brainer. 

For my use, the R5 readout speed is fine, but I know there are situations where it will hamper me, where the R3 may effectively render that a non issue. But far and away, comfort is the biggest driver. Sitting in a blind waiting with my thumb on the AF-On button for 5-30 mins at time, that comfort thing plays a big part. But again... its just something I'll have to deal with. The only other option is jump ship to Sony, which would tick a few boxes, but untick a lot too. C'est la vie.


----------



## milkod2001 (Jul 27, 2021)

With 24MP Canon pretty much made A9II competitor so i presume price won't jump over $5000. If so many will probably wait for R1 or just get R5.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> And they were all released before Canon had a processor that could scale, so no useful data.


Do you have examples of where completely random non divisible numbers of horizontal pixels are translated easily into top quality 4K?

i just did a quick search and didn’t but I am no video expert.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


I have three bodies. For most of my work, I carried the 5D and R. When shooting sports, it was the 1d and the 5D. With three bodies I need two bags since some days I'll be shooting with the 5D and R during the day and then switching to the 1D and 5D for sports in the afternoon or evening. There are features of the R that I prefer for shooting events (mostly the thumb control focus). But the R sucks for sports. 

It's a pain in the butt to lug everything around and switch lens systems back and forth. I now have the R5 and could get by with that and the R for non-sports shooting, but I still need the 1D for sports. So, for me, the idea of an R3 that would allow me to dump both the 1D and the R and get back to only carrying two bodies and one set of lenses is very appealing. I've gotten spoiled by the 45mp of the R5 and the 30mp of the R, so I was hoping for a little higher resolution in the R3. Still, as I said I'm coming to grips with the lower resolution which will still be higher than the 1D. I realize I'm a unique case, but you asked.


----------



## csibra (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And zero of them have well rated 4k video, which is an absolute must for any camera now.


What about M50?


----------



## kaihp (Jul 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The original quote is _Carthago delenda est_, _Carthage must be destroyed_, from the Roman troll Cato. But, I suppose _Canon delendam est, Canon destroyed_, does accurately sum up some of the comments here. Though, there are no doubt some S... trolls who would approve _Canon delenda est. _I wish I had learned Spanish or German or Italian as a schoolboy rather than Latin.


I was trolling the "Canon is doooooomed" crowd. And yes, Cato the Elder.

And my apologies for not bothering to check the correct spelling of delenda (vs delendam). I never learned Latin, but did learn a bit of German, French in school and Chinese when I lived there. But hey, we got to chuckle, right?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2021)

MiJax said:


> Sensor speed and a full body are the biggest drivers for me. The R5 is a great camera and will have to do me for the next 5 or so years as this was the only thing on the horizon that got my interest (no interest in a $8k R1, nor do I have the faith that it will even meet my expectations). As far as other reasons someone who brought a $4000 body a year ago would consider jumping is, I hate the AF-On button on the R5 and I hate the extended grip as well, and any improvement to the AF system is always welcome. Couple that to the fact that the R5 still has a really strong resale value, its almost a no-brainer.
> 
> For my use, the R5 readout speed is fine, but I know there are situations where it will hamper me, where the R3 may effectively render that a non issue. But far and away, comfort is the biggest driver. Sitting in a blind waiting with my thumb on the AF-On button for 5-30 mins at time, that comfort thing plays a big part. But again... its just something I'll have to deal with. The only other option is jump ship to Sony, which would tick a few boxes, but untick a lot too. C'est la vie.


Some great shots on your flickr pages! Lighter weight and higher resolution of the R5 enabling shorter, lighter lenses swing it the other way for me.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

Markeran said:


> Good camera but... I'll stay with my 1DXmk3, 5D4 and 5Ds for many years to come. Too great investment in 14 EF (mostly L) lenses and frankly, what will the R3 really do MUCH BETTER than my 1DX?


For those who feel they really benefit from high speed shooting, 30 fps is a big jump assuming there's no rolling shutter. And if the EVF solves continuous shooting lag (which it should at 30 fps capture), then that solves a significant mirrorless issue for those who shoot long bursts. It's definitely an evolution of technology and an impressive camera. It also potentially solves some issues that would make 1DX shooters more comfortable adding mirrorless and gaining the mirrorless advantage of AI subject tracking AF.

That said: at times I feel the same way you do about things. I'm not limited in any way by my equipment right now. I need time to travel and inspiration. So while I appreciate what the R3 (and R5/R6) bring to the table, I cringe when people post stuff to Twitter like _OMG I just burned all my old equipment if you're not shooting this awesome new mirrorless you can't compete, you're not even a photographer!_ There's certainly nothing wrong with taking advantage of the new tech Canon is brining to the table. But their DSLRs were so highly evolved by the end of the 2010's that there's nothing wrong with sitting tight for a while either. Same thing is true on the Nikon side. Perhaps even more so because the transition is not necessarily as seamless as it is with Canon's EF-to-RF adapter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

csibra said:


> What about M50?


What about it? Yes it does 4K but it isn’t good quality.





A warning about 4K on the Canon EOS M50 – EOSHD.com – Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews







www.eoshd.com


----------



## csibra (Jul 27, 2021)

Alex784 said:


> Sure, buy why bother ?


For a joke? For a distraction? For some attention? Choose one


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> 80D, M5, M50, and a bunch of rebels are all 6000x40000, but based on the scaling in the R5, 6kx4k is also a likely resolution for an MJPEG from a 48 MP sensor and from a competitive perspective, that would be a good number, so waiting a bit longer before drawing conclusions from inconclusive data is probably wise.


That would be an interesting twist. Guarantee you though, if that turns out to be the case, this forum will be filled with posts like this: _Why did Canon do this? I don't have time to mess around with huge files! And my hard drives are full. This is a sports camera, not a landscape camera! I need to get pictures to my editor fast and I want big pixel high ISO. I'm out man. I just canceled my pre-order. It's time to jump to the Sony A9._

As always: Canon is ill-fated.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jul 27, 2021)

xps said:


> what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...
> 
> But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
> I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.



I would even take an APS-C mirror less camera with a 24MP modern sensor with top of the line AF system (repalcement for 7D line) but Canon will not simply release a camera like that.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> I'm not buying it.
> 
> I'm not buying those numbers.
> Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
> ...


Exactly. 6000 x 4000 exactly seems completely contrived.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> That would be an interesting twist. Guarantee you though, if that turns out to be the case, this forum will be filled with posts like this: _Why did Canon do this? I don't have time to mess around with huge files! And my hard drives are full. This is a sports camera, not a landscape camera! I need to get pictures to my editor fast and I want big pixel high ISO. I'm out man. I just canceled my pre-order. It's time to jump to the Sony A9._
> 
> As always: Canon is ill-fated.


Until you look at actual sales .


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What about it? Yes it does 4K but it isn’t good quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


24mp is not in any way a limitation on 4k video quality. The Sony A7 III has sharp, detailed 4k output and its sensor is exactly 6,000 x 4,000 pixels. The difference between that camera and older Canon 24mp bodies lies in the fact that the A7 III reads out the entire sensor then scales it to 4k (oversampling). The Canon bodies typically read out a crop and often have to scale up to 4k. Canon typically isn't even reading out a 1:1 4k center!

The EOS M using Magic Lantern can generate sharp 2.5k which scales nicely to 4k because it's reading 1:1. It's a severe crop, but it works. Likewise the 5D mark III can produce gorgeous 3.5k using Magic Lantern with a Super35 crop because, again, it's a 1:1 read. You want to oversample or read out 1:1. 4k gets mushy when you pixel bin, line skip, etc. due to performance limitations at the sensor or CPU. On a lot of bodies Canon got stuck doing exactly that due to performance issues and being forced to impose a crop, but not wanting to impose a severe one.

The R6 has some of the best 4k IQ out there because it's also oversampling. The R3 will have no quality issues with 4k video. Thermal issues? Let's hope Canon solved those.


----------



## gregster (Jul 27, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Exactly. 6000 x 4000 exactly seems completely contrived.



The A9 outputs at exactly 6000x4000. Although I agree that it would be an odd resolution for Canon as they typically do 4096 DCI video vs the 3840 UHD standard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> For a person willing to pay $6500 for a 1dxiii right now, you are right. They won't mind paying $6000 for a 24mp camera. For the rest of the market, and people trying to decide between the sony a1 and the canon r3, no, they will not be happy paying $6k for a 24mp camera


How many people are 'deciding between the Sony a1 and the Canon R3, really? Do people just think, gee, photography sounds neat, I'll buy a camera and lenses kit costing north of $10K? Doubtful. If you have a bunch of Canon lenses or a bunch of Sony lenses, there's inertia there. Canon users mostly stay Canon, Sony users mostly stay Sony. Yes, people switch – but those are the minority.

The 'market' is probably not current 1D X III owners, but rather 1D X II or 1D X owners looking to upgrade.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> 24mp is not in any way a limitation on 4k video quality. The Sony A7 III has sharp, detailed 4k output and its sensor is exactly 6,000 x 4,000 pixels. The difference between that camera and older Canon 24mp bodies lies in the fact that the A7 III reads out the entire sensor then scales it to 4k (oversampling). The Canon bodies typically read out a crop and often have to scale up to 4k. Canon typically isn't even reading out a 1:1 4k center!
> 
> The EOS M using Magic Lantern can generate sharp 2.5k which scales nicely to 4k because it's reading 1:1. It's a severe crop, but it works. Likewise the 5D mark III can produce gorgeous 3.5k using Magic Lantern with a Super35 crop because, again, it's a 1:1 read. You want to oversample or read out 1:1. 4k gets mushy when you pixel bin, line skip, etc. due to performance limitations at the sensor or CPU. On a lot of bodies Canon got stuck doing exactly that due to performance issues and being forced to impose a crop, but not wanting to impose a severe one.
> 
> The R6 has some of the best 4k IQ out there because it's also oversampling. The R3 will have no quality issues with 4k video. Thermal issues? Let's hope Canon solved those.


The R6 4K isn't DCI, it it 3,840 not 4,096. I can’t imagine the R3 will not be DCI standard 4K.

I'm not saying the R3 isn’t exactly 6,000 x 4,000, I just used the video numbers as a possible support for Neuro’s idea that the EXIF might be ‘manipulated’ in the pre release cameras currently out there.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> I'm not buying it.
> 
> I'm not buying those numbers.
> Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
> ...



As I've said before the JPEGs out of my T6i and my M50 are 6000x4000.

Someone else pointed out that the sensor probably has "overhead" pixels and isn't truly that exact size, but to my mind that makes no difference; the size of the output is what matters.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Do you have examples of where completely random non divisible numbers of horizontal pixels are translated easily into top quality 4K?
> 
> i just did a quick search and didn’t but I am no video expert.


Integer conversion is easier, but actually not by that much because you need a fair number of filter taps to prevent aliasing. The difference with random scaling is that the coefficients for the filter are dynamic, so there is one more look-up table involved. The MJPEG images from the R5 have a pair of 11s in the coefficients. That makes the conversion from the raw (which is a power of two) pretty much random and the R5 can spit out MJPEGS just about as fast as video. There is also the option of a small crop to make the numbers fit better, which is a pretty common approach.


----------



## landon (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon's sin here is making a good looking Pro camera that is small enough to fit in a backpack. Enthusiasts want to buy it for GAS, but need better MPs to justify the purchase.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?



I agree, I don't see why I should just dump my R5 for this camera...regardless of its resolution. I don't have a "gotta have the latest and greatest" gene, I guess.

Now if one doesn't have an R5 at all, and is looking at what to buy today, that's a different story.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many people are 'deciding between the Sony a1 and the Canon R3, really? Do people just think, gee, photography sounds neat, I'll buy a camera and lenses kit costing north of $10K? Doubtful. If you have a bunch of Canon lenses or a bunch of Sony lenses, there's inertia there. Canon users mostly stay Canon, Sony users mostly stay Sony. Yes, people switch – but those are the minority.
> 
> The 'market' is probably not current 1D X III owners, but rather 1D X II or 1D X owners looking to upgrade.


I am in the market for a sony a1 or canon r3. I shoot both brands currently(a9ii and R5), I was waiting for the R3 to ditch sony completely although with the R3 coming in at 24mp, that's not happening


----------



## reef58 (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> This is a new generation. Using that logic you could say "they sell plenty of 5d Mark4s at 30mp). Previous generation cameras should not be the benchmark. The industry competition should be the benchmark. 24mp for a $6000 camera is pathetic


The business they are in is selling cameras. If the 5d4 sell well and it still does what is wrong with that. Also people always pick out the best specs from the competition without mentioning the issues with said camera. Each brand has strength and weaknesses. I happen to enjoy the Canon eco system, but if I were in Sony or Nikon I would probably be just as happy. Why does each camera introduced have to satisfy each and every person? You have the R5 with plenty of MP and 20fps, you will have the R3 with 24mp and 30fps. I will concede they have 4 full frame models less than 30 mp. Not every camera can be 40+MP. They have the R1 coming along with the rumored high mega pixel camera.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 27, 2021)

With this being a 24mp sensor, I would now anticipate the price to be along the lines of the A9, so $4500-5000. If that’s the case, I’ll be very excited. However, I am a little hesitant to spend $6k on a camera again when the R5 is doing better than my 1DXII ever did for me, sans build.


----------



## juststeve (Jul 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Integer conversion is easier, but actually not by that much because you need a fair number of filter taps to prevent aliasing. The difference with random scaling is that the coefficients for the filter are dynamic, so there is one more look-up table involved. The MJPEG images from the R5 have the prime number 121 in the coefficients. That makes the conversion from the raw (which is a power of two) pretty much random and the R5 can spit out MJPEGS just about as fast as video. There is also the option of a small crop to make the numbers fit better, which is a pretty common approach.


121 is not a prime number. 11 times 11. So what is the point?


----------



## Viggo (Jul 27, 2021)

Is it possible that the R3 can do full 14 bit raw at 30 fps electronic?


----------



## reef58 (Jul 27, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I agree. The Sony A1 flagship has 60mp and why is Canon releasing a 24mp camera at a reported $6K. If sports photographers need low resolution, then a dumbed-down camera would work. It just doesn't seem realistic to sell an almost flagship camera with 10-year-old resolution?





rick1 said:


> For a person willing to pay $6500 for a 1dxiii right now, you are right. They won't mind paying $6000 for a 24mp camera. For the rest of the market, and people trying to decide between the sony a1 and the canon r3, no, they will not be happy paying $6k for a 24mp camera


That is the market. Most people (guessing) probably 99% are not buying a 6k camera no matter whether it be 20mp or 100mp. People seem to act like the R5 doesn't exist.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jul 27, 2021)

If the R3 does in deed come in at 24mp there’s nothing wrong with that per se as its going head to head with the A9II.

What I think is the real mistake is not having 2 CF express card slots so pros can shoot redundant at equal speeds.

Also I say again that an R3R should have also been developed and released at the same time to head off the A1 and upcoming Z9.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The original quote is _Carthago delenda est_, _Carthage must be destroyed_, from the Roman troll Cato. But, I suppose _Canon delendam est, Canon destroyed_, does accurately sum up some of the comments here. Though, there are no doubt some S... trolls who would approve _Canon delenda est. _I wish I had learned Spanish or German or Italian as a schoolboy rather than Latin.


A solid background in Latin makes other languages (including English) much easier to learn. Be thankful for your education that kids today don't get.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

juststeve said:


> 121 is not a prime number. 11 times 11. So what is the point?


Sorry about that, but 11 is a prime and not a particularly convenient one when converting from a power of two.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 27, 2021)

gregster said:


> The A9 outputs at exactly 6000x4000. Although I agree that it would be an odd resolution for Canon as they typically do 4096 DCI video vs the 3840 UHD standard.


Ok...and as others are pointing out, Canon does have an APS-C sensor that they have used (80D, M50, etc) that is exactly 6000 x 4000. 

So, my eyebrow is still raised, but maybe this is legit.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many people are 'deciding between the Sony a1 and the Canon R3, really? Do people just think, gee, photography sounds neat, I'll buy a camera and lenses kit costing north of $10K? Doubtful. If you have a bunch of Canon lenses or a bunch of Sony lenses, there's inertia there. Canon users mostly stay Canon, Sony users mostly stay Sony. Yes, people switch – but those are the minority.
> 
> The 'market' is probably not current 1D X III owners, but rather 1D X II or 1D X owners looking to upgrade.


I think that recently the 'market' has increasingly become enthusiasts with deep pockets. We've seen extremely high demand for all goods here in the US, especially luxury goods. There are certainly 1D X owners who will pick up an R3, but a lot who won't due to the EVF. I think a lot of the R3 purchasers will be non-pro people who want to take pictures of fast-moving subjects. This may be a second body for them. 

Also, these deep pocket enthusiasts have no trouble switching systems or owning bodies and glass from multiple systems. There are so many comments from people on the various forums indicating that they own other systems (D500 or D850 with the 500PF, A1 or A9 with the 200-600) for specific purposes, so I would definitely believe that the A1 vs. R3 debate will be more common than you expect (especially in the bird enthusiast circles).


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The R6 4K isn't DCI, it it 3,840 not 4,096. I can’t imagine the R3 will not be DCI standard 4K.



The 4,096 is along the width, and the width of a 24mp sensor is 6,000 pixels. They can oversample 6k down to 4,096 with no issue.


----------



## Alan B (Jul 27, 2021)

Is it possible that Canon has sent out R3 bodies with different MP's in them!. So the "testers" at the Olympics to try out and report back ?

Hence why they haven't disclosed what it is yet!!

Remember that is an exif data from just 1 camera out of xxxx!


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Sorry about that, but 11 is a prime and not a particularly convenient one when converting from a power of two.


Which of course is part of the perversity of the "US Customary" (in this case matching Imperial units) of distance.

A mile is 1760 yards (and a meter is about 1.1 yards). That divides nicely by 32, but you end up with 55 (5x11) yards. So 11 is built into the system (along with 5 twos and a 5). Add a 3 to that if you work in feet (~30cm) instead of yards. It's actually _largely_ a binary system not a decimal one, you take a square mile and divide it into four quarters, then divide them into four quarters, then divide _them_ into four quarters....and each of those is ten acres. Of course, that means you have a square equal to 10 acres, so there _is no tidy square_ that is ONE acre.

It has its own wacky logic. I like metric better...but as it happens a hectare is almost precisely one 16th of a mile, squared (no, that's not 1/16th of a square mile, it's 1/16th of a mile, then squared)--that falls out of 110 yards almost equaling 100 meters.

And yes, it has an 11 baked into it. WhyTheF*ck?


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


The build quality, superior sealing, etc.. is important and on the list of reasons I want an R3. The biggest reason for me is AF acquisition. The R5 just isn't there with my 600 F4 II. I had the same problem with the 7D II. I suspect it's the lower voltage battery. There will be those who claim that's not true, but I can only say that every LP-E6 body I've used was slow and every 1 Series body I've had was quick. There are also smaller features that don't get much mention but make a big difference like metering tied to the AF point. I'll still keep my R5 (assuming the R3 is lower mp) for when I need extra cropping, but when things start to move I want faster AF. I haven't really had much issue with rolling shutter and viewfinder lag.. but it will be nice not to worry about that as well. If it turns out this thread is wrong and the R3 is 45+ I may sell the R5 and buy two R3s.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


I love my R5, and would be looking to add a second body to my kit in time for a trip, preferably and R3 but possibly a second R5. 
The R5 is really amazing in many ways. There are some areas where it is less great. For instance, the tracking can sometimes lose the subject (think erratically moving hummingbirds). Tracking is not as good in low light, and can get confused by busy backgrounds. I really hope that Canon releases some improvements to the R5, particularly the autofocus, via firmware, but so far we've not seen any stills-oriented firmware enhancements for the R5, so there is no way to know whether any of these AF improvements are coming. 
If the AF and tracking from the R3 is more "sticky" and performs better in low light or with busy backgrounds, it will make a great complement to the R5 for the faster-moving subjects, possibly. I've noticed that the larger the subject is in the frame, the better the tracking works for the R5. Sometimes, this means that shooting in Crop mode yields better tracking results, when getting closer to a skittish subject is not possible. At 24MP, Crop mode would not be an option, which would make the R3 a less great second body for small wildlife. 
I'm waiting to learn more about the R3 and the upcoming R5 firmware updates before making a final choice between the two for a second body.


----------



## OTMT (Jul 27, 2021)

I've been wondering whether or not it's possible that Canon is testing 2 different sensors. That would also explain why they've been so secretive about the sensor resolution.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I am a 1DX II shooter and have been a 1 series shooter for 20 odd years, I’ll be getting an R3.


Before you know all the facts?


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> Anybody ever seen a camera with resolutions this "round"?


Just all of the 24MP cameras in the market




dtaylor said:


> That would be an interesting twist. Guarantee you though, if that turns out to be the case, this forum will be filled with posts like this: _Why did Canon do this? I don't have time to mess around with huge files! And my hard drives are full. This is a sports camera, not a landscape camera! I need to get pictures to my editor fast and I want big pixel high ISO. I'm out man. I just canceled my pre-order. It's time to jump to the Sony A9._
> 
> As always: Canon is ill-fated.


I don't think that would be an issue with the CR3 file format. Files are smaller, these days.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

I still hope that professional sports shooters reject the mirrorless cameras and Canon will come with a 1D X Mark IV with IBIS in 2024.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

If this costs a dime more than the R5, I'll laugh. It ain't 2017 anymore, Canon. The A1 does actually exist!!! Lol


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Yes Sony will be delighted because Sony is all about specs. Personally, I give Canon credit. They seem to be far more concerned about making cameras that work for photographers. With photographer input. No doubt, in today's world of internet forums and YouTube influencers, they will be ridiculed and mocked. But, luckily for photographers, they are not going to go Sony's route and care more about internet popularity than making quality cameras that are geared toward their target markets. Just my 2 cents having owned Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras.
> 
> Keep in mind that Canon doesn't usually (or perhaps ever) announce the MPs until the official announcement. This only "messes" with rumor site participants and YouTube idiots who are too impatient to wait for a camera's actual release. Pretty sad they they are running the narrative.


For me Sony is not all about the specs. They are producing very fine cameras. They've been key to pushing Canon's efforts for the last few years. They've championed full frame mirrorless. Canon have always tried to have the number 1 camera at the top end of the range which makes the R3 a bit of an odd effort. Canon may not have officially given sensor MP's in their official announcement, my memory is sketchy on the topic, I don't remember them giving pre-announcements for the 5DII, 5DIII, 5DIV, IDX 1, II, IIII but maybe they did. In my recollection we weren't in doubt when something like the 5DSR was coming. We knew it was going to be 50MP. I don't remember Canon giving some much detail in a camera announcement before but maybe I just don't remember. Every user has their own viewpoint on whether a camera is for them or not. As an owner of the 1DXIII and knowing it ability to buffer images I'm sure Canon is well able to produce a 30 or 50 MP version of the R3 but have chosen not to. Other Canon owners might still be chewing at the bit to pick this up but its a pass for me. The R1 may also be 24 MP camera but I can hope that Canon attempt to distinguish it from the R3.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I agree, I don't see why I should just dump my R5 for this camera...regardless of its resolution. I don't have a "gotta have the latest and greatest" gene, I guess.
> 
> Now if one doesn't have an R5 at all, and is looking at what to buy today, that's a different story.


 Would not even switch to this camera from my R5 if they were the same cost, which they should be, but I somehow suspect they won't be. Lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I agree, I don't see why I should just dump my R5 for this camera...regardless of its resolution. I don't have a "gotta have the latest and greatest" gene, I guess.
> 
> Now if one doesn't have an R5 at all, and is looking at what to buy today, that's a different story.


I was considering buying an R5, just prior to the development announcement of the R3. I used a 1D X extensively before buying an EOS R, and I far prefer the form factor of the integrated grip, which is why I avoided the R5 for so long. Not a lot of difference between 24 and 30 MP, and as someone pointed out the weaker AA filter of the new sensors (although we really don't know about the AA filter in the R3) means even less of a difference between the R3's presumptive 24 MP and the 30 MP of my EOS R.


----------



## pixel8foto (Jul 27, 2021)

I'm not an expert at reading EXIF like this. What is it in there that tells us this is an OOC file rather than one that's been resized before upload?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Would not even switch to this camera from my R5 if they were the same cost, which they should be, but I somehow suspect they won't be. Lol



In my case it's below my "sweet spot" for resolution (the R5 is well above it, the R6 was below it; I'd certainly prefer the r6 over the R5 otherwise; more controls, 2 SD slots, etc., etc.).

Given the additional features a "reasonable" cost for this would be something around USD 4500 (not that I'd be in the market for it, again regardless of resolution) but I doubt it will be that.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 27, 2021)

tron said:


> R5 is a very nice camera to stick with! I have it too and I have not regretted it (I sold my R though). I would like a R5 with R3's body and battery though...


Sounds like you're in the market for an R1


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> In my case it's below my "sweet spot" for resolution (the R5 is well above it, the R6 was below it; I'd certainly prefer the r6 over the R5 otherwise; more controls, 2 SD slots, etc., etc.).
> 
> Given the additional features a "reasonable" cost for this would be something around USD 4500 (not that I'd be in the market for it, again regardless of resolution) but I doubt it will be that.




The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay..........but that's at the cost of half the resolution and a myriad of video features. Then you realize it will most likely cost closer to $6000 and you have to laugh. Kinda lame honestly, IMHO.


A lot of people here keep taking exception to others comparing this to the A1. It's a valid comparison because that camera has been released for nearly six months. What they don't realize is that Canon's own release from a year ago makes this camera look bad too. Shame, really.


----------



## landon (Jul 27, 2021)

The solution is to buy the R5, R3, R1, R high mp. As all camera manufacturers intended.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay..........but that's at the cost of half the resolution and a myriad of video feature. Then you realize it will most likely cost closer to $6000 and you have to laugh. Kinda lame honestly, IMHO.


How long have you used 1-series cameras? Perhaps you use a spec sheet to take pictures?


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Which of course is part of the perversity of the "US Customary" (in this case matching Imperial units) of distance.
> 
> A mile is 1760 yards (and a meter is about 1.1 yards). That divides nicely by 32, but you end up with 55 (5x11) yards. So 11 is built into the system (along with 5 twos and a 5). Add a 3 to that if you work in feet (~30cm) instead of yards. It's actually _largely_ a binary system not a decimal one, you take a square mile and divide it into four quarters, then divide them into four quarters, then divide _them_ into four quarters....and each of those is ten acres. Of course, that means you have a square equal to 10 acres, so there _is no tidy square_ that is ONE acre.
> 
> ...


Actually, an acre was not meant to be square. The 10 acre square you mention is 10 chains or 1 furlong on each side. The Ideal Acre was defined as 1 chain by 10 chains (66x660 ft.) with the notion of that as a lot that you could build a house near the front and have a space to grow stuff at the back, all the while making access road at the front relatively short and putting neighbors close together. The 11 pops out of a chain being 66 ft long. I have never seen a definitive explanation that proves whether the system started from the top (mile) or bottom (chain). The rod (16.5 ft) is clearly a sub unit as 1/4th of a chain. If you have a sense of humor it is actually kind of fun- a mostly binary (quaternary in area) system with a sneaky 11 hiding in there. The system was created from practical usage, whereas the Metric system starts with a base unit and throws factors of ten at everything. For many things (cooking is a good example) a binary approach is actually more useful than the metric system. 

Probably the biggest hang-up in the English measuring system is the dichotomy between the statute mile and the nautical mile which was only finalized after someone actually figured out how far it really was around the world. So now we have MPH and knots to deal with. The nautical mile is a practical measure in that it takes 21,600 of them to go around the world making 1 minute of latitude equal to 1 nautical mile. Are we having fun yet?


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How long have you used 1-series cameras? Perhaps you use a spec sheet to take pictures?



An perhaps you should be shooting with a 1D from 2001 because specs don't matter. Somehow I suspect you're not and I wonder why that is!!!!!


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> A lot of people here keep taking exception to others comparing this to the A1. It's a valid comparison because that camera has been released for nearly six months. What they don't realize is that Canon's own release from a year ago makes this camera look bad too. Shame, really.


That depends entirely on the price, AF performance, EVF performance, rolling shutter (if any), and whether or not it can sustain 30 fps at 14-bit.


----------



## Manicouagan1 (Jul 27, 2021)

24mp (4000X6000), 6 micrometer pixels, seems to be a sweet spot in 24x36 mm sensors. Enough pixels to print an uncropped image the at the largest size in I choose to print (13x19), and largest enough pixels to yield noise characteristics meeting my needs for sports shooting indoors. The only time I need more pixels is when I am shooting birds at the limits of my telephoto lens setup and crop severely.

My unanswered issues are the presence or absence of GPS tagging using an in-camera sensor, the presence of a mechanical shutter or other cover to protect the sensor when changing lenses in uncontrolled environments, and the availability and build quality of the RF 100-400mm 5.6 lens for outdoor sports.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> That depends entirely on the price, AF performance, EVF performance, rolling shutter (if any), and whether or not it can sustain 30 fps at 14-bit.




Yeah, maybe those other lesser feature improvements can bump up it's desirability a bit, buuuuuuuuut who are we kidding here? This is Canon. This thing is going to come in at near $6000. Lol I'd love to be proven wrong though!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> An perhaps you should be shooting with a 1D from 2001 because specs don't matter. Somehow I suspect you're not and I wonder why that is!!!!!


Where did I say specs don’t matter? But ergonomics matter, too. The differences between the R5 and R3 are far more than MP, fps and battery capacity.

I have kept shooting with my 1D X, and not bought an R5.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

reef58 said:


> That is the market. Most people (guessing) probably 99% are not buying a 6k camera no matter whether it be 20mp or 100mp. People seem to act like the R5 doesn't exist.


No it's not at all. I would never buy a 1dxiii. DSLRs are dead. I am in the market for a R3/R1/a1 though


----------



## cayenne (Jul 27, 2021)

tron said:


> R5 is a very nice camera to stick with! I have it too and I have not regretted it (I sold my R though). I would like a R5 with R3's body and battery though...


Well, now I'm anxious to see what the *R1* will spec out at.....

cayenne


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 27, 2021)

xps said:


> what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...
> 
> But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
> I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.


If the R3 does turn out to be 24mp, and the Nikon Z9 turns out to be 45mp or higher, I think Canon would be making a big mistake if they gave the R1 a 20mp sensor. Canon would already have a 24mp 30 fps beast available. It really would make no sense to have the R1 be basically the same camera at 20mp; unless it has a global shutter. If the R1 and R3 both end up having sensors in the 20mp range, what does Canon have to compete with the Sony a1 and most likely the 45mp Nikon Z9? And I don't believe Canon does not need to compete with these cameras. Sony pushed Canon to go mirrorless, so Sony is not clueless to what photographers are looking for as far as tools go. Myself, as a wildlife and bird photographer, I really do need more than 20mp at a high frame rate with great weather sealing, fast 1Dx type AF cycling, etc. Moreover, I am far from the only one with these needs as there are a lot of wildlife and bird photographers out here. I might even make an educated guess that there are more wildlife and bird photographers than sports photographers in the world. Birds especially have taken off with photographers ( pun intended). In the past, technology kept the resolution and speed of camera bodies down. That barrier no longer exists. I think Canon will come through with a high res (45-50mp) high speed (30fps) body for the mass of photographers, like myself, that are looking for such a camera. In my mind, it will be the R1.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> No it's not at all. I would never buy a 1dxiii. DSLRs are dead. I am in the market for a R3/R1/a1 though


Do you have some kind of vanity with your camera choice? I have to keep repeating this, but I own both an R5 and a 1dx3. I prefer the 1dx3, so no the dslr is not "dead". Maybe to you, but not for me or a lot of others. Why does your choice have to be the only one? Do you speak for all camera owners?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

If the R3 really costs close to $6000, that would be a record cost per kilo for Canon photo cameras, as it likely is much lighter than the 1D series cameras. That's also what I criticize about some of the new lenses. They are much lighter than the EF versions, but cost much more. For example the 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 27, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I always use aperture priority. I think the photographer should choose the aperture, as it has a huge influence on the look of an image. Usually I set it to f/8 or f/11 if there is enough light and to the largest aperture, if light is limited.


I can't remember the last time I switched any of my cameras off of full manual.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


The BSI, stacked sensor hopefully will greatly reduce rolling shutter and noise at higher ISO settings. Also, the eye controlled AF could be a great improvement. Overall better AF under challenging conditions such as low light can be expected from a newer sensor, too. Also the larger higher voltage battery driving the AF motors faster for better AF performance overall. All of this and more at a decent resolution (30-45mp) for what I do (birds and wildlife) would not be trivial improvements for my work and worth the upgrade from my R5. I likely would have an R3 and an R5 as my backup if the R3 is 30 or more mp.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If the R3 really costs close to $6000, that would be a record cost per kilo for Canon photo cameras, as it likely is much lighter than the 1D series cameras. That's also what I criticize about some of the new lenses. They are much lighter than the EF versions, but cost much more. For example the 70-200 f/2.8.


I always wondered why there was a produce scale at each B&H checkout lane…now I know!


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 27, 2021)

I'm personally fine with 24MP. Looking forward to seeing this sucker


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If the R3 really costs close to $6000, that would be a record cost per kilo for Canon photo cameras, as it likely is much lighter than the 1D series cameras. That's also what I criticize about some of the new lenses. They are much lighter than the EF versions, but cost much more. For example the 70-200 f/2.8.


The R5 costs $5900 in the UK, so that's already quite a record to beat.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 27, 2021)

I honestly think Canon is going to surprise us with the price.

Remember, they said this slots "below" the 1DX Mark III. At 24 megapixels, even with a grip, I think Canon would be smart to price this at an incredibly competitive price point to the A9II.

I lean towards $4800 due to the full grip, but they could genuinely undercut Sony with a roughly $4500 price point where you're saving actually money by not needing to buy an additional grip.

If the price is right on this thing, it would be an easy out for most of the comparisons with the Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 and their $6500 price point. 

I can see the DP Review headlines now, "Canon's most affordable pro model yet."


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The R5 costs $5900 in the UK, so that's already quite a record to beat.


Yes, those small cameras get more and more expensive. If you show them to "normal" people (not photographers) and ask them to guess the price, they would probably guess around $1000 and they would be shocked if they learn the real price.


----------



## exige24 (Jul 27, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think Canon is going to surprise us with the price.
> 
> Remember, they said this slots "below" the 1DX Mark III. At 24 megapixels, even with a grip, I think Canon would be smart to price this at an incredibly competitive price point to the A9II.
> 
> ...




Like I've said, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. Exceptionally wrong even, I just.....don't think so. Haha


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Exactly. 6000 x 4000 exactly seems completely contrived.


Until you do a few minutes of research and find out that the files from many Canon 24 MP crop cameras such as the SL2 are exactly 6000 x 4000.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many people are 'deciding between the Sony a1 and the Canon R3, really? Do people just think, gee, photography sounds neat, I'll buy a camera and lenses kit costing north of $10K? Doubtful. If you have a bunch of Canon lenses or a bunch of Sony lenses, there's inertia there. Canon users mostly stay Canon, Sony users mostly stay Sony. Yes, people switch – but those are the minority.
> 
> The 'market' is probably not current 1D X III owners, but rather 1D X II or 1D X owners looking to upgrade.


I am a professional bird and wildlife photographer that takes 1000+ photographers out in the field on tours each year and I have been doing it for over 20 years. I am not sure where your "...but those are the minority." data came from, but from what I have seen over the years there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of money and they switch systems and shoot multiple systems. Since Sony came out with the a9, then the a9II, and now the a1 I have seem many of my repeat clients switch from Nikon and Canon to Sony. Many of these folks shot the other systems for many years and where highly invested in those system. This is just one example. These people are not just professionals, but also enthusiasts. There is inertia as you put it, but also thousands of people who go with the flow and switch systems to meet their desires. Within the realm of bird and wildlife photographers, I am not sure those who switch systems or shoot multiple system are a minority, but instead may be closer to the majority, and there are a lot of wildlife photographers out here with more joining their ranks every day. Just one persons somewhat educated perspective.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Woohoo!
> 
> Personally I don’t see why anybody who is paying >$6,000 currently for a 1 series at 20mp will be disappointed at <$6,000 for a comparable R camera with 24mp.


You really need to understand who you are as a photographer. What works for the next photog may be totally inadequate for your purposes. 

I purchased a used, almost new Nikon D5 for $4,500 because some wildlife photographers I respected raved about it. What I didn't give enough attention to was that these wildlife photographers shoot large mammals (including whales) in dark extremely moist places like the wilds of the Pacific Northwest. Their subject matter and location differ dramatically from the small animals and birds I shoot in very bright Florida. Needless to say, the D5 was a disappointment. Images were very sharp and in focus, but the detail I craved just wasn't there, and I never needed to shoot above ISO400, so low-light prowess was not an issue. Oh, and the camera was mediocre at base ISO. 

Of course that camera along with the 1DX series, are the best sports DSLRs ever created. Rarely shooting sports, that accolade provided little solace to me.


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sounds like you're in the market for an R1


It depends! We assume it will have high Mp count but we don't really know. But with the right (for me) number of Mpixels I would be tempted


----------



## FramerMCB (Jul 27, 2021)

I'm simply astounded at the whining about a possible 24mp sensor camera. Only a few years ago, Pro's were shooting with 8, 10, and 12 mp and shooting amazing images. 

Maybe just go buy the Fuji GFx100. Or the newer Leica...


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 27, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> I am a professional bird and wildlife photographer that takes 1000+ photographers out in the field on tours each year and I have been doing it for over 20 years. I am not sure where your "...but those are the minority." data came from, but from what I have seen over the years there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of money and they switch systems and shoot multiple systems. Since Sony came out with the a9, then the a9II, and now the a1 I have seem many of my repeat clients switch from Nikon and Canon to Sony. Many of these folks shot the other systems for many years and where highly invested in those system. This is just one example. These people are not just professionals, but also enthusiasts. There is inertia as you put it, but also thousands of people who go with the flow and switch systems to meet their desires. Within the realm of bird and wildlife photographers, I am not sure those who switch systems or shoot multiple system are a minority, but instead may be closer to the majority, and there are a lot of wildlife photographers out here with more joining their ranks every day. Just one persons somewhat educated perspective.




And yet I've seen the same thing happen with the R5, which is a far more affordable option at 45 megapixels and 20 FPS. Several Sony shooters I know, and a big name pro Nikon shooter I've followed, have all switched to the EOS R5 since its release. The Nikon shooter dropped over $20,000 in Nikon gear to switch to a two EOS R5 set-up, because he wasn't happy with the Z-series and had no interest in spending $6500 per camera for the A1 or future Z9. 

The same enthusiasts making these choices are going to be very aware of the fact they can save $2500 over the A1 by going the R5 route instead, which is enough to net you a lens, possibly two if you go the 800mm F/11 route, and almost enough for the 100-500. I'm aware these people have the money, but the R5 is an incredibly compelling camera for the price that it's at.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly think Canon is going to surprise us with the price.
> 
> Remember, they said this slots "below" the 1DX Mark III. At 24 megapixels, even with a grip, I think Canon would be smart to price this at an incredibly competitive price point to the A9II.
> 
> ...


One thing to consider if you've been keeping up with the world-wide shortages, is that prices have been going up considerably for electronics in the past month or two. So, alas, the price will almost certainly be higher than predictions of two or three months ago. Of course, people on the internet will curse Canon and blame them for over-pricing everythting, completely ignoring the actual economic situation that is influencing most of the world right now.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Actually, an acre was not meant to be square. The 10 acre square you mention is 10 chains or 1 furlong on each side. The Ideal Acre was defined as 1 chain by 10 chains (66x660 ft.) with the notion of that as a lot that you could build a house near the front and have a space to grow stuff at the back, all the while making access road at the front relatively short and putting neighbors close together. The 11 pops out of a chain being 66 ft long. I have never seen a definitive explanation that proves whether the system started from the top (mile) or bottom (chain). The rod (16.5 ft) is clearly a sub unit as 1/4th of a chain. If you have a sense of humor it is actually kind of fun- a mostly binary (quaternary in area) system with a sneaky 11 hiding in there. The system was created from practical usage, whereas the Metric system starts with a base unit and throws factors of ten at everything. For many things (cooking is a good example) a binary approach is actually more useful than the metric system.
> 
> Probably the biggest hang-up in the English measuring system is the dichotomy between the statute mile and the nautical mile which was only finalized after someone actually figured out how far it really was around the world. So now we have MPH and knots to deal with. The nautical mile is a practical measure in that it takes 21,600 of them to go around the world making 1 minute of latitude equal to 1 nautical mile. Are we having fun yet?


 "not meant to be square"...no kidding!!! yes, you can make a clean "rectangular" acre (but at least it's not 6000x4000 anything).

Figuring this out (which I did a few years ago) made me at least see _an_ underlying logic to the system; it's kind of screwball in its own amusing way. It's not as "clean" as SI, but at least one can see where it came from.

I do recall reading that a mile was 5000 feet until it got bumped up to 5280 so that it'd be a whole number (8) of furlongs, so I suspect it was started from _both _the top and bottom, when the inevitable collision occurred, "up from the bottom" won. (Wikipedia has a long explanation of this I don't have time to parse right now to check it against my recollection; but it appears the year was 1593.)

The nautical mile is now defined to be 1852 meters (note it's tied to metric); before it was 6080 (in the UK) or 6080.2 (in the US) feet, a bit over 1853 meters. So though the original intent was to be one minute of arc on the earth's surface, it isn't quite that any more. (Of course the meter was originally defined to be 1/10,000,000 the length of a meridian from the equator to the poles; it isn't any more either.)

Weight is another one with a lot of history. Apparently even groceries were measured in troy pounds of 5760 grains before Queen Elizabeth; after her reforms we went to the avoirdupois pound of 7000 grains (the grain itself not changing). However, the monetary system was tied to troy pounds (a pound sterling really was a troy pound of 0.925 fine silver at one point), so we couldn't stop doing precious metals in the troy system. And so we continue to have two different kinds of ounces to this day.

All well and good, until you start dealing with other countries with slightly different histories and therefore two different kinds of miles, pounds, etc. At that point it becomes an ungodly mess...so there is the rationale for the SI.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 27, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> And yet I've seen the same thing happen with the R5, which is a far more affordable option at 45 megapixels and 20 FPS. Several Sony shooters I know, and a big name pro Nikon shooter I've followed, have all switched to the EOS R5 since its release. The Nikon shooter dropped over $20,000 in Nikon gear to switch to a two EOS R5 set-up, because he wasn't happy with the Z-series and had no interest in spending $6500 per camera for the A1 or future Z9.
> 
> The same enthusiasts making these choices are going to be very aware of the fact they can save $2500 over the A1 by going the R5 route instead, which is enough to net you a lens, possibly two if you go the 800mm F/11 route, and almost enough for the 100-500. I'm aware these people have the money, but the R5 is an incredibly compelling camera for the price that it's at.


I think people who are actually in the camera market are comparing the A1 with the R5. And it seems pretty clear that the R3 is comparable to the A9 - not the A1. People saying that the R3 need more MPs to compete with the A1, but Canon already has the R5 to compete with the A1 - and by most comments and reviews I have seen from actual photographers, the R5 is more than holding its own.


----------



## eliz82 (Jul 27, 2021)

highdesertmesa said:


> The firmware may allow multiple sizes of RAW but be currently limited to the smallest. They could be working out issues with the higher resolutions. Zero evidence of this but still possible.


I don't think this is firmware related but sensor hardware architecture related.

1) This kind of sensors with multiple raw sizes like for example 7D, 5D mark II, 5D mark III used to have, do not exist anymore. Except the recent cameras like 6D mark II for example, that still use old sensors (single gain), this camera still have multiple raw resolutions, but worse dynamic range.
Since they added dual gain to sensors (since 1D X mark II), multiple resolutions in RAW mode have disappeared.
So until this moment you either have multiple raw resolution or better dynamic range, you cannot have both.

2) Also confirmed by electron microscopy analysis of a single gain sensor (1D X)





Chipworks Reviews Canon DSLR Sensors


Source of knowledge Engineering and information technology.




eng-info-tech.blogspot.com




"additional transistor connecting FD in three rows is used for binning"

3) The resolution of raw video mode of cameras like R5 is only in the 8K mode not also in 4K mode. The 8K mode is a 1:1 pixel read of the sensor at 16:9 aspect ratio, so there are only some skipped rows at the botton and top of the sensor, there is no binning involved.

--
But is still possible to have good multiple resolutions in JPEG mode, this is good enough for sport photographers. For example Sony A1 (50Mpx) can shot JPEG at 21 and 12 Mpx. Canon R5 (45Mpx) can shot JPEG at 22, 12 and 4 Mpx.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I think people who are actually in the camera market are comparing the A1 with the R5. And it seems pretty clear that the R3 is comparable to the A9 - not the A1. People saying that the R3 need more MPs to compete with the A1, but Canon already has the R5 to compete with the A1 - and by most comments and reviews I have seen from actual photographers, the R5 is more than holding its own.



Oh, but the R5 is losing in one key category; it has fewer trolls extolling it.


----------



## dcm (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> I'm not buying it.
> 
> I'm not buying those numbers.
> Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
> ...



There are some, like my M3 and M5. I believe some of the APS-C rebels are also 6000x4000.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 27, 2021)

I'll watch for an R5-resolution successor with that "just right" size with integrated vertical grip. Didn't need 30 FPS.

Saved $2000+ on an "upgrade" and lost $100 on a wishful bet.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 27, 2021)

Hmmm .. 24mp. Could that be the resolution trick we've been hearing? Crop mode?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay...





neuroanatomist said:


> How long have you used 1-series cameras? Perhaps you use a spec sheet to take pictures?


I know I am the exception, but I've never found the ergonomics of the 1 series to be that much superior to the five or seven series, especially if you choose to add a grip. In fact, the older I get the more I like not having to lug around the extra weight of a 1 series body. Part of it, I know, is just the way I shoot. After decades of using film cameras, my muscle memory is so accustomed to leaving my hands in the same place when I switch to vertical, so I find the vertical controls on the 1 series and grips to be useless for me. 

I don't stand around in the rain using my camera without any protection. Weathersealing is poorly defined and from what I've seen of field tests, even the lowly R does quite well in that regard, so that's not a big factor for me. If they actually built a camera and lenses that could be submerged, it might be a different case, but until they do that, I'll just keep using rain covers when I have to shoot in bad weather.

I looked up the shutter life or the R5 and it is rated the same as the 1DxIII, so that doesn't seem like a major differentiation either. 

Now, if I owned a big white, I might want the bigger battery and I do admit that the short battery life of the R5 is annoying at times. But, if I'm going to be shooting for an extended period of time I can add a grip. 

Point being that individual preferences vary and for me, the body style won't be a major reason to buy the R3 if I go that route.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the


Oh, so Canon intentionally left out the resolution in marketing so that the EXIF files would display it anyhow. Please. The higher resolution most likely was not selectable. Canon engineers are aware the photographers will transmit files. Next month we'll see different EXIF files.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jul 27, 2021)

Wow, amazed that an R5 may not be good enough! Jeez, I am still using a 6D. Wish I could afford a switch to mirrorless.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 27, 2021)

Metadata can be changed, deleted, and edited.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 27, 2021)

Wow, this is a disappointment that I have to process for a couple of days. After waiting for a few years I thought this could be the mirrorless pro for me. But with 24mpix after using the R5 for a day. Sorry but I cannot understand why a camera company would make a 24mpix PRO BODY camera after they made a 45mpix SEMI PRO BODY camera a year earlier... Am I crazy?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Before you know all the facts?


Yes. I know enough to be happy that the R3 is a wise upgrade/progression for me from the 1DX II. I’ll run one of each and see what works best for my uses.


----------



## DanCarr (Jul 27, 2021)

sulla said:


> I'm not buying it.
> 
> I'm not buying those numbers.
> Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
> ...


Sony a9 and a9 II both shot 6000x4000px, as did a bunch of their other 24mp cameras. This really isn't unusual.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Wow, this is a disappointment that I have to process for a couple of days. After waiting for a few years I thought this could be the mirrorless pro for me. But with 24mpix after using the R5 for a day. Sorry but I cannot understand why a camera company would make a 24mpix PRO BODY camera after they made a 45mpix SEMI PRO BODY camera a year earlier... Am I crazy?


Yes. Or you just don’t understand the actual pro market for an R3.


----------



## djack41 (Jul 27, 2021)

Bet Sony is celebrating!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

Billybob said:


> You really need to understand who you are as a photographer. What works for the next photog may be totally inadequate for your purposes.
> 
> I purchased a used, almost new Nikon D5 for $4,500 because some wildlife photographers I respected raved about it. What I didn't give enough attention to was that these wildlife photographers shoot large mammals (including whales) in dark extremely moist places like the wilds of the Pacific Northwest. Their subject matter and location differ dramatically from the small animals and birds I shoot in very bright Florida. Needless to say, the D5 was a disappointment. Images were very sharp and in focus, but the detail I craved just wasn't there, and I never needed to shoot above ISO400, so low-light prowess was not an issue. Oh, and the camera was mediocre at base ISO.
> 
> Of course that camera along with the 1DX series, are the best sports DSLRs ever created. Rarely shooting sports, that accolade provided little solace to me.


And I didn’t say anything that contradicted that. I said specifically current 20mp camera buyers aren’t going to be annoyed or put off because their latest option is 24mp, despite the fact that many people want and or feel they need more.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 27, 2021)

Is a screen snapshot from an unknown source confirmation?


----------



## AEWest (Jul 27, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> If the R3 does turn out to be 24mp, and the Nikon Z9 turns out to be 45mp or higher, I think Canon would be making a big mistake if they gave the R1 a 20mp sensor. Canon would already have a 24mp 30 fps beast available. It really would make no sense to have the R1 be basically the same camera at 20mp; unless it has a global shutter. If the R1 and R3 both end up having sensors in the 20mp range, what does Canon have to compete with the Sony a1 and most likely the 45mp Nikon Z9? And I don't believe Canon does not need to compete with these cameras. Sony pushed Canon to go mirrorless, so Sony is not clueless to what photographers are looking for as far as tools go. Myself, as a wildlife and bird photographer, I really do need more than 20mp at a high frame rate with great weather sealing, fast 1Dx type AF cycling, etc. Moreover, I am far from the only one with these needs as there are a lot of wildlife and bird photographers out here. I might even make an educated guess that there are more wildlife and bird photographers than sports photographers in the world. Birds especially have taken off with photographers ( pun intended). In the past, technology kept the resolution and speed of camera bodies down. That barrier no longer exists. I think Canon will come through with a high res (45-50mp) high speed (30fps) body for the mass of photographers, like myself, that are looking for such a camera. In my mind, it will be the R1.


No sense in making 2 pro body R cameras with low mp count. One will be the low mp sports/pj camera (R3) the other a high mp studio camera with lower fps (R1).


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Wow, this is a disappointment that I have to process for a couple of days. After waiting for a few years I thought this could be the mirrorless pro for me. But with 24mpix after using the R5 for a day. Sorry but I cannot understand why a camera company would make a 24mpix PRO BODY camera after they made a 45mpix SEMI PRO BODY camera a year earlier... Am I crazy?


Not crazy. But no one here has access to Canon's market research. Whether we understand it or not, you can be sure they base their decisions on solid research and know what the market is that they are targeting. Cameras are like every other product, you have to pick the one that checks off most of the boxes for you. Seldom will something check off all the boxes. Process your disappointment, wait for the actual announcement and then decide what you want.


----------



## notsure (Jul 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> For those who feel they really benefit from high speed shooting, 30 fps is a big jump assuming there's no rolling shutter. And if the EVF solves continuous shooting lag (which it should at 30 fps capture), then that solves a significant mirrorless issue for those who shoot long bursts. It's definitely an evolution of technology and an impressive camera. It also potentially solves some issues that would make 1DX shooters more comfortable adding mirrorless and gaining the mirrorless advantage of AI subject tracking AF.
> 
> That said: at times I feel the same way you do about things. I'm not limited in any way by my equipment right now. I need time to travel and inspiration. So while I appreciate what the R3 (and R5/R6) bring to the table, I cringe when people post stuff to Twitter like _OMG I just burned all my old equipment if you're not shooting this awesome new mirrorless you can't compete, you're not even a photographer!_ There's certainly nothing wrong with taking advantage of the new tech Canon is brining to the table. But their DSLRs were so highly evolved by the end of the 2010's that there's nothing wrong with sitting tight for a while either. Same thing is true on the Nikon side. Perhaps even more so because the transition is not necessarily as seamless as it is with Canon's EF-to-RF adapter.



Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage). On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 27, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Do you have some kind of vanity with your camera choice? I have to keep repeating this, but I own both an R5 and a 1dx3. I prefer the 1dx3, so no the dslr is not "dead". Maybe to you, but not for me or a lot of others. Why does your choice have to be the only one? Do you speak for all camera owners?


When did I say my choice was the only one? You were the one that said the entire market was people that want a 1dxiii. I am saying there is a large chunk of the market like myself that they are losing.


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2021)

notsure said:


> Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
> If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage). On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.


Why are they useless? What stops all lenses to work at 30fps fully open? Also aren't EF lenses supposed to work OK with 1DxIII? So 16fps must be doable with many modern big white EF lenses.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 27, 2021)

notsure said:


> Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
> If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage). On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.


30 fps will not be possible on all lenses. But I'm guessing some of the limits for the R5/R6 will be higher or non-existent on the R3. There are EF lenses that can't shoot as fast on an R6 as they can on 1D bodies. This clearly isn't a fault of the lens and is likely due to voltage. Since the R3 carries a bigger battery...


----------



## reef58 (Jul 27, 2021)

rick1 said:


> When did I say my choice was the only one? You were the one that said the entire market was people that want a 1dxiii. I am saying there is a large chunk of the market like myself that they are losing.


You said DSLR's are dead maybe we have different definitions of "dead". And I didn't say the entire market is people who want a 1dxiii. There are no absolutes here, and that is my point.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Jul 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That would be a real win for me personally.


For when we can't remember where that dang stadium was.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2021)

notsure said:


> Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
> If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage). On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.


The electronic shutter doesn’t drop below 20 fps with battery charge. I’ve used the 100-400mm II and 400mm DO II at 20 fps with the adapter. The RF 1.4x and 2x work on the RF 800mm f/11 and 600mm f/11 as well as the new RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 that are currently available and not only the 100-500mm.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 27, 2021)

Personally gutted, Canon still incapable of offering decent resolution in a pro camera. I'm sure it will be fantastic camera, and if priced aggressively might be of interest but no doubt Canon will ask for more like A1 money than A9II money.

Oh well, looks like I'll sell my A9 and A7RIII for the A1 now.


----------



## Skux (Jul 27, 2021)

That's cool, I just hope it's priced accordingly.

Knowing Canon they'll think they can get away with flagship prices on release (and they can, with early adopters and worldwide supply disruptions).


----------



## miketcool (Jul 27, 2021)

degos said:


> Why? Largely because there's no option, if you're in the Canon system and need a truly rugged camera then the 1DX line is your option.


When you're a professional photo journalist, action, or sports photographer; switching to a rival camera system is the option. The gear is paid for on your first or second assignment. The semi-pro and enthusiast crowd own pro bodies as a luxury item.



rick1 said:


> This is a new generation. Using that logic you could say "they sell plenty of 5d Mark4s at 30mp). Previous generation cameras should not be the benchmark. The industry competition should be the benchmark. 24mp for a $6000 camera is pathetic


There is nothing "previous" about a current pro-body DSLR. 24mp on a camera coming out with supply chain issues, a slowdown in events, that is stacked BSI, shoots with less shutter distortion, and sends the correct resolution and files sizes wirelessly to clients for events is what is demanded by the industry. Canon spends a lot of time working with photographers in the field to come up with solutions that are both reliable and won't financially impact their strategic growth. I would rather know that my rugged pro body will be supported for years to come as it makes me money, then worry about whether or not the spec-sheet stacks up against expensive competitors with their own downsides. 

The higher density the sensor, the poorer the low light condition, and the less advanced your AI can be for things like Eye Control AF and machine learning for recognizing fast moving subjects. This is a very exciting step in the future of AF systems which has been Canon's focus (pun intended) for decades.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Is a screen snapshot from an unknown source confirmation?


We know the photo the EXIF was taken from, anybody can read that and do their own screen shot.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> The higher density the sensor, the poorer the low light condition, and the less advanced your AI can be for things like Eye Control AF and machine learning for recognizing fast moving subjects. This is a very exciting step in the future of AF systems which has been Canon's focus (pun intended) for decades.


The higher the density, the more pixel information for machine learning to recognise subjects and the better the AF. The more pixels you put on your subject the better the AF, not the worse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I know I am the exception, but I've never found the ergonomics of the 1 series to be that much superior to the five or seven series, especially if you choose to add a grip. In fact, the older I get the more I like not having to lug around the extra weight of a 1 series body. Part of it, I know, is just the way I shoot. After decades of using film cameras, my muscle memory is so accustomed to leaving my hands in the same place when I switch to vertical, so I find the vertical controls on the 1 series and grips to be useless for me.
> 
> I don't stand around in the rain using my camera without any protection. Weathersealing is poorly defined and from what I've seen of field tests, even the lowly R does quite well in that regard, so that's not a big factor for me. If they actually built a camera and lenses that could be submerged, it might be a different case, but until they do that, I'll just keep using rain covers when I have to shoot in bad weather.
> 
> ...


Agree on individual preferences varying. With a non-gripped body, my hand is a bit sore after a day of shooting, partly it’s the pinky not fitting in the grip, and mostly it’s that a lighter body doesn’t balance heavier lenses like f/2.8 zooms (balance is more important than weight, IMO).

Not sure if you’ve used a 1-series much, the vertical controls are much better placed than on a grip. I used a gripper 7D and 5DII, and the integrated grip is also more comfortable (for me, of course, and it’s because the 1-series bulges only forward like the main grip, whereas the add-ons bulge in front and in back to accommodate the transverse batteries).

I alternate between handheld and tripod pretty frequently, and there’s always flex between the body and an add-on grip. Flex means vibration. Removing the grip (then attaching an Arca-Swiss plate to the body) to mount on a tripod, and then reversing it to return to handheld, is a PITA. 

So for many reasons, I far prefer the integrated grip.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?


Because you can't remap the Rate button on the R5


----------



## styoda (Jul 28, 2021)

RMac said:


> Canon Cameras with 4000x6000 resolution sensors
> 
> 77D
> 80D
> ...


Check again, the 77D and 80D are not 4000x6000, they're 24.2 MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Personally gutted, Canon still incapable of offering decent resolution in a pro camera.


They’re certainly capable of it. When the 1DsIII came out, it had double the resolution of any other then-current FF DSLR. The fact that they’re choosing not to make one indicates they don’t believe that’s the best choice for the current market.

I’m equally certain their knowledge of the market exceeds that of anyone on this forum.


----------



## juststeve (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> They’re certainly capable of it. When the 1DsIII came out, it had double the resolution of any other then-current FF DSLR. The fact that they’re choosing not to make one indicates they don’t believe that’s the best choice for the current market.
> 
> I’m equally certain their knowledge of the market exceeds that of anyone on this forum.




When the 1Ds iii came out the 1Ds ii had been available for since 2005. It was full frame and 16.7 MP.


----------



## dboris (Jul 28, 2021)

I wish to buy a R3 for 75% video 25% photo.
C70 clearly don't tick the boxes I want.
Limiting the sensor resolution means sharper 4K, less rolling shutter, and possible 4K 60p raw, with awesome AF capabilities.
What else?
If canon made this choice it's not for no reason.
If resolution is an issue for you, stop whining and grab a R5.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I was considering buying an R5, just prior to the development announcement of the R3. I used a 1D X extensively before buying an EOS R, and I far prefer the form factor of the integrated grip, which is why I avoided the R5 for so long. Not a lot of difference between 24 and 30 MP, and as someone pointed out the weaker AA filter of the new sensors (although we really don't know about the AA filter in the R3) means even less of a difference between the R3's presumptive 24 MP and the 30 MP of my EOS R.


Would you now consider upgrading from your R to R5 again if the R3 is 24mp?


----------



## PBguy (Jul 28, 2021)

Maybe that's just a medium size jpeg?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Probably the biggest hang-up in the English measuring system is the dichotomy between the statute mile and the nautical mile which was only finalized after someone actually figured out how far it really was around the world. So now we have MPH and knots to deal with. The nautical mile is a practical measure in that it takes 21,600 of them to go around the world making 1 minute of latitude equal to 1 nautical mile. Are we having fun yet?


The international system of units is still fun when you get to understand how the base unit is defined. The metre was originally defined to be one ten millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator through Paris was a fun one.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 28, 2021)

amorse said:


> Considering the comments on resolution, I would bet that if Canon thinks there's a market for higher resolution higher speed shooting, they'll produce something to fill that need. Canon doesn't seem to be one to leave money on the table.


That laughter you hear is coming from Sony, Fuji, and all the Canon faithful who are waiting for an APS-C R or some sign of life in the M.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 28, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> That laughter you hear is coming from Sony, Fuji, and all the Canon faithful who are waiting for an APS-C R or some sign of life in the M.


Apologies to @amorse. Snark intended for Canon, not you.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Jul 28, 2021)

If the R3 is really 24MP I expect that it will compete well against the A9II as long as the price point is similar. If Canon asks A1 money ($8500 Cdn) I will be be a hard pass. 

$6000 to $6500 Cdn and I am a buyer.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Some great shots on your flickr pages! Lighter weight and higher resolution of the R5 enabling shorter, lighter lenses swing it the other way for me.


Thanks. And yes, high res is a must, so if the rumor hold out and its 30 and under... its effectively DOA for me. 

When the R5 came out, I thought it was as close to a perfect camera as I would ever get to have, then the R3 piqued an interest to challenge that thought. I honestly saw no way it would disappoint... then the 20MP and 30MP rumors started and now the 24MP rumors so I'm starting to think, this one will not be for me. The worst part, this line of thinking isn't going to change. They are locked in and its not likely they are ever going to budge. So that means the R3 and any subsequent versions will likely hold tight to that theme, effectively pushing me away. The bright side: There are worse problems than not throwing away $6000+.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 28, 2021)

pic said:


> Bummer, there goes the option of upgrading my EF bodies to RF this year. Hoping for the R1 - but not holding my breath after this.
> 
> Lat's hope Canon gives the R1
> - internal GPS ,
> ...


I have zero appetite for a $8000+ full bodied R5. The funny thing... I initially thought Canon broke everyone else's line up with all these new cameras, little did I know, they were breaking their own. An A9 competitor, priced around $2000 up the hill with two other flagships is not ideal IMO. 

However, I do think the R1 will be special, but I will withhold any fanboy'ish enthusiasm until it is dropped. Lesson learned.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> That laughter you hear is coming from Sony, Fuji, and all the Canon faithful who are waiting for an APS-C R or some sign of life in the M.


Sorry, but who is laughing?









Canon celebrates 18th consecutive year of No. 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market | Canon Global


TOKYO, March 29, 2021—Canon Inc. announced today that the company's interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and mirrorless cameras) have maintained the No. 1 share of the global market for 18 consecutive years1 from 2003 to 2020.




global.canon





Answer? Me.


----------



## dcm (Jul 28, 2021)

I find all the absolutism here amazing. These threads are like the election and everyone wants to call it as early as possible based on rumors. This thread might be more accurately titled:

"Olympic JPEG EXIF suggests Canon EOS R3 resolution will be 24mp"​
It's not really confirmed until Canon makes the announcement to which I'm looking forward. I have no pressing needs to buy now so I can wait and ignore all of the speculation, although it does make an interesting read.

For myself, megapixels are an interesting data point, just like fastest shutter speed. But individual specs really don't matter to me. I want to understand the entire package to make a decision but I like what I see so far. I am really interested to see what else Canon has up their sleeves based on the hints from people like Jeff Cable about unannounced features. I assume this is more than just megapixels.

I am an enthusiast with a lot of EF L glass that I'm quite happy with. My decision isn't Canon vs Nikon vs Sony. It's which Canon body(s) do I purchase next. The R3 may be sufficient to become a single body solution or I may choose two bodies, depending on what other bodies come along in the future.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but who is laughing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All that proves is that Canon is profitable. It doesn't mean they're not leaving money on the table, which was the original statement.

Sony and Fuji are obviously making money on APS-C, and not just tiny point-and-shoots either, but high-end ILCs with professional features and a strong selection of lenses and accessories. A big conglomerate like Sony wouldn't waste their resources on a product line that wasn't profitable.

It's especially disappointing when you consider how, 20 years ago, Canon practically bootstrapped the entire consumer and enthusiast APS-C DSLR marketplace single-handedly with the D30, D60, and the original Digital Rebel. They were revolutionary at a time when a DSLR cost >$10K. Canon is letting those other guys eat their lunch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Canon is letting those other guys eat their lunch.


Canon is selling about as many ILCs as Sony and Nikon combined, and Fuji is barely a blip in the global market (but they sell tons of Instax cameras). You don’t seem to grasp who’s lunch is being eaten by whom.

It’s ok if you don’t like the R3, Canon doesn’t care, and it’s not likely you were going to buy one anyway.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jul 28, 2021)

I know the megapixel war is supposed to be over but this is underwhelming


----------



## jam05 (Jul 28, 2021)

Even Google Play has foto EXIF metadata editors. People have been changing and editing EXIF metadata for years. Fuji camera owners have a lot of practice. Renaming, changing and deleting metadata to fool C1, LR and other software into accepting images. Often as simple as changing the camera name. Comon practice among knowledgeable photographers. EXIF data doesn't confirm nada. I can edit my R5 file to display the name R3 or any camera name I want.


----------



## RickWagoner (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I asked in the other thread, could these cameras not be restricted in firmware to output max 24 MP JPG files?


Yes. In the development and "in the wild" testing phase anything about the camera can be restricted to make it appear something is this instead of that or sometimes somethings are not even there. Canon has gone as far as a man made one off circuit board inside with fake model codes in case the test body fell into the wrong hands. Early prototypes will often have parts from other cameras inside also.

That being said the R3 should not be in the development and "in the wild" testing phase right now, These bodies should be fairly close to the real production units, esp if everyone knows the R3 is going to be at the games already. There is a chance Canon is protecting the reality of it's new sensor by masking it through metadata, but even then i am sure some of the images taken at the games will be used for future marketing so the chances of Canon really hiding true sensor details now are close to zero. 

Most likely the R3 does have a 24mp sensor since it seems to be all about crazy speed and not super high res photography, least that is what i take from what Canon has released and teased so far.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The higher the density, the more pixel information for machine learning to recognise subjects and the better the AF. The more pixels you put on your subject the better the AF, not the worse.


AF machine learning works best with as little noise as possible. When you use higher resolution sensors, you increase sensor noise. Your statement is correct up until you are shooting in lower light, or with longer lenses at higher aperture. Sports, photo journalism, and action are three areas that lighting isn't ideal which is why you see 20.1 mp in the 1DX mkii and you'll likely see under 30mp on the R3. It is considerably more work for machine learning or AI AF when there is noise to also sort through when nanoseconds matter.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 28, 2021)

Boy I sure hope Canon makes an announcement soon, these threads have exhausted every possible angle about ten times over. Not that that will keep me from posting. But really, no one is saying anything new. I'm kind of wishing we could get a good lens cap photo file just to have a new topic to argue over.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 28, 2021)

I was hoping this would have higher resolution, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that 24mp seems to be the right call for the folks who will be using this camera for what it’s made to do. This isn’t some future-proofed machine. This is a now camera. For people who are working today.

8k is coming but it’s not here yet for most of us who are consuming our media on 4K or lower resolution screens. 24mp meets the moment. it gives just a bit more leeway than a 1d while not overburdening high-output shooters.

Lenses most likely to actually work at 30fps? I’d be interested to see which lenses are actually able to keep up when bolted on the front of this new mini-monster. 

I’d still be happy to see it clock in at 30.1mp as previously rumored.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> When you're a professional photo journalist, action, or sports photographer; switching to a rival camera system is the option. The gear is paid for on your first or second assignment. The semi-pro and enthusiast crowd own pro bodies as a luxury item.
> 
> 
> There is nothing "previous" about a current pro-body DSLR. 24mp on a camera coming out with supply chain issues, a slowdown in events, that is stacked BSI, shoots with less shutter distortion, and sends the correct resolution and files sizes wirelessly to clients for events is what is demanded by the industry. Canon spends a lot of time working with photographers in the field to come up with solutions that are both reliable and won't financially impact their strategic growth. I would rather know that my rugged pro body will be supported for years to come as it makes me money, then worry about whether or not the spec-sheet stacks up against expensive competitors with their own downsides.
> ...


This is false, my R5 performs far better in low light than my a9ii and it has double the resolution. You talk of supply chain issues and such, implying it is some sort of excuse? And yet the a1 was released with all of these "supply chain" issues...


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> AF machine learning works best with as little noise as possible. When you use higher resolution sensors, you increase sensor noise.


How many times does this have to be disproven on these very forums? Pixel density does not negatively impact total image noise within a format. As for the AI, I would be surprised if anyone is feeding full resolution sensor readouts to said AI for AF point selection.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon is selling about as many ILCs as Sony and Nikon combined, and Fuji is barely a blip in the global market (but they sell tons of Instax cameras). You don’t seem to grasp who’s lunch is being eaten by whom.
> 
> It’s ok if you don’t like the R3, Canon doesn’t care, and it’s not likely you were going to buy one anyway.


I would have bought it, but now very likely won't. But Canon will not lose as I will get another R5 for now while I wait for R1.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> Lenses most likely to actually work at 30fps? I’d be interested to see which lenses are actually able to keep up when bolted on the front of this new mini-monster.


No lens can handle 30 fps at f/22. Probably every lens can handle it wide open. How far you can stop down without impacting frame rate will depend on the specific lens.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> How many times does this have to be disproven on these very forums? Pixel density does not negatively impact total image noise within a format.


Show me what you're referring to.



rick1 said:


> This is false, my R5 performs far better in low light than my a9ii and it has double the resolution.


Add machine learning AF to either one of those and get back to me. I'm sure there are a number of engineering issues to resolve from noise to power consumption. The bottom line is for the professionals this body is designed for, 24mp is enough.



rick1 said:


> You talk of supply chain issues and such, implying it is some sort of excuse? And yet the a1 was released with all of these "supply chain" issues...


The R5 and several RF lenses saw long production delays. The A1 also saw a limited release and manufacturing delays. It's not an excuse, but a reality. We don't know what is around the corner that could hamper the R3's release further.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> When you're a professional photo journalist, action, or sports photographer; switching to a rival camera system is the option. The gear is paid for on your first or second assignment. The semi-pro and enthusiast crowd own pro bodies as a luxury item.


What photojournalists, action and sports photographers do you know? News photographers have been grossly underpaid for 50 years or more. Newspapers are cash strapped and often require the photographers to buy their own equipment. Those that do supply equipment aren't switching systems or even buying new bodies and lenses until the old ones die.

If I see another photographer at a college sport event they are as likely to be using a Rebel as any other body and are frequently either sports information officers or student photographers. The few actual pro photographers I meet are usually like me -- working for the school either on contract or part time and paying for their own equipment. The only reason I can afford good equipment is because I am retired from a long career and my retirement income covers my GAS and allows me to subsidize my part time work at the college. 

The photojournalists covering major news stories are often freelancers or contract photographers also responsible for their own equipment. If they are covering a war or civil unrest, they are often locals who use whatever equipment they can get their hands on and, unfortunately, are treated as expendable by the services they work with. 

People have this ridiculous idea that photographers covering DC politics or professional sporting events are typical. They are not. They are a tiny minority. And even among that group, many are just plugging away struggling to stay in the middle class.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What photojournalists, action and sports photographers do you know? News photographers have been grossly underpaid for 50 years or more. Newspapers are cash strapped and often require the photographers to buy their own equipment. Those that do supply equipment aren't switching systems or even buying new bodies and lenses until the old ones die.
> 
> If I see another photographer at a college sport event they are as likely to be using a Rebel as any other body and are frequently either sports information officers or student photographers. The few actual pro photographers I meet are usually like me -- working for the school either on contract or part time and paying for their own equipment. The only reason I can afford good equipment is because I am retired from a long career and my retirement income covers my GAS and allows me to subsidize my part time work at the college.
> 
> ...



100% accurate. I think most people on this forum would be surprised to know that the majority of professional photojournalists I run into today, whether that's print or sports photographers, are all still using their Canon 1DX, 5D3s, 7D, or Nikon D4s/D700s. Many have been totally laid off and replaced by reporters with their iPhones snapping photos.

A lot of these organizations are so strapped for cash that just replacing a broken 200-400 F/4 would most likely require them to lay off one of the 3 people still left working for the paper.

The only reason I have the equipment I have is because I made the tough decision to leave working full time in news for a higher-paying staff commercial photography/videography job. That, in a similar vein to your retirement, is what subsidizes my personal equipment for the work I do with the newspapers.


----------



## Twinix (Jul 28, 2021)

Im curious about the hotshoe. Will it actually feature something better, or is it just talk. I still really want an XLR adapter!


----------



## miketcool (Jul 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What photojournalists, action and sports photographers do you know? News photographers have been grossly underpaid for 50 years or more. Newspapers are cash strapped and often require the photographers to buy their own equipment.



Staff photographers working for a newspaper are very different than independent photojournalists. More than 2/3rds of media staff photogs have to buy their own gear with meager salaries, which is why they rely on longevity. I know enough professional photographers in the three categories that I mentioned to know that they can upgrade gear after 1-2 jobs.

International press photos on war coverage are highly editorialized, so no, they aren't mostly from random locals with low cost gear. Most of the images that come from conflict for news stories are on-assignment photojournalists working with international organizations like AP, Reuters, or the UN.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> No lens can handle 30 fps at f/22. Probably every lens can handle it wide open. How far you can stop down without impacting frame rate will depend on the specific lens.


In mirrorless cameras you don't have to reset the aperture (between shots) for the AF to work.


----------



## Chig (Jul 28, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


What makes you think this is an uncompressed RAW file ?
Many pros shoot jpeg
Pretty thin evidence really , however 24mp is a sensible resolution for a pro sports camera


----------



## edoorn (Jul 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> I would have bought it, but now very likely won't. But Canon will not lose as I will get another R5 for now while I wait for R1.


ditto here; already have two R5's and considered this camera, but will wait and see what the R1 will bring to the table.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 28, 2021)

After my second "flagship" camera was broken at still quite a small shutter count, I lost my trust in the durability of those flagship cameras. My 1D Mark II had a broken shutter after less than 9000 photos. Fortunately it was still under warranty and I did not have to pay for the repair. However the 1D X broke after about 60,000 photos. The PCB had to be replaced and I had to pay more than 600 Euros for the repair. That may not be a lot compared to the price of the camera, but I did not expect that the PCB will brake before that shutter will brake. It is just electronics. I hardly ever used burst mode, as I did not want to waste too many of the expected 400,000 shutter releases. Having a broken camera after 60,000 shots was quite shocking for me. I googled the problem and found out that many people had to replace the PCB of the 1D X after a while. That is not something you should expect from such an expensive camera. Will those problems get even worse with mirrorless cameras, which contain even more electronics and even need electronics just to compose the photo?

As an enthusiast I want to collect my cameras for eternity. They still should work in decades from now, as today decades old cameras still work. Is that no longer the case for modern cameras? Can we expect an R3 to break after five or ten years? That would very much discourage me from paying thousands of Euros for a camera again.


----------



## tapanit (Jul 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Because you can't remap the Rate button on the R5


Well, you can, but in a very limited way, and only for playback uses (rating, memo recording/playback, protect, erase). And remapping is done in a completely different place than other buttons ("play4", i.e., submenu 4 under playback).

It would be nice if it could be repurposed during shooting, too.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jul 28, 2021)

Canon cameras have lower resolution JPEG modes. For example, 5DsR's highest quality JPEG is 8688x5792 (50MP) and the lowest quality (M2) is 5760x3840 (22MP). 
So, it is entirely possible that the photographer was shooting with a 24 MP mode, but the camera's actual maximum resolution is higher. 
Possible, but unlikely.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2021)

tapanit said:


> Well, you can, but in a very limited way, and only for playback uses (rating, memo recording/playback, protect, erase). And remapping is done in a completely different place than other buttons ("play4", i.e., submenu 4 under playback).
> 
> It would be nice if it could be repurposed during shooting, too.


yes, I want it to switch between EVF and rear LCD and needed to use MF-n which is an ergonomic pain in an underwater housing. The Rate button would have been perfectly positioned


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 28, 2021)

Although I think 24mp is realistic and don't see anything wrong with it, I am not convinced of this "proof" ...
When I resize my photos in Photoshop those Exif-data are updated to the new image-dimension. Of course in this case the exif-data shows different dimensions than the image, so it is a very realistic assumption that the "exif-dimensions" originate from the camera. However, then it is interesting to read an older Jeff Cable's blog-post where he makes a wishlist for Canons future professional camera:



> ** User selectable image resolution*
> 
> Many of the newer DSLR and mirrorless cameras are offering really high resolutions, in the 40MP to 70MP range. For most of my photography, I don't need or even want that type of resolution. But I would love to have the choice to shoot at various resolutions, depending on what I am capturing. I would love to have a camera that would let me shoot anywhere from 20MP to 50MP, and make it use selectable.



So if the camera indeed has such a function, maybe JC wouldn't choose highest resolution?


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> After my second "flagship" camera was broken at still quite a small shutter count, I lost my trust in the durability of those flagship cameras. My 1D Mark II had a broken shutter after less than 9000 photos. Fortunately it was still under warranty and I did not have to pay for the repair. However the 1D X broke after about 60,000 photos. The PCB had to be replaced and I had to pay more than 600 Euros for the repair. That may not be a lot compared to the price of the camera, but I did not expect that the PCB will brake before that shutter will brake. It is just electronics. I hardly ever used burst mode, as I did not want to waste too many of the expected 400,000 shutter releases. Having a broken camera after 60,000 shots was quite shocking for me. I googled the problem and found out that many people had to replace the PCB of the 1D X after a while. That is not something you should expect from such an expensive camera. Will those problems get even worse with mirrorless cameras, which contain even more electronics and even need electronics just to compose the photo?
> 
> As an enthusiast I want to collect my cameras for eternity. They still should work in decades from now, as today decades old cameras still work. Is that no longer the case for modern cameras? Can we expect an R3 to break after five or ten years? That would very much discourage me from paying thousands of Euros for a camera again.


Sorry to hear about your experience, but this is an exception - not the rule.


----------



## Fbimages (Jul 28, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> I mainly shoot wildlife, so I was hoping for at least 30MP. 24MP and $6k US price tag means this is not a camera for me.


The 1DX III is even lower MP than this and you can still blow up prints to a very nice size. This is a photo of a SEO I took with it and you wouldn’t guess it’s 20 mega pixels


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> AF machine learning works best with as little noise as possible. When you use higher resolution sensors, you increase sensor noise. Your statement is correct up until you are shooting in lower light, or with longer lenses at higher aperture. Sports, photo journalism, and action are three areas that lighting isn't ideal which is why you see 20.1 mp in the 1DX mkii and you'll likely see under 30mp on the R3. It is considerably more work for machine learning or AI AF when there is noise to also sort through when nanoseconds matter.


If the computing power is adequate, then at higher levels of light, the more the pixels on target, the better the AI and focusssing and so the better the high denbsity sensor. At lower levels of light where photon noise becomes limiting, then the AI for the high density sensor will tend to that of the lower density one because the same amount of light falls on the image from both. So, for good computing power, the high density sensor's focussing varies from as good as to better. If the computing power is inadequate, then you are limited by that.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 28, 2021)

I have many 60x40cm photos on my wall and some of them were taken with my 1D Mark II, which has 8.2 megapixels. They are sharp enough for that size. Only if you look very close you will see the difference with the newer 18 megapixel photos. Anything above those 18 megapixels would be overkill unless I crop.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Fbimages said:


> The 1DX III is even lower MP than this and you can still blow up prints to a very nice size. This is a photo of a SEO I took with it and you wouldn’t guess it’s 20 mega pixels


20 Mpx are more than good enough for bird photography if you don't have to crop. The problem facing me is that just about always I have to crop and am very happy if the bird occupies an area of 4 Mpx on the sensor. We all have different requirements and I am pleased that the R3 suits those who find 24 Mpx enough as they deserve a camera that fits their requirements.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not crazy. But no one here has access to Canon's market research. Whether we understand it or not, you can be sure they base their decisions on solid research and know what the market is that they are targeting. Cameras are like every other product, you have to pick the one that checks off most of the boxes for you. Seldom will something check off all the boxes. Process your disappointment, wait for the actual announcement and then decide what you want.


The camera is not high res because of its processing power. The camera's focus is 'speed' in every aspect. So they chose lower MP to have faster response, FPS, processing etc. As technology progresses, processing power will increase and so will the MP in such cameras. (My thinking.)


----------



## Joules (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Show me what you're referring to.







__





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





Can you tell what resolution those images are based on how the noise looks? I can't. It is only if you compare images at different viewing sizes (e.g. 100 %) that higher resolutions appear more noisy - but that is comparing apples to elefants. Noise in modern sensors is almost entirely due to natural photon shot noise in the light itself, so if you want to compare how well a given sensor does relative to another one, the image sections being compared must have the same amount of light, or in other words, the same area.


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2021)

At least for that lower res they had better keep it at 14bit irrespective of fps set.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

Steve BXL said:


> Nobody asks himself how comes exifviewsers.com has already updated its software to include an unreleased camera avatar picture even before the camera official release?


Nobody noticed the picture attached to this thread then?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 28, 2021)

Confirmed 24 MP makes this push a wee bit ahead of the 45MP+ Z9 in my opinion. But it is still going to depend on what the big boy lenses look like on both. Nikon seem to have all new 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 instead of 'old' lenses with built in adaptors.


----------



## Fbimages (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 20 Mpx are more than good enough for bird photography if you don't have to crop. The problem facing me is that just about always I have to crop and am very happy if the bird occupies an area of 4 Mpx on the sensor. We all have different requirements and I am pleased that the R3 suits those who find 24 Mpx enough as they deserve a camera that fits their requirements.


Have you tried the R5 at all? It's not as quick in terms of focus acquisition VS a 1DX iii but the focus is really sticky and you have plenty of pixels to play with. I was photographing puffins darting around the place and it was really good at latching their eyes, even at high speed. The only achilles' heel is low light, where my DSLR still outperforms the rest.


----------



## David_D (Jul 28, 2021)

Some people on this forum appear to be surprised or even upset that others are disappointed the R3 looks like a 24mp camera. However, it is basic psychology, which manufacturers try to exploit. Everyone who is in the market for a new camera has an ideal product in mind. When Canon made the development announcement and dropped in their teasers, people latched onto the vague specs that fitted their ideal. Unfortunately, as vague specs harden up they will no longer match the ideal for some people, so they will be disappointed. (And, I am very happy for the people whose ideal these specs match.)

I am currently in the market for a new camera and am disappointed at the rumour. I stuck with film until DSLR technology offered a compelling advantage. For me, that was the 40D (at the time good resolution, AF, speed and price). I kept that for 8 years until I upgraded to the 7D MkII (another compelling advantage). I think moving to mirrorless will now be another compelling upgrade, so I am looking around. The grips never came off the 40D or 7D and having briefly borrowed (and loved – apart from the weight) a 1D camera, I hoped that might be my future. But lack of pixel density would be a problem for me, which weighed against it. I loved the 600mm/F4 I borrowed, but I could not justify the cost, as it would be frequently left at home as it is too heavy, so I’ll stick with a 100-400mm (or 100-500mm or 800/f11). Then the R3 announcement turned up with the potential to be ideal, which made me very excited  Integrated grip, superb ergonomics, improved AF, improved (BSI) sensor, better battery=faster focussing etc. I shall wait for the confirmation and then start dreaming of the next ideal, an R7 (same body style as R3, but with crop 30mp+ sensor) or R1 (same body style as R3, but with FF 60mp+ sensor) and hope I can afford them if they appear. Meanwhile, I can still (and probably will this holiday season) buy an R5. (I know, I could switch to Nikon or Sony or ..., but in the 40 years I have owned [D]SLR cameras, Canon has consistently offered the best overall system even if they have not always offered the best camera. My purchases have a very long term outlook.)


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jul 28, 2021)

I don’t think the difference between 24mp and 30mp really matters does it? I could understand the disappointment if the rumour was saying 50mp at first… but 6mp is nothing to worry about. No doubt the R3 will have better image quality than a 5DIV


----------



## john1970 (Jul 28, 2021)

Fbimages said:


> Have you tried the R5 at all? It's not as quick in terms of focus acquisition VS a 1DX iii but the focus is really sticky and you have plenty of pixels to play with. I was photographing puffins darting around the place and it was really good at latching their eyes, even at high speed. The only achilles' heel is low light, where my DSLR still outperforms the rest.


You mention a good point. I really hope the R3 acquires focus more quickly than a R5 and outperforms the R5 in low-light scenarios.


----------



## notsure (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The electronic shutter doesn’t drop below 20 fps with battery charge. I’ve used the 100-400mm II and 400mm DO II at 20 fps with the adapter. The RF 1.4x and 2x work on the RF 800mm f/11 and 600mm f/11 as well as the new RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 that are currently available and not only the 100-500mm.


The 400 2.8 and 600 4.0 are both just the EF III versions of those lenses with a built in aluminum EF-RF adapter, they didnt update focus motors.
If the lens FPS issues are a result of output voltage - great, the R3 will actually give people more shooting flexibility with both EF and RF glass, if it's a limitation imposed by older or slower focusing motors like it is in some cases, then the battery will not solve it. Lenses like 50 1.2's and 85 1.2's will still not be able to reach the 30fps. 
This isn't even criticism of canon, i'm just saying that the advertised feature will not be available in many scenarios due to technical limitations


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Fbimages said:


> Have you tried the R5 at all? It's not as quick in terms of focus acquisition VS a 1DX iii but the focus is really sticky and you have plenty of pixels to play with. I was photographing puffins darting around the place and it was really good at latching their eyes, even at high speed. The only achilles' heel is low light, where my DSLR still outperforms the rest.


Have I tried! I've posted hundreds from the R5 + 100-500mm etc in the Bird Portraits, BIF and Dragonflies threads etc. It's a fantastic camera. Look at this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/


----------



## Tremotino (Jul 28, 2021)

And with "resolution trick" we get clean lightweight 6MP images


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 28, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> _Roma locuta, causa finita..._



Seems good specs to me


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

notsure said:


> The 400 2.8 and 600 4.0 are both just the EF III versions of those lenses with a built in aluminum EF-RF adapter, they didnt update focus motors


That's beside the point. You wrote the only RF telephoto was the RF 100-500, and that was the only telephoto the RF extenders fitted - you missed out the RF 600mm f/11, 800mm f/11, as well as the the new RF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. Canon have stated they haven't changed the optical construction of those big whites but we don't know what they have with done with the AF with the new mount, and we don't know that they can't keep up with 30 fps even they didn't change the AF system.

EDIT: you added more to your post after I had posted my reply.


----------



## Fbimages (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Have I tried! I've posted hundreds from the R5 + 100-500mm etc in the Bird Portraits, BIF and Dragonflies threads etc. It's a fantastic camera. Look at this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/


Ha I am fairly new to the Forum! Did not know there was a whole section dedicated to picture sharing. These are great! We really are spoilt with tech these days. My only annoyance is that you can sort of see Electronic shutter banding with very fast moving subjects. Time for global shutter, high frame rate to become a thing


----------



## scyrene (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> No lens can handle 30 fps at f/22. Probably every lens can handle it wide open. How far you can stop down without impacting frame rate will depend on the specific lens.



A 600 or 800 f/11 + 2x TC is f/22 _and_ wide open


----------



## scyrene (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> After my second "flagship" camera was broken at still quite a small shutter count, I lost my trust in the durability of those flagship cameras. My 1D Mark II had a broken shutter after less than 9000 photos. Fortunately it was still under warranty and I did not have to pay for the repair. However the 1D X broke after about 60,000 photos. The PCB had to be replaced and I had to pay more than 600 Euros for the repair. That may not be a lot compared to the price of the camera, but I did not expect that the PCB will brake before that shutter will brake. It is just electronics. I hardly ever used burst mode, as I did not want to waste too many of the expected 400,000 shutter releases. Having a broken camera after 60,000 shots was quite shocking for me. I googled the problem and found out that many people had to replace the PCB of the 1D X after a while. That is not something you should expect from such an expensive camera. Will those problems get even worse with mirrorless cameras, which contain even more electronics and even need electronics just to compose the photo?
> 
> As an enthusiast I want to collect my cameras for eternity. They still should work in decades from now, as today decades old cameras still work. Is that no longer the case for modern cameras? Can we expect an R3 to break after five or ten years? That would very much discourage me from paying thousands of Euros for a camera again.



How long are you expecting to live??


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon is selling about as many ILCs as Sony and Nikon combined, and Fuji is barely a blip in the global market (but they sell tons of Instax cameras). You don’t seem to grasp who’s lunch is being eaten by whom.
> 
> It’s ok if you don’t like the R3, Canon doesn’t care, and it’s not likely you were going to buy one anyway.


The point is that Canon is letting Sony and Fuji walk away with a market that Canon created and once dominated. And it's not because the others outmaneuvered them, Canon simply gave up on it.

I don't believe I said anything about the R3 specifically in this thread, but you're right, at this point it's not a package that appeals to me. What is interesting is that 24MP, if true, indicates that Canon isn't being drawn into another pitched megapixel war.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> Some people on this forum appear to be surprised or even upset that others are disappointed the R3 looks like a 24mp camera. However, it is basic psychology, which manufacturers try to exploit. Everyone who is in the market for a new camera has an ideal product in mind. When Canon made the development announcement and dropped in their teasers, people latched onto the vague specs that fitted their ideal. Unfortunately, as vague specs harden up they will no longer match the ideal for some people, so they will be disappointed. (And, I am very happy for the people whose ideal these specs match.)
> 
> I am currently in the market for a new camera and am disappointed at the rumour. I stuck with film until DSLR technology offered a compelling advantage. For me, that was the 40D (at the time good resolution, AF, speed and price). I kept that for 8 years until I upgraded to the 7D MkII (another compelling advantage). I think moving to mirrorless will now be another compelling upgrade, so I am looking around. The grips never came off the 40D or 7D and having briefly borrowed (and loved – apart from the weight) a 1D camera, I hoped that might be my future. But lack of pixel density would be a problem for me, which weighed against it. I loved the 600mm/F4 I borrowed, but I could not justify the cost, as it would be frequently left at home as it is too heavy, so I’ll stick with a 100-400mm (or 100-500mm or 800/f11). Then the R3 announcement turned up with the potential to be ideal, which made me very excited  Integrated grip, superb ergonomics, improved AF, improved (BSI) sensor, better battery=faster focussing etc. I shall wait for the confirmation and then start dreaming of the next ideal, an R7 (same body style as R3, but with crop 30mp+ sensor) or R1 (same body style as R3, but with FF 60mp+ sensor) and hope I can afford them if they appear. Meanwhile, I can still (and probably will this holiday season) buy an R5. (I know, I could switch to Nikon or Sony or ..., but in the 40 years I have owned [D]SLR cameras, Canon has consistently offered the best overall system even if they have not always offered the best camera. My purchases have a very long term outlook.)


Sir, I urge you to get the R5. It will be a leap beyond imagination from 7D. You would be doing yourself a massive favour.


----------



## David_D (Jul 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> Sir, I urge you to get the R5. It will be a leap beyond imagination from 7D. You would be doing yourself a massive favour.


That is my plan (unless the R3 is even better when all details confirmed). Due to this odd year, I have no big trips planned, so can be patient a little longer.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.
> 
> 1. The loss of OVF
> 2. Two Different Format Cards
> ...


I'd imagine the transition would be body only for sports photogs at first. It isn't the $50k-$80k cataclysm you suggest. Lenses will be replaced just as they would have if the mount had stayed EF. So, in my opinion, things didn't get exponentially more expensive. EF lenses work on the RF bodies.


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'd imagine the transition would be body only for sports photogs at first. It isn't the $50k-$80k cataclysm you suggest.


Why would they transition to R3 if they have 1DxIII? Isn't the 1DxIII capable of supporting their needs? I believe more than enough especially if R3 is just 24 Mpixel.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 28, 2021)

WTF?? Just 24mpix? 
Just make an R5 with an R3 body, that us what we are waiting for! Make it a little faster and everybody happy.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 28, 2021)

notsure said:


> Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
> If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage). On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.


What? The list for 20FPS on the R5/R6 is very extensive. Pretty much any lens 2011 or newer supports 20FPS. The 12FPS list is a bit more restrictive but the 20FPS ES list is not restricted at all. With a stacked sensor the R3 will not have limitations anymore for shooting in ES 100% of the time (unless Canon continues on with the blunder of the decade and forces ES to shoot at max FPS like on the R5/6) and therefore a lot of lenses should be able to shoot 30FPS.

Now, the one contrasting data point to that is in the recent Gordan Laing video on the 400RF/600RF. He makes a point that the RF versions differ from the Mk III EF versions in that they have a faster diaphragm that allows 30FPS on the R3. So you could be correct in that the 30FPS is going to be limited to RF glass. Still, 20FPS is not very restricted on the R5/6.

Knowing Canon, I can certainly see them restricting 30FPS to the new RF lenses and driving sales. The higher voltage battery is also said to increase AF speed by utilizing two unused contacts on the RF mount which would also drive RF lens upgrades even for people with Mk III 400/600 superteles.


----------



## PerKr (Jul 28, 2021)

Wow... people on photo forums can be so obnoxious. Suddenly they can't shoot with 24MP. Because they need the extra reach cropping gives you but they don't want APS-C or m4/3 and they don't want to buy large and expensive lenses but they absolutely must have that 35mm sensor with ISO performance and dynamic range allowing them to catch all the vibrant colors and nuances of the rainforest in complete darkness while shooting rubble. How on earth did these guys manage just a few years ago? Or maybe they didn't. Maybe they couldn't produce anything worth looking at regardless.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2021)

tron said:


> Why would they transition to R3 if they have 1DxIII? Isn't the 1DxIII capable of supporting their needs? I believe more than enough especially if R3 is just 24 Mpixel.


True, but Goldwing is a special case, and a special guy.  He won't switch bodies without switching out all the lenses at once also. He's got to do that for 20 photographers. Most businesses replace equipment as needed, but sports photographers are human, and a special breed. /s


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 28, 2021)

scyrene said:


> How long are you expecting to live??


At least another 50 years.


----------



## Master-H (Jul 28, 2021)

The 24mp is only the in-camera JPG, this is not the size of the RAW file....


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> That is my plan (unless the R3 is even better when all details confirmed). Due to this odd year, I have no big trips planned, so can be patient a little longer.


Better is subjective. For me, going by what specs are floating, R5 is better. It is fast enough (fps), focuses fast enough, has a great sensor, and has 45 mpx that gives options for cropping, printing. I will wait for R1. Wait and watch situation.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Have I tried! I've posted hundreds from the R5 + 100-500mm etc in the Bird Portraits, BIF and Dragonflies threads etc. It's a fantastic camera. Look at this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/


Insanely good work.


----------



## Marximusprime (Jul 28, 2021)

Master-H said:


> The 24mp is only the in-camera JPG, this is not the size of the RAW file....



JPEGs still report the correct resolution at which the image was shot. Source: I've shot JPEGs all my life.


----------



## AaronT (Jul 28, 2021)

PerKr said:


> Wow... people on photo forums can be so obnoxious. Suddenly they can't shoot with 24MP. Because they need the extra reach cropping gives you but they don't want APS-C or m4/3 and they don't want to buy large and expensive lenses but they absolutely must have that 35mm sensor with ISO performance and dynamic range allowing them to catch all the vibrant colors and nuances of the rainforest in complete darkness while shooting rubble. How on earth did these guys manage just a few years ago? Or maybe they didn't. Maybe they couldn't produce anything worth looking at regardless.


Wow.....Relax.....Chill a bit! This is a rumor site, not a documentary site. People are talking about maybe this, maybe that. They're expressing there wishes, their dreams, their wants and dislikes. Many of them are accomplished photographers, some are not. It's a photographic gossip site. Don't worry, be happy!!


----------



## canonmike (Jul 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What photojournalists, action and sports photographers do you know? News photographers have been grossly underpaid for 50 years or more. Newspapers are cash strapped and often require the photographers to buy their own equipment. Those that do supply equipment aren't switching systems or even buying new bodies and lenses until the old ones die.
> 
> If I see another photographer at a college sport event they are as likely to be using a Rebel as any other body and are frequently either sports information officers or student photographers. The few actual pro photographers I meet are usually like me -- working for the school either on contract or part time and paying for their own equipment. The only reason I can afford good equipment is because I am retired from a long career and my retirement income covers my GAS and allows me to subsidize my part time work at the college.
> 
> ...


Some very good points, unfocused. I imagine there are very few pro photographers that make enough money after just a couple of assignments to pay for thousands of dollars worth of new gear.


----------



## amorse (Jul 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> The camera is not high res because of its processing power. The camera's focus is 'speed' in every aspect. So they chose lower MP to have faster response, FPS, processing etc. As technology progresses, processing power will increase and so will the MP in such cameras. (My thinking.)


To add to that, I'm wondering if the eye controlled focus on the R3 may create some extra processing hurdles. I remember the post from Canon's patent on eye tracking referencing the fact that the camera will identify subjects based on images already taken and the user's past history. From the article/patent:
-------
_An image capture apparatus detects a subject in a captured image. The image capture apparatus further recognizes its user based on an eyeball image of the user. The image capture apparatus then selects a main subject area from among the detected subject areas, based on information regarding subjects captured in the past and stored being associated with the recognized user._
-------
If the camera is considering past photos captured by the user in addition to considering where they're looking in order to assign a focus point, I have to assume that may require some additional processing power.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

To answer those criticisms about the R5 not being able to operate at 20 fps f/22 and on low battery charge, I did a quick burst this morning of some dogs running around as I was out walking looking for birds with the R5+100-500mm at 500mm. Here is a gif of 53 shots in 2.71sec = 19.6 shots/sec, at f/22, 1/1000s and 26% battery charge using electronic shutter. The white dog was tracked and in sharp focus throughout.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Just all of the 24MP cameras in the market
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that would be an issue with the CR3 file format. Files are smaller, these days.


If you are using cRaw then you are loosing quality. It’s 12 bit rather that 14.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I've noticed that the larger the subject is in the frame, the better the tracking works for the R5. Sometimes, this means that shooting in Crop mode yields better tracking results, when getting closer to a skittish subject is not possible.


I’m confused at the suggestion that crop mode makes a difference to AF tracking. As far as the camera goes it’s using the exact same pixels to do the tracking and focus work, cropped it not. Only the viewfinder is zoomed.

Interesting that you think it’s sometimes better. I suppose it could be that you are better at keeping the subject in the frame more accurately if it’s bigger and so the AF doesn’t have to cope with as much movement. If this was the cause you would also see an improvement by using the viewfinder zoom option. Would be worth trying it out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> The camera is not high res because of its processing power. The camera's focus is 'speed' in every aspect. So they chose lower MP to have faster response, FPS, processing etc. As technology progresses, processing power will increase and so will the MP in such cameras. (My thinking.)


Try some simple math with me. 

45 (the MP count of the R5) x 20 (the fps of the R5) = 900 MP / s

900 MP / s (the processing power of the R5) / 30 (the fps of the R3) = 30 MP. 

I suspect by ‘high res’ you mean something closer to the R5, but processing power isn’t limiting the R3 to 24 MP. It could be 30 MP without considering a year’s worth of technology progression. Or they could use dual Digic processors.


----------



## David_D (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> I’m confused at the suggestion that crop mode makes a difference to AF tracking. As far as the camera goes it’s using the exact same pixels to do the tracking and focus work, cropped it not. Only the viewfinder is zoomed.


Surely the camera would be smart enough to only analyse the <20mp in the cropped area and _throw away_ the rest. Twice as much processing would thus be available, which should give a better result.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Fbimages said:


> Ha I am fairly new to the Forum! Did not know there was a whole section dedicated to picture sharing. These are great! We really are spoilt with tech these days. My only annoyance is that you can sort of see Electronic shutter banding with very fast moving subjects. Time for global shutter, high frame rate to become a thing


Great to see you have now started bird posting there!


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The R5 costs $5900 in the UK, so that's already quite a record to beat.


No it costs £4300. We don’t use us$. You can’t just convert our prices to $ either. Ours includes sales tax at 20%, theirs don’t. That’s £3583 without tax. At today’s rate that’s $4970.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon is selling about as many ILCs as Sony and Nikon combined, and Fuji is barely a blip in the global market (but they sell tons of Instax cameras). You don’t seem to grasp who’s lunch is being eaten by whom.


Today, Canon forecast that they will sell 3.00 million interchangeable-lens cameras this year, and their Imaging division will have a 71.0 billion yen Operating Profit this year.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> No it costs £4300. We don’t use us$. You can’t just convert our prices to $ either. Ours includes sales tax at 20%, theirs don’t. That’s £3583 without tax. At today’s rate that’s $4970.


That is an inane comment. Of course we can convert £ to any currency to compare prices and we routinely in news programmes and papers quote USD for prices. There are some US states that do not charge sales tax, and many US buyers say on CR they avoid taxes, and B&H will absorb sales tax if you use their card.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 28, 2021)

Joules said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with you about our ability to tell the differences when it comes to noise. The pixel peepers are an obnoxious bunch that don’t understand what photography is or how to take a good photograph to begin with. Sharpness and noise really have to be extreme to effect a properly set up compostition or image.

The point I’m making is that AF isn’t based on a single still frame. The ability of a camera to recognize certain patterns the instant data from the sensor is processed depends on a lot of factors. We’ve seen how fast moving subjects can fool AF, that low lighting can fool AF, and out of focus objects in the background and foreground can fool AF. In that microsecond where the camera hunts to lock AF and the shutter button is pressed, we get a completely out of focus image. In sports, particularly motorsports, this is pushed to an extreme.

We shoot on very long lenses, often higher aperture zooms, subjects that are moving almost 200mph, with objects crossing the frame, cars coming in and out of shadows, dirt and debris kicking up, etc. The more noise and resolution a sensor has, the more data points the AF system has to compute. I don’t know the specifics of how Canon is handling this on a hardware or software level, but I do know the raw image 
matters.

The screenshot I took best illustrates this. I compared Sony and Canon’s flagship lower resolution cameras to their higher resolution cameras. This is one of about ten major differences in photojournalist/sports/action bodies that matter. I didn’t have control over the lenses, but at 100% zoom, the lower megapixel cameras meant for action show significantly less noise, and less data points a machine learning or AI AF system has to compute.

I doubt the AF is looking at full readout to begin with. I do know that lower megapixel sensors perform better in lowlight when it comes to noise because of the pixel size. Canon has a 2mp speciality sensor for extreme lowlight situations. The larger pixels collect more photons leading to less noise. I hope this helps clarify my position.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> Surely the camera would be smart enough to only analyse the <20mp in the cropped area and _throw away_ the rest. Twice as much processing would thus be available, which should give a better result.


Based on the rolling shutter performance, Canon cameras always read out the width of the sensors, in crop mode it restricts itself to reading the lines on the center. So you get a 1.6x boost in readout times, not the 1.6*1.6=2.56 times a 'proper' crop would make you expect.

The R3 having a stacked sensor might change that, but I don't know enough about sensors to make a claim about that


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> Surely the camera would be smart enough to only analyse the <20mp in the cropped area and _throw away_ the rest. Twice as much processing would thus be available, which should give a better result.


Perhaps, but the information available, pixel size etc remain constant.

Interesting, thinking about it some more, If it is the amount of processing per pixel that's possible making the different the tracking should get worse when you use burst mode compared to simply tracking a subject and then taking a single shot. Since it will have less time per shot to 'think' about the focus between shots. It also means that the R3 with newer silicon would be much better at tracking. They have claimed improved tracking. 

Hmm... if less pixels make for better tracking then the R6 should be much better than the R5, they both say they use the Digic X.


----------



## David_D (Jul 28, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Based on the rolling shutter performance, Canon cameras always read out the width of the sensors, in crop mode it restricts itself to reading the lines on the center. So you get a 1.6x boost in readout times, not the 1.6*1.6=2.56 times a 'proper' crop would make you expect.


I was not referring to readout speed, although that is also important. I would expect the AF to only scan the _cropped_ area to try to detect the subject (typically the eye). I would expect it to use an iterative algorithm, looking for finer and finer detail and stopping when it has a good match _or when the next frame comes in._ In the latter case it will use the best match it had. If it can do more iterations, it should get better results.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 28, 2021)

Couldn't the R3 simply have 50% more processing power than the R5?


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That is an inane comment. Of course we can convert £ to any currency to compare prices and we routinely in news programmes and papers quote USD for prices. There are some US states that do not charge sales tax, and many US buyers say on CR they avoid taxes, and B&H will absorb sales tax if you use their card.


No, not if you are comparing price including tax to one that doesn’t.

If you want to do that then go for the grey market price from Chinese imports from eBay. I've just seen one for £3,245.00 brand new.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> I agree with you about our ability to tell the differences when it comes to noise. The pixel peepers are an obnoxious bunch that don’t understand what photography is or how to take a good photograph to begin with. Sharpness and noise really have to be extreme to effect a properly set up compostition or image.
> 
> The point I’m making is that AF isn’t based on a single still frame. The ability of a camera to recognize certain patterns the instant data from the sensor is processed depends on a lot of factors. We’ve seen how fast moving subjects can fool AF, that low lighting can fool AF, and out of focus objects in the background and foreground can fool AF. In that microsecond where the camera hunts to lock AF and the shutter button is pressed, we get a completely out of focus image. In sports, particularly motorsports, this is pushed to an extreme.
> 
> ...


"The pixel peepers are an obnoxious bunch that don’t understand what photography is or how to take a good photograph to begin with." = Obnoxious, bullshit, self-righteous comment.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> At least another 50 years.


Aim high! But don't expect any electronics you buy today to last that long.


----------



## David_D (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> We shoot on very long lenses, often higher aperture zooms, subjects that are moving almost 200mph, with objects crossing the frame, cars coming in and out of shadows, dirt and debris kicking up, etc. *The more noise and resolution a sensor has, the more data points the AF system has to compute.* I don’t know the specifics of how Canon is handling this on a hardware or software level, but I do know the raw image
> matters.


I think you are suggesting that a lower resolution camera will have batter AF performance. My understanding is that the R5 is faster and better behaved than the R6. The processing is supposed to be the same, but the R5 has the higher res sensor.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> No, not if you are comparing price including tax to one that doesn’t.
> 
> If you want to do that then go for the grey market price from Chinese imports from eBay. I've just seen one for £3,245.00 brand new.


If you do not understand that I was explaining to a transatlantic member who was saying that $6000 for an R3 is a record price, that we in the UK are already paying $5900 at the current conversion rate for an R5, then I give up. You can buy on eBay from China with all the risks if you want, but don't tell me to. It's a pretty daft comparison with buying from Adorama or B&H in the US.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 28, 2021)

Master-H said:


> The 24mp is only the in-camera JPG, this is not the size of the RAW file....


using exif from another R3 Olympic photo, the Focal Plane X & Y Resolution info works out to a 24mp sensor. For those not familiar (I just learned this myself), these tags indicate the sensor resolution per unit, and Unit 2 as seen below is inches. Convert 36mm x 24mm to inches (divide by 25.4) and multiply by the Exif for focal plane resolution, and you've got the final answer on resolution.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> No, not if you are comparing price including tax to one that doesn’t.
> 
> If you want to do that then go for the grey market price from Chinese imports from eBay. I've just seen one for £3,245.00 brand new.


You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%. The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> "The pixel peepers are an obnoxious bunch that don’t understand what photography is or how to take a good photograph to begin with." = Obnoxious, bullshit, self-righteous comment.


Unlike yours?

(I do think the comment could have included the word "necessarily" to be more accurate.)


----------



## AAP (Jul 28, 2021)

So new guy question here - couldn't there be a chance that this info is just from a different setting - is it possible that Canon asked these photographers to shoot to both memory cards and only upload something like a medium JPG?


----------



## Fbimages (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Great to see you have now started bird posting there!


Thank you! Only took me a year and a half to find out there was a forum...


----------



## Atlasman (Jul 28, 2021)

If the R3 has a 24MP sensor, I’ll buy—if it can deliver 4K video downsampled from 6K, with 10-bit 422 color at 60fps. 

Otherwise, I’ll wait—maybe Sony will deliver the above in their next iteration of the A9.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you do not understand that I was explaining to a transatlantic member who was saying that $6000 for an R3 is a record price, that we in the UK are already paying $5900 at the current conversion rate for an R5, then I give up. You can buy on eBay from China with all the risks if you want, but don't tell me to. It's a pretty daft comparison with buying from Adorama or B&H in the US.


Then why not quote £6999 for the 1DX Mark III. That's even higher


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you do not understand that I was explaining to a transatlantic member who was saying that $6000 for an R3 is a record price, that we in the UK are already paying $5900 at the current conversion rate for an R5, then I give up. You can buy on eBay from China with all the risks if you want, but don't tell me to. It's a pretty daft comparison with buying from Adorama or B&H in the US.


I wasn't suggesting you did. But if you are comparing the price -tax and illegal tax avoidance schemes then eBay is a more compatible price.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 28, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%. The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.


Are you suggesting you're all criminals?


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 28, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I paid close to $7,000 for one of my 1DS III's over ten years ago.
> 
> I'm not saying you are wrong, more that it is interesting what many people think they need and what commercial image creators actually have to have.


Put it this way, would you rather buy a ten year old new car or a new new car and pay the same money?


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 28, 2021)

RMac said:


> How do all the people saying "24MP is a massive disappointment" feel about the 1DXiii that shoots 20MP? This honestly feels like a resolution upgrade for the types of photogs presently using the 1DXiii, and that's clearly the sort of photographer Canon is targeting with this body.


Keep in mind that you are comparing the R3 to a 10 year old camera. That doesn't make sense. Certainly a 1DX is a great camera but technology doesn't stop and if that's what you want buy a 1DX.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Put it this way, would you rather buy a ten year old new car or a new new car and pay the same money?



I'd buy a new 1992 Integra, but Acura rather small-mindedly doesn't make them any more.

Cars aren't improving nearly as rapidly as cameras (and in many respects are un-improving). 

That aside the point you were making is a good one with respect to cameras.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 28, 2021)

TVs improve quite a lot, but they do not get more expensive. I still remember the first flat TVs for five digit prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%.The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.


And...you know...those people who prefer to follow the law. Tax evasion is illegal, and the fact that many people do it doesn't change that. Those using something like B&H's Payboo card are acting legally, because the tax is being paid to your state by them. But other illegal 'workarounds' are just that – illegal.

State Sales & Use Tax revenues fund things like local education, fire and police departments, and infrastructure. Maybe those things aren't important to you, and you're personally fine with breaking the law and negatively impacting your local resources because you 'care to avoid the sales tax'. You do you.

/soapbox


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> TVs improve quite a lot, but they do not get more expensive. I still remember the first flat TVs for five digit prices.


The first DSLRs cost north of $10K.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The first DSLRs cost north of $10K.


And Canon broke that mould with the 300D (Digital Rebel) for $999 with kit lens in 2003 - I kept mine for sentimental reasons. It was a real breakthrough.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> I think you are suggesting that a lower resolution camera will have batter AF performance. My understanding is that the R5 is faster and better behaved than the R6. The processing is supposed to be the same, but the R5 has the higher res sensor.


Canon states themselves that the R5 AF is accurate down to -6.0EV and the R6 -6.5EV. In bright or average conditions, AF and Face/Eye detect are more accurate on the R5. At the lower end of the range, the R6 has a small advantage.


----------



## Martin K (Jul 28, 2021)

A long thread with many words, but has it yet been established that the 24mp could not be a crop from a 60mp sensor?


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2021)

Martin K said:


> A long thread with many words, but has it yet been established that the 24mp could not be a crop from a *60mp sensor*?


Hmmm someone is greedy


----------



## deleteme (Jul 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I asked in the other thread, could these cameras not be restricted in firmware to output max 24 MP JPG files?


As we are living in a world where any conspiracy theory seems to have currency, sure, why not?


----------



## David_D (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Canon states themselves that the R5 AF is accurate down to -6.0EV and the R6 -6.5EV. In bright or average conditions, AF and Face/Eye detect are more accurate on the R5. At the lower end of the range, the R6 has a small advantage.


Sounds like a draw then  But there are two parts to the AF:

Selecting the AF point and tracking
Actually focussing using that AF point
I could be wrong, but I thought we were discussion part 1. I suspect part 2 is affected by the -6.0 or -6.5 EV limit. (Both are needed to get accurate focus, of course.)


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> I wasn't suggesting you did. But if you are comparing the price -tax and illegal tax avoidance schemes then eBay is a more compatible price.


Ebay charges sales tax these days.


----------



## tapanit (Jul 28, 2021)

HenryL said:


> using exif from another R3 Olympic photo, the Focal Plane X & Y Resolution info works out to a 24mp sensor. For those not familiar (I just learned this myself), these tags indicate the sensor resolution per unit, and Unit 2 as seen below is inches. Convert 36mm x 24mm to inches (divide by 25.4) and multiply by the Exif for focal plane resolution, and you've got the final answer on resolution.
> 
> View attachment 199254


Nope.

I just did a quick test with R5: those resolution figures change when it's set to lower resolution.

In a full resolution image:

Focal Plane X Resolution : 5773.079634
Focal Plane Y Resolution : 5769.799366

which work out to 45 megapixels as expected.

In a M-quality jpeg:

Focal Plane X Resolution : 4093.023256
Focal Plane Y Resolution : 4088.701162

which work out to 22 megapixels.

So those particular numbers don't prove anything.

As far as I can see, the only field in the M-quality image exif that reveals the sensor is actually bigger is "Sensor Width", which is the same, 8352, in both images. I haven't looked at any of the R3 images in the web to see how it looks in them, but I'm sure somebody will.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> Sounds like a draw then  But there are two parts to the AF:
> 
> Selecting the AF point and tracking
> Actually focussing using that AF point
> I could be wrong, but I thought we were discussion part 1. I suspect part 2 is affected by the -6.0 or -6.5 EV limit. (Both are needed to get accurate focus, of course.)


That’s where this additional layer of computing comes into play. Not only is the R3 finding the points based on a series of algorithms, it’s also interpreting where those points are moving in three dimensional space, interpreting how to stay locked on as the points change (really curious how Canon is prioritizing vehicles), and how to filter out data that is trying to confuse this process, while tracking your pupil in EyeControl AF, and learning so as to improve the next series of shots.

The less noise you have, the more efficient the above process is, and theoretically should result in a greatly improved AF. Those EV numbers matter.


----------



## tapanit (Jul 28, 2021)

Martin K said:


> A long thread with many words, but has it yet been established that the 24mp could not be a crop from a 60mp sensor?


No. All that has been established is that the R3s used in the Olympics (that have pictures posted publicly) can produce 24 mp images (or images that indicate that in their exif data).

In theory, it remains possible that the sensor is bigger but the photogs with loaner R3s have agreed (as a condition to getting them, presumably) not to take or at least not publish any pics with more resolution, or that the cameras indeed have a prerelease firmware that prevents it (or fakes the exif). Not very likely, I think, but not yet proven impossible either.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 28, 2021)

tapanit said:


> No. All that has been established is that the R3s used in the Olympics (that have pictures posted publicly) can produce 24 mp images (or images that indicate that in their exif data).
> 
> In theory, it remains possible that the sensor is bigger but the photogs with loaner R3s have agreed (as a condition to getting them, presumably) not to take or at least not publish any pics with more resolution, or that the cameras indeed have a prerelease firmware that prevents it (or fakes the exif). Not very likely, I think, but not yet proven impossible either.


For whatever reason Canon has deliberately chosen not to announce MP count for the R3. 
I don't think they would allow the loaner R3s to spill the beans from exif data - they may as well announce it then.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 28, 2021)

tapanit said:


> Nope.
> 
> I just did a quick test with R5: those resolution figures change when it's set to lower resolution.
> 
> ...


Interesting, thanks. What tool are you using to view the EXIF, I don't see anything listed in the options of exifviewers.com labelled "Sensor Width".


----------



## Alan B (Jul 28, 2021)

I still think when its announced that its going to have a 30MP or 45MP sensor!!

The one, said photographer is using at the Olympics is just a pre-production model anyway to test, so its NOT final!


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> To answer those criticisms about the R5 not being able to operate at 20 fps f/22 and on low battery charge, I did a quick burst this morning of some dogs running around as I was out walking looking for birds with the R5+100-500mm at 500mm. Here is a gif of 53 shots in 2.71sec = 19.6 shots/sec, at f/22, 1/1000s and 26% battery charge using electronic shutter. The white dog was tracked and in sharp focus throughout.


Does the R5 keep the lens stopped down during the burst? Many lenses can't open/close the aperture fast enough to f/22 for 8-10 fps much less 20. I'm wondering if Canon has improved aperture diaphragm performance or if they just keep the lens stopped down when light is sufficient for DPAF to work.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Show me what you're referring to.


You can try this comparison with any number of cameras made over the past 10 years. If both the format and the view size are the same and the tech level is comparable, then higher pixel density does not result in visibly worse noise except at the most extreme (and unusable) ISOs. This is actually what you would expect given gapless microlenses and the relative strengths of shot noise and e-noise in a modern sensor.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Does the R5 keep the lens stopped down during the burst? Many lenses can't open/close the aperture fast enough to f/22 for 8-10 fps much less 20. I'm wondering if Canon has improved aperture diaphragm performance or if they just keep the lens stopped down when light is sufficient for DPAF to work.


I might be wrong, but I think in general MILCs keep their lenses stopped down for AF, unlike DSLRs, which require wide aperture for their phase detect to work. From what I recall from earlier discussions, for example, the Sony A7RIII and IV switch from initial phase detect followed by contrast detection at wide apertures to just contrast detect at narrower apertures, so they aren't opening and closing at f/8 and narrower. The R5 phase detect focusses well at narrow apertures so doesn't have to open up to focus. Somebody please correct me if I have got it wrong.
Edit - see my later post. At dtaylor’s suggestion, I checked that the initial AF is done wide open but then at 20 fps the lens remains stopped down between shots.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

miketcool said:


> The screenshot I took best illustrates this.


You're magnifying the higher resolution images more. If you normalize the size, in either direction up or down, then the higher resolution sensors are actually a bit cleaner in the comparison you chose.

You may counter that the AI processing could be working on the full image. But I highly, highly doubt that and you said the same. I won't say with certainty that they are not without a reference, but I cannot imagine that they are. The R5 overheats shooting 8k RAW and AI analysis is going to be roughly as intensive as anything involved in writing RAW video, if not more so. So how could it possibly analyze 45mp frames at a minimum of 20 Hz (would likely have to be much higher) continuously without overheating?

Everyone is probably line skipping sensor readouts at 12-bits or less for the AF processing and EVF display.



miketcool said:


> I do know that lower megapixel sensors perform better in lowlight when it comes to noise because of the pixel size.


They do not except at the very highest ISOs. Not even at 51,200 as illustrated here. You can't use different view sizes and claim that lower MP sensors perform better in low light. That's like comparing a 20x30 Velvia 50 print to a 4x6 Delta 3200 print and declaring that higher ISO films have less grain.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> You can try this comparison with any number of cameras made over the past 10 years. If both the format and the view size are the same and the tech level is comparable, then higher pixel density does not result in visibly worse noise except at the most extreme (and unusable) ISOs. This is actually what you would expect given gapless microlenses and the relative strengths of shot noise and e-noise in a modern sensor.
> 
> View attachment 199255


If you do that comparison, you will not see a lot of difference between a new camera and a ten year old one. You will see a big difference if you download the RAWs and then overexpose them by five stops. Then the bottles look very different. Even at ISO 100 you will see a lot of noise on ten year old cameras. That will be the first test I will do once the R3 RAWs are available.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I might be wrong, but I think in general MILCs keep their lenses stopped down for AF, unlike DSLRs, which require wide aperture for their phase detect to work. From what I recall from earlier discussions, for example, the Sony A7RIII and IV switch from initial phase detect followed by contrast detection at wide apertures to just contrast detect at narrower apertures, so they aren't opening and closing at f/8 and narrower. The R5 phase detect focusses well at narrow apertures so doesn't have to open up to focus. Somebody please correct me if I have got it wrong.



For some reason I was under the impression that Canon RF bodies (or at least the R) viewed at open aperture. They could be shooting continuously stopped down though. You could find out just by staring down the front of one of your lenses while playing with the AF and shutter buttons.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If you do that comparison, you will not see a lot of difference between a new camera and a ten year old one. You will see a big difference if you download the RAWs and then overexpose them by five stops. Then the bottles look very different.


Agreed, but I'm talking about high ISO performance, not base ISO dynamic range. Since you bring it up though, DR is another area where people assume pixel size matters and it hasn't for quite some time. The highest scoring 35mm sensors on DR right now are also the highest density sensors.

*Edit:* Also, I didn't mean to imply that a current camera would show no high ISO advantage against one from 10 years ago. That's why 'comparable tech' level was one of the stated conditions. I meant to say that pixel density has not mattered much for at least the past decade. If you go further back, before gapless microlenses, then pixel density did have a significant impact on high ISO noise at the same view size. High pixel densities meant more chip space spent on circuitry and without gapless microlenses, lost photons.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If you do that comparison, you will not see a lot of difference between a new camera and a ten year old one. You will see a big difference if you download the RAWs and then overexpose them by five stops. Then the bottles look very different. Even at ISO 100 you will see a lot of noise on ten year old cameras. That will be the first test I will do once the R3 RAWs are available.


That's the big difference for me. Shooting the 5DSR and even the 5DIV, I was careful to get the exposure right. My rule of thumb for BIF, for example, was to use automatic iso but overexpose by 1.7ev. However, when I got a Nikon D850 and D500 to go with the 500PF, I found with their excellent sensors I could push through few ev with just as good results without the overexposure. Now, with the R5 I have given up auto iso and use full manual and guess the exposure from the evf, underexposing not to clip highlights knowing I can push through 3 ev with no problems.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> If you are using cRaw then you are loosing quality. It’s 12 bit rather that 14.


No, I'm simply referring to CR3, not cRAW.

These cameras no longer use CR2. CR3 is more size-efficient.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> You're magnifying the higher resolution images more. If you normalize the size, in either direction up or down, then the higher resolution sensors are actually a bit cleaner in the comparison you chose.


And this explains your disagreement with Mike. He's looking at individual pixels, you are looking at on a per-area basis. 

He's right when talking per pixel, you're right when talking about the overall picture. Thus you'll never convince him he's wrong (and vice versa), until and unless you both get on the same page.


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2021)

Maybe Canon allowed on purpose the leak about 24Mp. In that way users will be ... psychologically prepared  

They will have cried, despaired and then more calmly will start thinking about it and liking it! Who knows?


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 28, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And this explains your disagreement with Mike. He's looking at individual pixels, you are looking at on a per-area basis.
> 
> He's right when talking per pixel, you're right when talking about the overall picture. Thus you'll never convince him he's wrong (and vice versa), until and unless you both get on the same page.


There's no reason to look at individual pixels unless the argument is that the AI AF looks at pixels in a way that makes per pixel noise matter. I don't see how/why that would be the case. Even the general assertion that image noise would present a difficulty to an AI is up for debate. I would think AI-based systems would be quite good at ignoring regular image noise so long as that was part of the initial training.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> There's no reason to look at individual pixels unless the argument is that the AI AF looks at pixels in a way that makes per pixel noise matter. I don't see how/why that would be the case. Even the general assertion that image noise would present a difficulty to an AI is up for debate. I would think AI-based systems would be quite good at ignoring regular image noise so long as that was part of the initial training.



I tend to agree, but a lot of people don't, they pixel-peep and that colors their evaluation of everything. I get to watch this particular wrangle here again and again, each side talking past the other because they don't realize the other person is/is not pixel peeping.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 28, 2021)

Ian K said:


> If you are using cRaw then you are loosing quality. It’s 12 bit rather that 14.


Craw has the same bitdepth as regular cr3.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> For some reason I was under the impression that Canon RF bodies (or at least the R) viewed at open aperture. They could be shooting continuously stopped down though. You could find out just by staring down the front of one of your lenses while playing with the AF and shutter buttons.


I have done the experiment for you, using the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM + adapter (and learned a few things). In initlal focussing, it focusses wide open, and you can use the depth of field preview button to see the dof stopped down. And, presumably this is how it works for single shot. I then took a series of selfies at 20 fps and could see the lens remained stopped down during shooting. Interestingly, the lens stopped itself down when I was pointing it at a bright light at f/1.8.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Craw has the same bitdepth as regular cr3.


Yes, and there are several tests on the net comparing CRAW with cr3 that couldn't see any change of IQ etc.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 28, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%. The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.


It depends on the point you are making. 
Some people use the US to UK price difference to 'prove' that Canon are fleecing UK customers (which is the most common use of this argument). In that argument, the advertised price (and the tax inherent to it) is relevant because Canon has no control over the tax applied by the local market. 
If you are asking 'I would not pay 6,000USD for the camera' then tax is irrelevant because the price is what it is.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 28, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> The build quality, superior sealing, etc.. is important and on the list of reasons I want an R3. The biggest reason for me is AF acquisition. The R5 just isn't there with my 600 F4 II. I had the same problem with the 7D II. I suspect it's the lower voltage battery. There will be those who claim that's not true, but I can only say that every LP-E6 body I've used was slow and every 1 Series body I've had was quick. There are also smaller features that don't get much mention but make a big difference like metering tied to the AF point. I'll still keep my R5 (assuming the R3 is lower mp) for when I need extra cropping, but when things start to move I want faster AF. I haven't really had much issue with rolling shutter and viewfinder lag.. but it will be nice not to worry about that as well. If it turns out this thread is wrong and the R3 is 45+ I may sell the R5 and buy two R3s.



Canon spoken before about autofocus speed. 1 series cameras focuses faster (at least initially) than cameras with LP6 batteries (5D, 6D, 7D, xxD).

It is because the battery that can provide more energy to the lens.

To me, the biggest surprise would be if the R3 was a crop camera. That would be priceless .


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> It depends on the point you are making.
> Some people use the US to UK price difference to 'prove' that Canon are fleecing UK customers (which is the most common use of this argument). In that argument, the advertised price (and the tax inherent to it) is relevant because Canon has no control over the tax applied by the local market.
> If you are asking 'I would not pay 6,000USD for the camera' then tax is irrelevant because the price is what it is.


This all arose from a point that I was making that UK customers are already paying $5900 for the R5, which was similar to a complained-about price of $6000 for the R3 in the USA. And my point was then distorted into something else, which was not relevant. As you have raised the matter that I wasn't talking about, I'll answer that. The price differences are there from Canon before taxes are applied. B&H sell the R5 for $3,899, including any state taxes. The UK price is £4,299. Strip out the 20% tax and that translates into $4,900 without tax, $1000 more than the US price. This is not just due to better consumer protection in the UK. I complained to Canon that we are being charged about 10-15% more in the UK than in the rest of Europe, which has the same consumer protection. The Canon customer service apologised that the prices were actually set by Canon Europe. There is definitely differential pricing imposed by Canon since whereas B&H will ship most of their stock to the UK, they state on their site that the R5 is not allowed to be shipped.


----------



## Ekpil (Jul 28, 2021)

Resolution + 20% versus 1D X lll.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 28, 2021)

tarjei99 said:


> To me, the biggest surprise would be if the R3 was a crop camera. That would be priceless .


Seems unlikely, given that it's a full-frame camera:
"Canon’s first *full-frame*, back-illuminated stacked CMOS image sensor in the EOS R3 will deliver substantially faster read-out speeds, and produce much lower "rolling shutter" distortion than previous EOS models."
Source: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...e/product-showcases/cameras-and-lenses/eos-r3


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Jul 28, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I had 15 EF's, I think, when the R came out. Down to the 135/2 and 180Mac. now.
> 
> Far better AF, better low-light, better DR, smaller body and lenses.
> 
> And it will use RF lenses which I think are such a game-changer that they make the move worthwhile even if everything else was identical. (50/1.2 is 10x sharper, 24-105/4 much smaller, 85DS doesn't even exist in EF, macro with SA knob and 1.4x, f/2 zoom, wide-angle macro, 100-500, 14-35, 35/1.2 will probably rock, since it doesn't need to be a retrofocus design, 135/1.8. Maybe the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 aren't decided advancements, but my theory is that they're just solde to suckers anyway who don't understand f/4's are the better solution for general photography now, given high ISO, IS, IBIS these days.


I've borrowed the 24-70 RF 2.8, the IS is a huge improvement, and it seemed to have better close focus capability. Also it seemed a bit closer to a true 70 where as the EF seemed a little under 70. But you are right, for day to day I go to my EF F/4 for the IS and the weight.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Yes, and there are several tests on the net comparing CRAW with cr3 that couldn't see any change of IQ etc.


I read somewhere, but cannot find the citation right now, that Canon was able to reduce the size of the CRAW files by compressing the color data/information. Not sure if I am recalling this correctly, but the conclusion was that CRAW and full RAW when converted by the RAW converter were almost indistinguishable with regards to image quality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Maybe the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 aren't decided advancements, but my theory is that they're just solde to suckers anyway who don't understand f/4's are the better solution for general photography now, given high ISO, IS, IBIS these days.


Or to people who want better subject isolation.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2021)

AEWest said:


> For whatever reason Canon has deliberately chosen not to announce MP count for the R3.
> I don't think they would allow the loaner R3s to spill the beans from exif data - they may as well announce it then.


Maybe they don't care. Maybe only geek forum people are obsessing over the resolution. Maybe Canon figures it's better to let the resolution slip out now so that it doesn't become a focus of the announcement. Maybe they were planning to make the announcement at the end of June, but delayed it and decided that they weren't going to piss off Getty and the Olympic photographers by making them jump through hoops to try to conceal a spec that Canon doesn't consider that important.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> And...you know...those people who prefer to follow the law. Tax evasion is illegal, and the fact that many people do it doesn't change that. Those using something like B&H's Payboo card are acting legally, because the tax is being paid to your state by them. But other illegal 'workarounds' are just that – illegal.
> 
> State Sales & Use Tax revenues fund things like local education, fire and police departments, and infrastructure. Maybe those things aren't important to you, and you're personally fine with breaking the law and negatively impacting your local resources because you 'care to avoid the sales tax'. You do you.
> 
> /soapbox


Your hallucination that you have any insight into my purchasing process is noted.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> Are you suggesting you're all criminals?


Just like the colonists who rebelled against a tea tax…

But seriously, there is no crime of a purchaser failing to pay a retail sales tax when the merchant doesn’t. And literally NO ONE* (individual) files these taxes. It’s a joke.

But yes, we Yanks are all criminals. We originated that way. Not all violations of the law are immoral, as it happens.

*Except for those in a few states that force income taxpayers to swear under oath their sales tax matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> But seriously, there is no crime of a purchaser failing to pay a retail sales tax when the merchant doesn’t.


Your hallucination that you understand the law is noted.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Just like the colonists who rebelled against a tea tax…
> 
> But seriously, there is no crime of a purchaser failing to pay a retail sales tax when the merchant doesn’t. And literally NO ONE (individual) files these taxes. It’s a joke.
> 
> But yes, we Yanks are all criminals. We originated that way. Not all violations of the law are immoral, as it happens.


There are so many things wrong with these statements I wouldn't know where to start.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 29, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'd imagine the transition would be body only for sports photogs at first. It isn't the $50k-$80k cataclysm you suggest. Lenses will be replaced just as they would have if the mount had stayed EF. So, in my opinion, things didn't get exponentially more expensive. EF lenses work on the RF bodies.


Based on how we work you need 3 of the same body in each travel case. As for RF big whites vs. EF functioning exactly the same this is not the case. We don't look at the costs of transitioning cataclysmic, just part of doing business. However a camera like the R3 does not even warrant consideration for the sea change.


----------



## RMac (Jul 29, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Keep in mind that you are comparing the R3 to a 10 year old camera. That doesn't make sense. Certainly a 1DX is a great camera but technology doesn't stop and if that's what you want buy a 1DX.


Note - "1DXiii", not "1DX"
I'm talking about Canon's latest and greatest TOTL sports DSLR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Based on how we work you need 3 of the same body in each travel case. As for RF big whites vs. EF functioning exactly the same this is not the case. We don't look at the costs of transitioning cataclysmic, just part of doing business. However a camera like the R3 does not even warrant consideration for the sea change.


Funny how all those photographers actually shooting at the Olympics right now are doing just fine with their R3's, R5's, 1DX II/III's....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Funny how all those photographers actually shooting at the Olympics right now are doing just fine with their R3's, R5's, 1DX II/III's....


Goldwing doesn’t speak for them, he only speaks for all professional sports photographers.


----------



## RMac (Jul 29, 2021)

styoda said:


> Check again, the 77D and 80D are not 4000x6000, they're 24.2 MP.


Bryan Carnathan has them as 4000x6000. Maybe Canon counts extra pixels on the sensor to help with debayering the edges or something.









Canon EOS 77D Compared to the Canon EOS 80D


Compare the detailed specifications of the Canon EOS 77D to the Canon EOS 80D




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Jul 29, 2021)

YES! 3MP more than my 2008 5D Mark II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

RMac said:


> Bryan Carnathan has them as 4000x6000. Maybe Canon counts extra pixels on the sensor to help with debayering the edges or something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are always dark/black pixels on the sensor edge that are not exposed with the image that the camera uses to establish a black point.

Interestingly Canon list the 80D as _"Approx 24.2mp" _and_ "Total pixel 25.8 mp"




And yet a downloaded 80D RAW file opens up at 6,000 x 4,000 exactly.


_


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

Kim Bentsen said:


> YES! 3MP more than my 2008 5D Mark II.


And 20% more than the current 1DX III, or 21mp less than the R5.

How about 26mp less than the 2015 5DS as another completely meaningless statistic?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Goldwing doesn’t speak for them, he only speaks for all professional sports photographers.


I am surprised that the best photographer in the country doesn't seem to be at the Olympics.


----------



## tapanit (Jul 29, 2021)

HenryL said:


> Interesting, thanks. What tool are you using to view the EXIF, I don't see anything listed in the options of exifviewers.com labelled "Sensor Width".


exiftool by Phil Harvey (cf. exiftool.org).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I am surprised that the best photographer in the country doesn't seem to be at the Olympics.


No surprise there. _Real_ professional photographers don't cover amateur sporting events. Plus, motorcycles don't float so it would be a difficult ride, Japan being an island and all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> No surprise there. _Real_ professional photographers don't cover amateur sporting events. Plus, motorcycles don't float so it would be a difficult ride, Japan being an island and all.





unfocused said:


> I am surprised that the best photographer in the country doesn't seem to be at the Olympics.


In all seriousness if the guy had anything like the connections he claims his photographers would be using R3's and he would have access to all the files those cameras were creating.

Methinks things do not quite add up....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 29, 2021)

Here's my 2 cents thrown in. I would have been happy if my 1DX2 had come in at 24 MPs. I grudgingly accepted the 1DX2 based on FPS and 4K video and was reasonably happy because I upgraded from 300mm to 400mm at the same time. Coming from a 1d4 and 6D (20 MPs), I was just as annoyed as people are now with the R3. I would consider buying the R3 only if it had substantially more than 24 MPs. I'll do without the other R3 perks for now at least. Without the R5, I would have been fussing and fretting. 

Jack


----------



## dilbert (Jul 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> In all seriousness if the guy had anything like the connections he claims his photographers would be using R3's and he would have access to all the files those cameras were creating.
> 
> Methinks things do not quite add up....



If this is actually from the olympics and that lens was from Canon's event stock, then the lens serial number being present in the disclosed EXIF will tell Canon exactly who has shared this image by virtue of them keeping track of who they've loaned which lenses from - if not which camera bodies too. Then there's the whole "register your equipment" that has been discussed elsewhere. Summary, with the serial number present, I can't believe that this would be a mistake.

What isn't clear to me is if the selection of JPEG image size would show up on those EXIF screens and if, for example, the person taking the photograph has selected M, S1, S2, etc, and not L.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 29, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> And yet I've seen the same thing happen with the R5, which is a far more affordable option at 45 megapixels and 20 FPS. Several Sony shooters I know, and a big name pro Nikon shooter I've followed, have all switched to the EOS R5 since its release. The Nikon shooter dropped over $20,000 in Nikon gear to switch to a two EOS R5 set-up, because he wasn't happy with the Z-series and had no interest in spending $6500 per camera for the A1 or future Z9.
> 
> The same enthusiasts making these choices are going to be very aware of the fact they can save $2500 over the A1 by going the R5 route instead, which is enough to net you a lens, possibly two if you go the 800mm F/11 route, and almost enough for the 100-500. I'm aware these people have the money, but the R5 is an incredibly compelling camera for the price that it's at.



Jan Wegener tested the Sony A1 against the Canon R5 and concluded that the video features of the R5 made it superior to the A1. For still images each had an edge.

As I understand, video is really important for wildlife photographers these days.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

dilbert said:


> If this is actually from the olympics and that lens was from Canon's event stock, then the lens serial number being present in the disclosed EXIF will tell Canon exactly who has shared this image by virtue of them keeping track of who they've loaned which lenses from - if not which camera bodies too. Then there's the whole "register your equipment" that has been discussed elsewhere. Summary, with the serial number present, I can't believe that this would be a mistake.
> 
> What isn't clear to me is if the selection of JPEG image size would show up on those EXIF screens and if, for example, the person taking the photograph has selected M, S1, S2, etc, and not L.


We are talking about different people, I think. I was referring to the poster GoldWing who claims to work for and purchase all photo gear for the ‘best twenty sports photographers on the planet’ none of whom seem to be at the Olympics.

I think you are talking about the source of some of the EXIF data, Jeff Cable, who is a well known sports photographer that is 100% in Japan at the Olympics and is using an R3.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I have done the experiment for you, using the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM + adapter (and learned a few things). In initlal focussing, it focusses wide open, and you can use the depth of field preview button to see the dof stopped down. And, presumably this is how it works for single shot. I then took a series of selfies at 20 fps and could see the lens remained stopped down during shooting. Interestingly, the lens stopped itself down when I was pointing it at a bright light at f/1.8.


Awesome. *Thank you!* So that's actually a mirrorless advantage I haven't seen anyone really discuss. By keeping the aperture stopped down under continuous shooting you free frame rate from aperture speed. So even a cheap lens could theoretically handle 30 fps if it doesn't impose other limits (i.e. AF performance, whether voltage related or not).


----------



## dilbert (Jul 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> We are talking about different people, I think. I was referring to the poster GolgWing who claims to work for and purchase all photo gear for the ‘best twenty sports photographers on the planet’ none of whom seem to be at the Olympics.
> 
> I think you are talking about the source of some of the EXIF data, Jeff Cable, who is a well known sports photographer that is 100% in Japan at the Olympics and is using an R3.



Yup, missed the change in focus. Words are cheap, claims similarly worthless.

I might as well claim that I'm the import manager of all digital cameras into Europe.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 29, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Awesome. *Thank you!* So that's actually a mirrorless advantage I haven't seen anyone really discuss. By keeping the aperture stopped down under continuous shooting you free frame rate from aperture speed. So even a cheap lens could theoretically handle 30 fps if it doesn't impose other limits (i.e. AF performance, whether voltage related or not).


Plus, if a lens shifts a focal plane with aperture, you simply don't care!


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 29, 2021)

24mpix? WHYYYY??
If the price is 3900 maybe I’ll consider, if not, wait for a better camera with at least 45mpix. What a disappointment... it’s 2021 Canon!


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Interestingly, the lens stopped itself down when I was pointing it at a bright light at f/1.8.


Stopping down can help DP AF twofold:

It makes a focus function the AF algorithm relies on steeper.
It prevents from clipping highlights (which can easily confuse the algorithm).


----------



## Ian K (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Just like the colonists who rebelled against a tea tax…
> 
> But seriously, there is no crime of a purchaser failing to pay a retail sales tax when the merchant doesn’t. And literally NO ONE (individual) files these taxes. It’s a joke.
> 
> But yes, we Yanks are all criminals. We originated that way. Not all violations of the law are immoral, as it happens.


In the UK you would go to jail. Not that you would have the choice to avoid the retailer has to charge it and submit VAT (value added tax) returns.

If you think the IRS is scary you don’t want to meet the “VAT man”.


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And this explains your disagreement with Mike. He's looking at individual pixels, you are looking at on a per-area basis.
> 
> He's right when talking per pixel, you're right when talking about the overall picture. Thus you'll never convince him he's wrong (and vice versa), until and unless you both get on the same page.


The point is that looking at individual pixels is a completely meaningless comparison. If you want to compare one property of two things, you just have to make sure not to change more than one variable between the points of comparison.

You wouldn't take a sports car and a regular one, then fuel the sports car with orange juice while the regular one gets gasoline and conclude that sports cars are inferior to regular cars, would you?

It is a silly example, because comparing noise with images based on different areas is silly. There is noise in light, in fact most of the noise in our images comes from the light usually, so if the images are of different areas (different amounts of light), of course the one with the larger area will have less noise. That is not because the pixels are larger. Just as the sports car isn't failing because it is technically inferior - the issue is the fuel. Light is the fuel of photography and the main source of noise. If it isn't accounted for, the conclusion of a given comparison is likely meaningless. 

Yes it is an annoying discussion.

Now, for AF, I could see it making a minor difference, because that also factors in time and increasing pixel density will mean sampling and processing the information from the same area will take longer. I doubt if that is as large a part of the total AF process though. Especially with the stacked sensor in the R3.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Craw has the same bitdepth as regular cr3.


Actually, my bad, I’m sorry. You are correct. It is the same but depth. I was confusing electronic shutter and CRAW. Both raw formats become 12 bit when using electronic shutter.

However, CRAW is compressed. That compression is “lossy” or in other words not “lossless”. You do loose information by compressing the file. What you get back is not exactly the same as what you started with. It may be very hard to tell the difference, but Canon do admit there is one.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 29, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ebay charges sales tax these days.


Not on private sellers.


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Not all violations of the law are immoral, as it happens.


That may be so, depending on the law under which you are living of course.

Reaping the benefits of public spending while withholding contributions to its funding doesn't sound all that moral either though.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 29, 2021)

Other than this Exif file is there any other corroboration that the sensor is 24MP?
I'd still tend to be believe its going to be 30MP.
I wonder is it one of those rumours getting the wrong end of the stick


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 29, 2021)

The R3 being a sports-camera, I'll just have to wait for the next high MP EOS with eye-control AF, and a no-focus-shift macro...
There can't be THE camera for everybody. Sports photographers rejoice!


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

Joules said:


> That may be so, depending on the law under which you are living of course.
> 
> Reaping the benefits of public spending while withholding contributions to its funding doesn't sound all that moral either though.


Pickpockets always argue that it’s immoral to stop them.


Ian K said:


> In the UK you would go to jail. Not that you would have the choice to avoid the retailer has to charge it and submit VAT (value added tax) returns.
> 
> If you think the IRS is scary you don’t want to meet the “VAT man”.


I pity you for that.

Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase (as some who don’t live here suggest is essential to be moral) nor has there ever been a case where this absurd law has been enforced.

I’m just reporting the facts and you can make of that what you want and draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> Not on private sellers.


That is not true. Everything I've sold on Ebay in the last year ran sales tax on my buyers. I am a private seller.





__





Paying tax on eBay purchases


Many countries and jurisdictions around the world apply some type of tax on consumer purchases, including items bought on eBay. Whether the tax is included in the listing price, added at checkout, charged at the border, or paid directly by the buyer depends on the seller's status, the order...




www.ebay.com


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase (as some who don’t live here suggest is essential to be moral) nor has there ever been a case where this absurd law has been enforced.
> 
> I’m just reporting the facts and you can make of that what you want and draw your own conclusions.


I suspect your either using the word fact or the word literally wrong.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

Joules said:


> I suspect your either using the word fact or the word literally wrong.


It would be easy to prove me wrong if there were a shred of evidence. I'm unable to prove my allegation because it's impossible for me to prove a negative. 

If it ever happened even once, there would be worldwide headlines you could search that said things like "Sales Tax Cheat Sentenced Today".

(Crickets)


----------



## scyrene (Jul 29, 2021)

pic said:


> The R5 is also FF while the 7DmkII is a crop sensor so all his lenses need to be 1.6 times as long (and heavy) - bar that and if you suggest to crop to get the same reach of the 7DmkII: then out of the R5's 45MP, only less than his 7DmkII will remain in play. (~17MP vs. ~20MP).
> 
> 
> As to MPs: yes they do matter - look back at digital pictures you took 20+ years back: the main thing they lack to be usable now is one thing and one thing only: pixels. All the rest can be fixed in lightroom or similar. I don't take pictures just for now, I take them also to keep for a long time to come.



17 vs 20MP isn't a big difference and it is claimed that the newer AA filters allow for higher detail levels - I saw a claim (I presume from Canon?) that the 45MP R5 gives equivalent detail to the 50MP 5DS(r?) in which case the crop mode would match the 7DII, although I don't know if anyone has tried testing that.

I disagree with the second point. The thing that most commonly makes my oldest photos unusable is poor noise in lower light shots. My 300D was essentially unusable indoors without using the flash (I didn't have very wide aperture lenses back then, or IS), and I can't salvage those files; but upscaling has come a long way (plus most image viewing and sharing is at much reduced res anyway).


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> It would be easy to prove me wrong if there were a shred of evidence. I'm unable to prove my allegation because it's impossible for me to prove a negative.
> 
> If it ever happened even once, there would be worldwide headlines you could search that said things like "Sales Tax Cheat Sentenced Today".
> 
> (Crickets)


Happens all the time: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/news/202...-indicted-on-sales-tax-evasion-and-theft.html

Like the IRS, states enjoy going after the big, low hanging, high profile fruit. Rest assured that if a state wants to get you, it will.

In fact, did you know that sales taxes owed can't be discharged in bankruptcy?

While taxes might have been (one) reason for the revolution, don't act as though that is the case today. People love taxes these days, and politicians (in both major parties) love spending far beyond what is collected. So the USA is no beacon of fiscal responsibility, it's citizens are also apparently, a bunch of tax criminals.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Funny how all those photographers actually shooting at the Olympics right now are doing just fine with their R3's, R5's, 1DX II/III's....


Photographers from our agency are there and "our" firm has policies. Remember not every event we cover has CPS there. Also, when we travel we must be self sustainable in remote locations. It is 'required" it is not a matter of "want". All the copies are profiled so they are interchangeable. If a body gets, lost, stolen, damaged, they will always have two working copies. The norm could be a 2.8 70-200 on one and a big white on the other. For what we call "Island shoots" the photographer can carry 4 of the same bodies with one "having" to be with them as a carry on vs in the travel/stage/Pelican being shipped. The carry on kit contains a 70-200, 300mm, body, battery,chargers, cards, cat5/6 cable,laptop. Should the cargo hold have issues, the photographer is at least functional until the next flight. 

As a large agency that shoot all over the world we have a commitment to excellence and reliability. We don't give clients excuses we give results and part of that is assuring that even in remote locations when others fail... media outlets wish they had hired us.


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> It would be easy to prove me wrong if there were a shred of evidence. I'm unable to prove my allegation because it's impossible for me to prove a negative.
> 
> If it ever happened even once, there would be worldwide headlines you could search that said things like "Sales Tax Cheat Sentenced Today".
> 
> (Crickets)


So you're not able to prove what you said, and yet call it a fact. I don't see where I'm wrong when doubting if you use the word correctly. Perhaps fact is used differently than I believe (I'm no native speaker), or you mean the alternative kind.

I see no need to get silly. Obviously intertwining laws and morality is bound to fail, so we have folks that speak judgment regarding the law. What needs to be done to live moral is in the eye of the beholder.

It does look weird when people proudly claim to evade a tax in my eyes though. 

And I do wonder, if nobody in the US follows some given sales tax law, what's the point of keeping up the facade?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2021)

Joules said:


> So you're not able to prove what you said, and yet call it a fact. I don't see where I'm wrong when doubting if you use the word correctly. Perhaps fact is used differently than I believe (I'm no native speaker), or you mean the alternative kind.
> 
> I see no need to get silly. Obviously intertwining laws and morality is bound to fail, so we have folks that speak judgment regarding the law. What needs to be done to live moral is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> ...


They pay the tax the vast majority of the time. It just gives them the feeling of being "gangsta" to find a way to not pay now and then. That's considered exciting and living on the edge in boring white suburbia. They get to feel like little rebels for a moment.  Well, that and burning their pandemic masks. Real hardcore folks.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 29, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Even Google Play has foto EXIF metadata editors. People have been changing and editing EXIF metadata for years. Fuji camera owners have a lot of practice. Renaming, changing and deleting metadata to fool C1, LR and other software into accepting images. Often as simple as changing the camera name. Comon practice among knowledgeable photographers. EXIF data doesn't confirm nada. I can edit my R5 file to display the name R3 or any camera name I want.



I use this one all the time...simple, small, open source and command line:

EXIFTOOL

Works like a charm.


----------



## tapanit (Jul 29, 2021)

dilbert said:


> If this is actually from the olympics and that lens was from Canon's event stock, then the lens serial number being present in the disclosed EXIF will tell Canon exactly who has shared this image by virtue of them keeping track of who they've loaned which lenses from - if not which camera bodies too. Then there's the whole "register your equipment" that has been discussed elsewhere. Summary, with the serial number present, I can't believe that this would be a mistake.
> 
> What isn't clear to me is if the selection of JPEG image size would show up on those EXIF screens and if, for example, the person taking the photograph has selected M, S1, S2, etc, and not L.


Exif data has a field called "Canon Image Size", with values like "Large", "Medium" &c.

There's also "Raw Jpg Size" with similar values.

Then there's "Sensor Width" (8352 in R5) and "Sensor Right Border" (8335) and similarly "Sensor Height" (5586) and "Sensor Bottom Border" (5575).

Other than those, I can't see anything that would confirm that the actual maximum resolution is something else than the image size shown.

If Canon is serious about keeping the resolution secret, it would have been easy to make a prerelease firmware which simply doesn't report those (or reports wrong values for them).

And not all software will report all exif data. Exiftool does, although of course it doesn't know them all but it has an option for showing unknown tags as "Canon 0x402c" &c.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

Joules said:


> So you're not able to prove what you said, and yet call it a fact. I don't see where I'm wrong when doubting if you use the word correctly. Perhaps fact is used differently than I believe (I'm no native speaker), or you mean the alternative kind.
> 
> I see no need to get silly. Obviously intertwining laws and morality is bound to fail, so we have folks that speak judgment regarding the law. What needs to be done to live moral is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> ...


I invite you to reread above where I wrote about the impossibility of proving a negative. No one pays state sales tax when the merchant doesn't collect. Morally, we're all equal, and no one is taken advantage of.

To answer your question, merchants invariably follow sales tax laws when they have to, and that's 99% of the sales tax due. No one cares about the trivial small percentage of unpaid uncollected tax, yet buyers of high ticket items like cameras can seek out merchants who discount to pay for the sales tax.

The rarest of enforcement situations involve situations like Portland Oregon's neighboring suburbs in Washington state, where the state tax authorities will sometimes go after wholesale tax avoiders who shop across the river in sale-tax free Oregon with carloads of building materials, liquor, etc. Not to mention registering a vehicle in Oregon to avoid paying 8% sales tax on that purchase price.

California is ferocious on certain state taxes (I had a client fly to visit me in Nevada to support his case that the plane was not in California to avoid sales tax on that).

When Ebay started collecting sales taxes they effectively raised commissions by about 70%, presumably killing some markets - I'm a fan of Fred Miranda for used buys with ethical members and no sales tax.

But normal people buying stuff on the internet NEVER send in the sales tax if the merchant doesn't collect it. NEVER. Which is why this topic arose to explain why comparing retail prices in the US with VAT-added process elsewhere is the apt comparison.

Update: Failure of one who _collects _sales taxes to transmit them to government is essentially theft, and prosecuted as a felony.
Also: In my state of Texas (~8% sales tax) if I don't pay the $1000 sales tax on a big white lens, and I'm the first ever consumer they go after to collect it, my penalty is... $50. Plus $50 more if more than 30 days. Scary.

I would have hoped no one thinks I'm a bad person simply for reporting this information, but the evidence in some comments above suggests otherwise. It's telling when this kind of thing makes people upset.


----------



## tron (Jul 29, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Photographers from our agency are there and "our" firm has policies. Remember not every event we cover has CPS there. Also, when we travel we must be self sustainable in remote locations. It is 'required" it is not a matter of "want". All the copies are profiled so they are interchangeable. If a body gets, lost, stolen, damaged, they will always have two working copies. The norm could be a 2.8 70-200 on one and a big white on the other. For what we call "Island shoots" the photographer can carry 4 of the same bodies with one "having" to be with them as a carry on vs in the travel/stage/Pelican being shipped. The carry on kit contains a 70-200, 300mm, body, battery,chargers, cards, cat5/6 cable,laptop. Should the cargo hold have issues, the photographer is at least functional until the next flight.
> 
> As a large agency that shoot all over the world we have a commitment to excellence and reliability. We don't give clients excuses we give results and part of that is assuring that even in remote locations when others fail... media outlets wish they had hired us.


Yes you have a very important company and you have called 5DMkIV a $20 camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> 24mpix? WHYYYY??
> If the price is 3900 maybe I’ll consider, if not, wait for a better camera with at least 45mpix. What a disappointment... it’s 2021 Canon!



WHYYYY?? Because that’s what Canon believes the intended market segment will buy. Apparently you are not the part of intended market segment. Canon doesn’t care.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> But normal people buying stuff on the internet NEVER send in the sales tax if the merchant doesn't collect it. NEVER. Which is why this topic arose to explain why comparing retail prices in the US with VAT-added process elsewhere is the apt comparison.


In my state, you have a choice. You can send the state your unpaid sales taxes on internet purchases when you pay your income taxes, or you can pay an estimate that the state calculates for you based on your income. If you pay the estimate, you do not have to document anything and they guarantee that you will not be audited or prosecuted for underpayment of sales taxes. I always pay the estimate at tax time, so I guess I'm not "normal."


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 29, 2021)

Sometimes it's hard to know what to believe these days:



EXIF data completely fake?
Tired photographer makes mistake?
This definitely confirms something... But what?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Sometimes it's hard to know what to believe these days:
> View attachment 199264
> 
> 
> ...


I’d put that in the _“tired photographer makes mistakes_” category, it’s only a stop out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> No one cares about the trivial small percentage of unpaid uncollected tax, yet buyers of high ticket items like cameras can seek out merchants who discount to pay for the sales tax.


It's a small, trivial percentage _now,_ because online retailers are required to collect tax on behalf of customers purchasing across state lines and remit those funds to the buyers' home state. Prior to the _SD v. Wayfair _decision by the US Supreme Court, that 'trivial small percentage of unpaid, uncollected tax' was a huge revenue loss for states, which is why South Dakota sued Wayfair in the first place (and why other states had previously sued individual retailers, e.g. _MA v Town Fair Tire_).



InchMetric said:


> Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase (as some who don’t live here suggest is essential to be moral) nor has there ever been a case where this absurd law has been enforced.
> 
> I’m just reporting the facts and you can make of that what you want and draw your own conclusions.





InchMetric said:


> I invite you to reread above where I wrote about the impossibility of proving a negative. No one pays state sales tax when the merchant doesn't collect. Morally, we're all equal, and no one is taken advantage of.
> 
> But normal people buying stuff on the internet NEVER send in the sales tax if the merchant doesn't collect it. NEVER. Which is why this topic arose to explain why comparing retail prices in the US with VAT-added process elsewhere is the apt comparison.


"Literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase."
"I’m just reporting the facts..."
"No one pays..."
"NEVER."

Estimates from before _SD v. Wayfair_ put the rate at around 1.6% of people voluntarily paying use tax, according to a 2009 report, higher in states where it is assessed as a line item on tax returns. With approximately 117 million US households in 2009, deducting a small fraction living in the handful of states with no Sales & Use Tax, in 2009 something like *1.8 million* tax filers sent in uncollected use tax on out-of-state purchases.

Your opinion: literally no individual anywhere ever.
Fact: In 2009, about 1.8 million state tax return filers.

I draw the conclusions that you don't know what you're talking about and that most of your posts are filled with flagrant bullish!t.


----------



## degos (Jul 29, 2021)

Ekpil said:


> Resolution + 20% versus 1D X lll.



Actually only 9.6% ( 6000 pixels versus 5472 )


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> In my state, you have a choice. You can send the state your unpaid sales taxes on internet purchases when you pay your income taxes, or you can pay an estimate that the state calculates for you based on your income. If you pay the estimate, you do not have to document anything and they guarantee that you will not be audited or prosecuted for underpayment of sales taxes. I always pay the estimate at tax time, so I guess I'm not "normal."


You are normal for your state with the mandated reporting over your signature under oath with criminal penalties but not for most states. Mine doesn’t have an income tax, and has no required report or assertion. I presume few do.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

degos said:


> Actually only 9.6% ( 6000 pixels versus 5472 )


Linear resolution sure, but I look at the difference as data points, and that is what images are made of. 24,000,000 is 20% more than 20,000,000.

I don’t see that it is relevant or fair to refer to a two dimensional image in one dimension.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> WHYYYY?? Because that’s what Canon believes the intended market segment will buy. Apparently you are not the part of intended market segment. Canon doesn’t care.


And I thought Canon was a charity, I'm so disappointed I'll jump ship.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Your are normal for your state with the mandated reporting over your signature under oath with criminal penalties but not for most states. Mine doesn’t have an income tax, and has no required report or assertion. I presume few do.


Your presumptions are as wrong as your 'facts'. Just more bullish!t.

"_Of the 45 states with sales and use taxes, 38 also have an individual income tax. Of these 38 states, in 2012 27 provided for taxpayers to report use tax obligations on the individual income tax return, and another six, including Minnesota, provide information about the use tax in the individual income tax booklets._" (reference)

27 states providing for use tax reporting on individual returns means more than half of the country, a very far cry from your presumption that 'few do'.

You really should stop embarrassing yourself with your ongoing posts on this topic, it's rather pathetic and each reply only serves to make you look more foolish.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 29, 2021)

And what was the topic of this thread? I seem to have forgotten but it's good for a laugh anyway. 

Jack


----------



## BBarn (Jul 29, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> ... Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase ...



Wrong. I have paid hundreds of dollars of uncollected sales tax on internet purchases many years, following state law and in accordance with state tax forms. You can call me a fool if you want, but violators are criminals by definition.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 29, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Plus, if a lens shifts a focal plane with aperture, you simply don't care!


Under continuous shooting/continuous AF this should be true for the 2nd or 3rd frame forward. But as the recent TDP review of the RF 100mm macro shows, you can still get focus shift with single shot AF because the initial acquisition is made wide open. Focus shift is really something that should be managed at the lens firmware level though, and I imagine Canon will fix it there at some point.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Linear resolution sure, but I look at the difference as data points, and that is what images are made of. 24,000,000 is 20% more than 20,000,000.
> 
> I don’t see that it is relevant or fair to refer to a two dimensional image in one dimension.


If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> And what was the topic of this thread? I seem to have forgotten but it's good for a laugh anyway.
> 
> Jack


Well... Would you rather argue about whether or not EXIF info is actually confirmation, and in which newfangled ways Canon is DoOoMED because they still dare to listen to their market instead of the internet?


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.


Nonetheless, 24 MP is 20 % more than 20 MP. It isn't really wrong to call that resolution, is it? What else does MP measure? Sure, it is ambiguous, but just from the natural way of reading it, stating that 24 MP is ~10 % more resolution than 20 MP is somewhat odd. Clarifying that linear resolution is meant would help.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2021)

> InchMetric said:
> No one cares about the trivial small percentage of unpaid uncollected tax...


Just to hang a few numbers on the 'trivial small percentage' you're talking about, in 2018 (the year prior to _SD v. Wayfair_), there was an estimated $517B in e-commerce, and the national average state-level sales and use tax rate was 5.11%. So, that 'trivial small percentage' represented about *$26 billion dollars of lost state revenue* in 2018. That's more money than the annual government budgets of 2/3 of the countries in the world.


----------



## BBarn (Jul 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, that 'trivial small percentage' represented about *$26 billion dollars of lost state revenue* in 2018.



Wow. That's over $1B per alleged megapixel.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 29, 2021)

Honesty goes much deeper than just $$$ so lets remember to be honest in all our ways and cut the debate. And there are many things that are more important than $$$ and stuff - like people in our lives so lets keep that in mind as we fume over MPs.   It's been fun but I'm leaving.

Jack


----------



## Ian K (Jul 29, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That is not true. Everything I've sold on Ebay in the last year ran sales tax on my buyers. I am a private seller.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ve 50 plus items listed and have always got all the money. It’s sold for apart from the 10% eBay fee. Uk VAT is 20% I’d have noticed if a huge chunk was missing. I agree it says it, I’ve just never ever seen it in practice. Granted I’ve never sold more than £10k a year. Pretty sure you been to turn over £85k/year before you have to register for vat.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.


The answer is simple: if someone is talking resolution difference, that should mean total resolution, and therefore 24mp is 20% more than 20mp. If someone wants to refer to linear resolution, he or she should specify that upfront. Then there is no confusion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.


Well there is no doubt you are more scientific than I am, and a much more knowledgeable mathematician!

As so often happens with these things the most relevant way of looking at a question is often dependent on what we do as individual photographers. For instance I rarely crop other than for aspect ratio requirements or simple straightening and leveling of images, so ‘resolution’, meaning the ability to resolve detail, is nowhere near as relevant to me as somebody who is focal length limited and is trying to resolve small detail.

I think most people who are in the market for $5,000-$6,500 20-24mp cameras are not driven by the later scenario as they already have multiple options better suited to their needs, and I still see 24mp as a very real ‘upgrade’ from 20mp given those likely users.

Should an R1 come out with an 80mp sensor and a 30mp crop mode then I fear for yours and Jack’s bank accounts, I still won’t need it! (But I might like it sometimes!)


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> Actually, my bad, I’m sorry. You are correct. It is the same but depth. I was confusing electronic shutter and CRAW. Both raw formats become 12 bit when using electronic shutter.
> 
> However, CRAW is compressed. That compression is “lossy” or in other words not “lossless”. You do loose information by compressing the file. What you get back is not exactly the same as what you started with. It may be very hard to tell the difference, but Canon do admit there is one.


My biggest complaint with CRAW is that it prevents DLO from working, so I have to remember to switch back to regular RAW when using lenses like then EF28 f/1.8.

CRAW+ES is great when doing lots of bursts using a good lens, like trying to capture dragonflies in flight with the 100-500.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

AEWest said:


> The answer is simple: if someone is talking resolution difference, that should mean total resolution, and therefore 24mp is 20% more than 20mp. If someone wants to refer to linear resolution, he or she should specify that upfront. Then there is no confusion.


But people accurately stating what they mean is very difficult across a basic earth wide platform where it is difficult to express differences in understanding, education, language, technical references etc etc.

How do you think we manage to stretch out a basic EXIF dump that was already posted and talked about at length in at least two other threads to twenty two pages?


----------



## tmc784 (Jul 29, 2021)

I don't need a sport camera. Save money for next year the R5C, hopefully.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

AEWest said:


> The answer is simple: if someone is talking resolution difference, that should mean total resolution, and therefore 24mp is 20% more than 20mp. If someone wants to refer to linear resolution, he or she should specify that upfront. Then there is no confusion.


That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.


----------



## Aquaman (Jul 29, 2021)

I was really looking forward to the R3 as I was expecting the sensor to be in the 75 to 100mpx range. 
If it has only a 25mpx sensor... I will personally be passing until mk2 or mk3 etc if and when the model refresh has at least treble the 25mpx size.


----------



## tron (Jul 29, 2021)

Aquaman said:


> I was really looking forward to the R3 as I was expecting the sensor to be in the 75 to 100mpx range.
> If it has only a 25mpx sensor... I will personally be passing until mk2 or mk3 etc if and when the model refresh has at least treble the 25mpx size.


Well, judging by the rate the pro 1 series sensor mpixels increase we will get 75 to 100 mpixels (for these models) by the year 2200 to 2300  

It's much easier to use R5 and/or 5DsR than wait


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images.


But to determine how many discrete points of data are visibly separate from their neighbors in an image, you have to apply that measurement from a single dimension to both dimensions. It's really not accurate to say that a 24mp sensor resolves only 9.6% more data than a 20mp sensor when it is capturing 20% more data points. It is a two dimensional sensor after all, and we look at two dimensional images.

Note that this is not a mere play on words or definitions. If you get into signal processing such as with a phased array antenna, or even an imaging sensor treated as a photon detector, the 20% value is closer to telling you what can be done than the 9.6% value.

Of course with photography neither approach translates directly to human impression of detail which varies with subject, view size, contrast, and even emotional impact. At 8x10 I would not say that a 50mp sensor is twice as good or even 44% better than a 24mp one. Might not be visibly better at all. At 90" I might say it's more than twice as good because of how things scale when there's more detail to begin with.



AlanF said:


> That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2.


We throw around single numbers out of convenience. If you really want to model the performance of an optical system you need to measure lp/mm horizontally or vertically, and then also along the diagonal. You basically need two measurements which betrays the fact that we're dealing with an array of data in two dimensions. So yes, 24mp really is resolving 20% more data than 20mp, assuming of course that every pixel captures a distinct point.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> WHYYYY?? Because that’s what Canon believes the intended market segment will buy. Apparently you are not the part of intended market segment. Canon doesn’t care.


Canon doesn’t care... at least that’s something we can both agree on...


----------



## AEWest (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.


When new cameras are announced, one of the first specs provided is resolution, e.g. 24MP. I have never seen a manufacturer say a camera has 6000 pixels across when refering to resolution. Have you?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> I’ve 50 plus items listed and have always got all the money. It’s sold for apart from the 10% eBay fee. Uk VAT is 20% I’d have noticed if a huge chunk was missing. I agree it says it, I’ve just never ever seen it in practice. Granted I’ve never sold more than £10k a year. Pretty sure you been to turn over £85k/year before you have to register for vat.


I'm in the USA. Talking about state sales taxes here.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically.


He already did. Megapixels is one form of measurement that encapsulates both dimensions into a single number. Technically for a sensor this would be a measure of sampling rate which influences, but is not necessarily, final resolution. But you can describe captured images in terms of MP as well. And while I abhor the way DxO abuses the term, you could describe images with the same storage dimensions in terms of "equivalent megapixels" or "resolved megapixels" as compared to a reference, or hypothetically ideal, target.

As for printers, it can be important to know if a printer has discrete resolutions in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and manufacturers state this if it's the case. Which again betrays the fact that we typically throw around a number for a single dimension out of convenience, but we are dealing with a 2D medium. And that 1D value must be applied to both dimensions to understand how much data is captured.

Another example I can think of where one dimensional measurements can be misleading: lp/mm tests can overstate system resolution because a line, being amplified along one direction, is easier to detect than a detail closer in shape to a dot. That's less familiar to photographers than the fact that resolution can vary with line pair orientation to the system which is why lens tests include the diagonal. All of this betrays the fact that yes, we measure along one dimension for convenience, and do so repeatedly at different orientations for more accurate modeling. But at the end of the day the medium is 2D. A 24mp array can provide 20% more data points than a 20mp array, assuming no other limitations on the system.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 29, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> He already did. Megapixels is one form of measurement that encapsulates both dimensions into a single number. Technically for a sensor this would be a measure of sampling rate which influences, but is not necessarily, final resolution. But you can describe captured images in terms of MP as well. And while I abhor the way DxO abuses the term, you could describe images with the same storage dimensions in terms of "equivalent megapixels" or "resolved megapixels" as compared to a reference, or hypothetically ideal, target.
> 
> As for printers, it can be important to know if a printer has discrete resolutions in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and manufacturers state this if it's the case. Which again betrays the fact that we typically throw around a number for a single dimension out of convenience, but we are dealing with a 2D medium. And that 1D value must be applied to both dimensions to understand how much data is captured.
> 
> Another example I can think of where one dimensional measurements can be misleading: lp/mm tests can overstate system resolution because a line, being amplified along one direction, is easier to detect than a detail closer in shape to a dot. That's less familiar to photographers than the fact that resolution can vary with line pair orientation to the system which is why lens tests include the diagonal. All of this betrays the fact that yes, we measure along one dimension for convenience, and do so repeatedly at different orientations for more accurate modeling. But at the end of the day the medium is 2D. A 24mp array can provide 20% more data points than a 20mp array, assuming no other limitations on the system.


I think using printer resolution is irrelevant when comparing to cameras because there is no vertical limit to what is being printed, vs the 2x3 fixed ratio of the camera sensor.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.


Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.

I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera. In some rather unscientific testing I have done over the years comparing my R in crop mode (12 MP) to 24 MP crop cameras, one would expect to see a huge difference in detail and resolution with the 24 MP sensor, if using the total MP count as your guide. In fact, the difference was small - not enough to see unless zooming in. So, to me, your method gives a much better impression as to what someone should expect when it comes to resolution.

Of course, on this forum all too often, actual user experience is usually ignored. So let the theories and arguments continue.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 29, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.
> 
> I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera. In some rather unscientific testing I have done over the years comparing my R in crop mode (12 MP) to 24 MP crop cameras, one would expect to see a huge difference in detail and resolution with the 24 MP sensor, if using the total MP count as your guide. In fact, the difference was small - not enough to see unless zooming in. So, to me, your method gives a much better impression as to what someone should expect when it comes to resolution.
> 
> Of course, on this forum all too often, actual user experience is usually ignored. So let the theories and arguments continue.


The point of increased resolution is not enhanced detail, it is the ability to crop. It's the same thing with recording in 4k or 8k. No one really delivers in that resolution, it is more for the ability to crop. I notice an enormous difference between my cropping ability with my 5dmkiv and the R5. Resolution is 100% relevant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2021)

Well I am looking forward to 40% more data per image file. You guys can look at it any way you’d like, and for your uses it is probably irrelevant anyway.

For me it is going to make a decent difference, how do I know that? Well I often stitch and I know what 20mp vs 24mp looks like.

I would point out I never said there was a 20% resolution increase, I said there was a 40% increase in data, and as Alan agreed, there is.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

AEWest said:


> When new cameras are announced, one of the first specs provided is resolution, e.g. 24MP. I have never seen a manufacturer say a camera has 6000 pixels across when refering to resolution. Have you?


Those who understand what resolution is, look at the pixel pitch because it is that which determines the resolution of a sensor (as well as some complicating features such as the AA-filter and Bayer). For sensors of the same size, the pixel pitch is inversely proportional to the square root of the pixel count. It's all part of pixel density, and I suggest you read this to get into the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> The point of increased resolution is not enhanced detail, it is the ability to crop. It's the same thing with recording in 4k or 8k. No one really delivers in that resolution, it is more for the ability to crop. I notice an enormous difference between my cropping ability with my 5dmkiv and the R5. Resolution is 100% relevant.


Enhanced detail and then ability to crop are directly related. The more the linear resolution, the more you can crop.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Those who understand what resolution is, look at the pixel pitch because it is that which determines the resolution of a sensor (as well as some complicating features such as the AA-filter and Bayer). For sensors of the same size, the pixel pitch is inversely proportional to the square root of the pixel count. It's all part of pixel density, and I suggest you read this to get into the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density


I'm not suggesting that what you are saying is wrong, what I am saying is that the market understands sensor resolution to mean total pixel count. So if someone wants to talk about linear resolution, he or she should preface comments by clearly stating they are referring to linear resolution to help avoid confusion.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> I’ve 50 plus items listed and have always got all the money. It’s sold for apart from the 10% eBay fee. Uk VAT is 20% I’d have noticed if a huge chunk was missing. I agree it says it, I’ve just never ever seen it in practice. Granted I’ve never sold more than £10k a year. Pretty sure you been to turn over £85k/year before you have to register for vat.


In the US, for maybe a year or so, Ebay hits the _buyer _with the added sales tax. The seller gets everything (our commission is 12+%, plus a couple percent for their Paypal-ish service). That means buyers are willing to pay less (or end up disappointed at the increased cost). So it's about a 20% hit between buyer and seller compared to a commission-free sale at Fred Miranda (My favorite for buying and selling).


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

I would suggest those querying resolution read an introductory Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
It begins with:
"Resolution depends on the distance between two distinguishable radiating points. The sections below describe the theoretical estimates of resolution, but the real values may differ. The results below are based on mathematical models of Airy discs, which assumes an adequate level of contrast. In low-contrast systems, the resolution may be much lower than predicted by the theory outlined below. Real optical systems are complex and practical difficulties often increase the distance between distinguishable point sources. The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance r at which the points can be distinguished as individuals."
and then gets mathematical.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 29, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.
> 
> I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera.


Neither method of modeling and measuring resolution is strongly related to human impressions of photographs, nor are human impressions a valid way to judge one superior to the other. Given the right subject there's practically no difference between even 50mp FF and 18mp APS-C at 24x36. Given a different subject the difference is subtle. Given a third subject the difference can be quite large and immediately obvious to a casual observer.

I would agree from a photographic perspective that there will only be a subtle difference between 24mp FF and 20mp FF, in general, and all other factors being equal. I would also say that the 24mp sensor is collecting 20% more data and is therefore able to resolve a 2D subject 20% "better" in a strictly technical sense.

Insisting that the 24mp sensor only resolves 9.6% more because we traditionally measure linearly for convenience is missing the forest for the trees. It's also a predictive failure in other applications where an array of sensors is deployed.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 29, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.
> 
> I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera. In some rather unscientific testing I have done over the years comparing my R in crop mode (12 MP) to 24 MP crop cameras, one would expect to see a huge difference in detail and resolution with the 24 MP sensor, if using the total MP count as your guide. In fact, the difference was small - not enough to see unless zooming in. So, to me, your method gives a much better impression as to what someone should expect when it comes to resolution.
> 
> Of course, on this forum all too often, actual user experience is usually ignored. So let the theories and arguments continue.


I'm presently using: 5DIV (30 MP), EOS R (30 MP) and Leica M 240 (24 MP).
Tested all 3 with the same adapted lens, Leica R 180mm Apo Telyt, same heavy tripod, day, hour, motive etc...
Apart from colors, I didn't see any relevant difference in definition or sharpness.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

Knowing that for a given size sensor the resolution is proportion


Del Paso said:


> I'm presently using: 5DIV (30 MP), EOS R (30 MP) and Leica M 240 (24 MP).
> Tested all 3 with the same adapted lens, Leica R 180mm Apo Telyt, same heavy tripod, day, hour, motive etc...
> Apart from colors, I didn't see any relevant difference in definition or sharpness.


The 5DIV and EOS R have basically the same sensor, so you would not expect any difference. They both have AA-filters. The Leica M 240 sensor does not have an AA-filter and so should be inherently sharper and compensate for the lower pixel count.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Enhanced detail and then ability to crop are directly related. The more the linear resolution, the more you can crop.


If what you are saying is applicable, then your statement before makes no sense. You said that there is negligible difference in sharpness between cameras of different resolutions. Combine that statement with the one quoted in this post, then you are saying there is negligible cropping ability difference between cameras of different resolutions. This is 100% false


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Neither method of modeling and measuring resolution is strongly related to human impressions of photographs, nor are human impressions a valid way to judge one superior to the other. Given the right subject there's practically no difference between even 50mp FF and 18mp APS-C at 24x36. Given a different subject the difference is subtle. Given a third subject the difference can be quite large and immediately obvious to a casual observer.
> 
> I would agree from a photographic perspective that there will only be a subtle difference between 24mp FF and 20mp FF, in general, and all other factors being equal. I would also say that the 24mp sensor is collecting 20% more data and is therefore able to resolve a 2D subject 20% "better" in a strictly technical sense.
> 
> Insisting that the 24mp sensor only resolves 9.6% more because we traditionally measure linearly for convenience is missing the forest for the trees. It's also a predictive failure in other applications where an array of sensors is deployed.


Knowing that resolution varies as the square root of the number of pixels for a given size is very useful practically. Suppose for example that you have a 48 Mpx and a 24 Mpx FF camera. The 48 MPx has sqrt(2) times the resolution, ie 1.4x. This means in practice and all other things being equal, a 500mm lens on the 48 has the same resolution as a 1.4x500mm, ie 700mm, on the 24 Mpx and puts as many pixels on the duck. You know that you have to put a 1.4xTC on the 24 Mpx to give it the reach of a 48 Mpx.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2021)

rick1 said:


> If what you are saying is applicable, then your statement before makes no sense. You said that there is negligible difference in sharpness between cameras of different resolutions. Combine that statement with the one quoted in this post, then you are saying there is negligible cropping ability difference between cameras of different resolutions. This is 100% false


Not at all, I was pointing out in the particular comparison made, you would not expect any difference between the first 2 sensors as they are the same, and the comparison of their resolution with the third was complicated because it doesn't have an AA-filter, which gives it a sharpness boost. What is false about that?


----------



## stevelee (Jul 29, 2021)

kaihp said:


> _Carthago Canon delendam est_


”delenda”


----------



## yungfat (Jul 29, 2021)

Because of Sony came out with 50mp “Sport” camera so all manufacturers should come out the same or similar MP count “Sport” camera, then all “Sport” (or poor) photographers can just shooting with 70-200mm all day and cropped heavily? If that is the case, why every manufacturer still busy to develop long lens?

Not sure since when Sony has becoming industrial leader for pro market of “Sport” photographer’s camera? Or just because of the few Youtubers singing Sony every time Sony coming out the new camera?

Pretty sure >90% of the people who commented here is not going to buy or own any “REAL Sport” camera. Spec is spec, the important is how the camera actually being handled, not just to fulfill the long wish list from internet keyboard warrior or troller who isn’t make any purchases after all.

Canon isn’t not knowing anything before coming the “right” tools to the “right” hand. For sure there is a market for 100mp “Sport” camera, but seems Canon is developed R3 for certain group of photographers.

if isn’t for you, just move on and get the best tools for yourself. It’s meaningless to argue on how important of the high MP. I’m sure for those who have “some” knowledge about the photography knowing what the benefit of MP of a camera and the pros and cons by having it. Since everybody’s use case different, it is impossible to have a exactly “what you want product”.

If you want Sony, go buy Sony. It’s your money, and no one is really care which camera brand you are using.

Happy shooting!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2021)

Wake me up when August ends.

Seriously, it's going to be a long month if Canon does not announce the R3 until September and we have to entertain ourselves with more of these endlessly boring discussions that keep going off on tangents. Please @Canon Rumors Guy, sir, may we have some more.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 30, 2021)

To double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII you would need approximately 85+ MP. 

Fuji is exploring a 100MP sports camera... "For those who want it, and can afford it" I would buy one for sports action portrature.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> To double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII you would need approximately 85+ MP.
> 
> Fuji is exploring a 100MP sports camera... "For those who want it, and can afford it" I would buy one for sports action portrature.


I wouldn’t, even my commercial clients that print big don’t require 100mp and I don’t have focal length limitations.

As for doubling the resolution, that was not my point, my point was 24mp is 20% more data points than 20mp. And it is.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I wouldn’t, even my commercial clients that print big don’t require 100mp and I don’t have focal length limitations.


Wonderful. You're all set. Enjoy


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> There is definitely differential pricing imposed by Canon since whereas B&H will ship most of their stock to the UK, they state on their site that the R5 is not allowed to be shipped.


This is fascinating... I checked for Australia and similarly B&H is not allowed to ship it here
"Manufacturer's restrictions for the shipping address provided prevent us from completing an order on the following item:"

The discussions on comparable pricing has been done a lot but for giggles:
USD3900 + freight to Australia + 10% GST => ~USD4300
AUD6500 local recommended retail price => USD4900
but I see authorised resellers offering discounts to AUD6000 and even AUD5515 at the moment.
AUD5515 => USD4200 and we have 5 year local warranty


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 30, 2021)

tron said:


> Maybe Canon allowed on purpose the leak about 24Mp. In that way users will be ... psychologically prepared
> 
> They will have cried, despaired and then more calmly will start thinking about it and liking it! Who knows?


Maybe this is a misinformation leak, so people will be totally thrilled when they announce that it has a 30MP sensor.  

If memory serves, the R3 photographer mentioned the existence of unannounced features, so perhaps one of them messes with MP. Unlikely, but possible.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That is not true. Everything I've sold on Ebay in the last year ran sales tax on my buyers. I am a private seller.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I concur. Everything I have purchased on Ebay for the last yr or so was charged a sales tax by Ebay. No exceptions. So, I now try and buy everything on B&H when possible, using the Pay Boo card, which as everyone now knows, credits your sales tax back at purchase. I mostly purchase used gear on Ebay now, rarely buying anything new using their site. I, also shop Adorama a lot but mostly for specials, as long as the combined price + tax is less than what I can buy it for at B&H or it is an item unavailable elsewhere.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

canonmike said:


> ...So, I now try and buy everything on B&H when possible, using the Pay Boo card, which as everyone now knows, credits your sales tax back at purchase...I, also shop Adorama a lot but mostly for specials, as long as the combined price + tax is less than what I can buy it for at B&H or it is an item unavailable elsewhere.


For a direct comparison: B&H credits the sales tax back on purchases; Adorama offers a 5% rebate on purchases plus a rewards point system that is an additional 1% credit. At times, on specific items, Adorama ups the reward points.

Both use store cards issued by Synchrony Bank. Both offer an option to make payments interest free for a specified time period, usually six months, instead of the rebates. Both charge the same interest rate if you don't pay it off immediately, which is somewhere north of 20% interest, so you don't want to use the cards unless you can pay it off immediately or unless you need the interest-free period to pay it off (but you lose the savings). If you do need the interest free financing, I recommend Best Buy, which generally offers longer terms -- sometimes up to two years on major purchases.

So, if your state sales tax is less than 6%, you save money with Adorama. Over 6% you save money with B&H. But, to keep it in perspective, you might want to do the math. Say your state charges 7.5% sales tax, a 1.5% difference between B&H and Adorama. If the R3 is $6,000 that 1.5% difference between Adorama and B&H would amount to a grand total of $90. Not a huge difference on a $6,000 purchase.

One note of caution. If you are considering a purchase, it's best to apply for the cards in advance. With Adorama I had no problem getting immediate credit approval and using the card, with B&H I had to wait for the card to come in the mail because I could not check out without having the CVC which they would not provide over the phone.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> ...There is definitely differential pricing imposed by Canon since whereas B&H will ship most of their stock to the UK, they state on their site that the R5 is not allowed to be shipped.





David - Sydney said:


> This is fascinating... I checked for Australia and similarly B&H is not allowed to ship it here
> "Manufacturer's restrictions for the shipping address provided prevent us from completing an order on the following item:"


I would guess that Canon USA does not allow dealers to sell products outside the regional market in competition with Canon Australia and Canon Europe. I wonder how it worked in the old days when B&H and Adorama used to sell grey market versions alongside U.S. warranty versions.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jul 30, 2021)

Am I the only one surprised that the pros are using auto white balance? I can’t say I know anyone who’s sole income comes from photography, that uses auto white balance. I don’t shoot sports, or know anyone making a living shooting sports, so maybe it’s just a sports thing?


----------



## tapanit (Jul 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> ”delenda”


Correct, the subject should be in the nominative case. This is a common error, presumably people are confusing the abbreviated "... delenda est" with the longer "ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam", where the indirect construction requires accusative. O tempora, o mores!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Am I the only one surprised that the pros are using auto white balance? I can’t say I know anyone who’s sole income comes from photography, that uses auto white balance. I don’t shoot sports, or know anyone making a living shooting sports, so maybe it’s just a sports thing?


I used to manually set WB and then batch correct in post. Then the AWB improved dramatically, especially AWBW, and people started asking for out of camera jpegs for social media at the events, so I shot RAW and jpeg with AWBW. It is very good and even when I use ColorChecker Passports to create lighting specific camera profiles the WB is normally within a hundred or so K and +/- single digit tint even when the profile colors need help.

AWB has improved so much over the years and the demands for instant delivery make it a very valuable tool.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 30, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Am I the only one surprised that the pros are using auto white balance? I can’t say I know anyone who’s sole income comes from photography, that uses auto white balance. I don’t shoot sports, or know anyone making a living shooting sports, so maybe it’s just a sports thing?


Canon's "white priority AWB" mode is the best auto white balance I've ever seen from any company, period. My cameras are always left on white priority AWB. 

That said, I shoot raw, so white balance doesn't matter to me at all. But even then, I rarely have to adjust the white balance and would be totally comfortable shooting jpeg in this mode. It's just too good, especially for sports under consistent lighting like inside a gym.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 30, 2021)

yungfat said:


> Because of Sony came out with 50mp “Sport” camera so all manufacturers should come out the same or similar MP count “Sport” camera, then all “Sport” (or poor) photographers can just shooting with 70-200mm all day and cropped heavily? If that is the case, why every manufacturer still busy to develop long lens?
> 
> Not sure since when Sony has becoming industrial leader for pro market of “Sport” photographer’s camera? Or just because of the few Youtubers singing Sony every time Sony coming out the new camera?
> 
> ...


Since Canon is the top camera brand a lot of people feel like Canon is holding back on purpose, for money reasons, when Sony one ups them. I think that is the reason for a lot of frustration.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 30, 2021)

yungfat said:


> Because of Sony came out with 50mp “Sport” camera so all manufacturers should come out the same or similar MP count “Sport” camera, then all “Sport” (or poor) photographers can just shooting with 70-200mm all day and cropped heavily? If that is the case, why every manufacturer still busy to develop long lens?
> 
> Not sure since when Sony has becoming industrial leader for pro market of “Sport” photographer’s camera? Or just because of the few Youtubers singing Sony every time Sony coming out the new camera?
> 
> ...


Stop being condescending. Most knowlegeable photographers and certainly Jeff Cable, know how to edit exif files if one has an NDA in place. And he clearly mentions it on his blog that he would NOT disclose any information that Canon has not already released. The JPEGS that admin downloaded and read the metadata from originated from Jeff Cable, a long time Canon ambassador and Team USA sports photographer. Canon loans him and attendies cameras for many of his workshops. So why would he risk disclosing information that Canon has chosen to release at a later date? Simple, he didnt.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 30, 2021)

Poor taste. Downloading JPEGS files that have been watermarked from a Canon ambasador's blog or from email with an NDA and then go searching through the EXIF metadata to publically disclose information that the manufacturer has clearly intentionally withheld for the sake of sensationalism and notariety is in very poor taste.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 30, 2021)

Admin. Those files are watermarked and not the property of CR. Therefore you have pemission to publish and disclose of the metadata? Questionable ethics, editable or not.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> ”delenda”





tapanit said:


> Correct, the subject should be in the nominative case. This is a common error, presumably people are confusing the abbreviated "... delenda est" with the longer "ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam", where the indirect construction requires accusative. O tempora, o mores!


Boys, you are 19 pages late to the party. I got corrected immediately by AlanF


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 30, 2021)

Of course Canon will pay vloggers (in money/goods/trips) to state this camera is epic. But the only right thing to do here is: WAIT. For an R1 to be announced with 45 mpix at least. Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45? Canon is starting to be the weakest kid in class now ... they are always late and running behind. I don’t care whatever (paid) nonsense will be posted here as a reaction, but the best thing to do for me and a lot of other pro’s is: WAIT. Unfortunately.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 30, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> I would agree from a photographic perspective that there will only be a subtle difference between 24mp FF and 20mp FF, in general, and all other factors being equal. I would also say that the 24mp sensor is collecting 20% more data and is therefore able to resolve a 2D subject 20% "better" in a strictly technical sense.
> 
> Insisting that the 24mp sensor only resolves 9.6% more because we traditionally measure linearly for convenience is missing the forest for the trees. It's also a predictive failure in other applications where an array of sensors is deployed.


I believe @AlanF is right. The number of pixels here is just a number of data samples. Its relation to *resolution *depends on dimensionality _d_ of the data we capture.

In general, it's the _d_th root of the number of samples (and so the square one in our two dimensional case).
Some more affectionate statisticians (but still very serious ones!) call this relation the *curse of dimensionality**.*


tapanit said:


> O tempora, o mores!


E-tempora, e-mores!


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Boys, you are 19 pages late to the party. I got corrected immediately by AlanF


_Nec Hercules contra plures?_


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 30, 2021)

When Nikon launches a 45mpix cam at the same time you launch a 25mpix cam, you know you are doing something seriously wrong. Let’s hope this is a rumor...


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> When Nikon launches a 45mpix cam at the same time you launch a 25mpix cam, you know you are doing something seriously wrong. Let’s hope this is a rumor...


Well, there is still a hope [for you that] Canon will go the Ford's way: "[...] _they could be trying to promise less and deliver more to help boost sales._"


----------



## navastronia (Jul 30, 2021)

I came across a quote from Modest Mouse's Isaac Brock today:
"I quit trying to find my favorite guitar. All the precious pairing of instruments and amps is just time spent not writing"​This made me think of CR and how we have 25 pages of arguing over R3 minutiae, and how that time would be better spent taking photos. I know full-well that I've contributed to these threads in the past, but spending lockdown last year learning to shoot film with a low-end rangefinder, I just can't see a reason to dip back into that pool. Taking 150 years of photography into account, every digital camera on the market in 2021 is kind of a miracle, including the R3, regardless of whether it has 24 MP or 30 MP.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jul 30, 2021)

I can definitely understand why the R3 is 24 MP, the time it takes to process images on my 18MP vs 32MP cameras is a very big difference. The R3 market needs to process and send the photos to their company as quickly as possible.


----------



## Joules (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45?


Is the Sony A9 II 45 MP? Last time I checked it was still 24.

If you are talking about the Z9 or A1, those are different kinda of bodies. An R1 will come. You are right though, it will require some waiting.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I believe @AlanF is right. The number of pixels here is just a number of data samples. Its relation to *resolution *depends on dimensionality _d_ of the data we capture.
> 
> In general, it's the _d_th root of the number of samples (and so the square one in our two dimensional case).
> Some more affectionate statisticians (but still very serious ones!) call this relation the *curse of dimensionality**.*
> ...


Thanks for putting this into general context. To sum up, if your interest is knowing the number of data points or colloquially how many pixels you have on a duck, then what matters is the number of pixels in your sensor and also the focal length of your lens squared. But, if you are interested in the information content of those data points, or in practical terms whether you can resolve the individual feathers of the duck, then that scales with the square root of the number of pixels or the focal length of the lens.


----------



## David_D (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for putting this into general context. To sum up, if your interest is knowing the number of data points or colloquially how many pixels you have on a duck, then what matters is the number of pixels in your sensor and also the focal length of your lens squared. But, if you are interested in the information content of those data points, or in practical terms whether you can resolve the individual feathers of the duck, then that scales with the square root of the number of pixels or the focal length of the lens.


Just to bring this back to the thread topic, the EXIF on the images states the resolution as 6000 horizontal by 4000 vertical. It is just that this is usually stated as 6000x4000 so people do the maths and result in 24MP. (Admittedly, it is a useful number to rank cameras/sensor technology.) When thinking about "how many pixels you have on a duck" I also prefer the linear measure, as it is easier to work out the impact on the lens focal length. When comparing 45MP vs 24MP that means ~2:1, so 1.4 linear. Which means I can put the same number of pixels on a duck with 400mm rather than 560mm.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 30, 2021)

Well, let’s just hope (for Canon) there are enough sportsphotographers that work for news agencies. Because that’s the market for this camera.

@ CANON: Please give us a HIGH RES MIRRORLESS PRO BODY! ASAP!


----------



## David_D (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> @ CANON: Please give us a HIGH RES MIRRORLESS PRO BODY! ASAP!


I'm sure they will, but ASAP = As Soon as *Possible*. For some reason, perhaps there are supply issues or waiting for some R&D breakthrough, but Canon obviously don't think it is possible yet to deliver a camera to that spec that will sell.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> For a direct comparison: B&H credits the sales tax back on purchases; Adorama offers a 5% rebate on purchases plus a rewards point system that is an additional 1% credit. At times, on specific items, Adorama ups the reward points.
> 
> Both use store cards issued by Synchrony Bank. Both offer an option to make payments interest free for a specified time period, usually six months, instead of the rebates. Both charge the same interest rate if you don't pay it off immediately, which is somewhere north of 20% interest, so you don't want to use the cards unless you can pay it off immediately or unless you need the interest-free period to pay it off (but you lose the savings). If you do need the interest free financing, I recommend Best Buy, which generally offers longer terms -- sometimes up to two years on major purchases.
> 
> ...


Good information, unfocused. Thanks for reminding me why I mostly use B&H. My state's sales tax is 8%. I have not applied for an Adorama Synchrony bank card, which I may eventually do but I hate having a wallet full of Synchrony CC's. Lowe's (Synchrony), Harbor Freight(Synchrony), B&H(Synchrony). I never carry a balance on my cards, PayBoo or otherwise but rather, pay the card off the day I receive the item, if purchased on line, so I never incur any finance charges, which, as you have pointed out, are excessive. There is no longer any advantage in using the Lowe's card, which offers a 5% discount on purchases, since they started offering a 10% military discount. You get one or the other, not both. Only reason for the HF card is they offered a one time 30% discount on any purchase made in store that day, if you would open a HF (Synchrony) account. Mathematically, it would certainly make sense to obtain an Adorama card as well but for now, I have more than enough cards to keep up with. I should add that my purchasing experience(s) at both B&H as well as Adorama have been pleasant ones. And Samy's and Robert's and Camera Canada and Cameta and Hunt's, etc. Thanks again for your input.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

David_D said:


> Just to bring this back to the thread topic, the EXIF on the images states the resolution as 6000 horizontal by 4000 vertical. It is just that this is usually stated as 6000x4000 so people do the maths and result in 24MP. (Admittedly, it is a useful number to rank cameras/sensor technology.) When thinking about "how many pixels you have on a duck" I also prefer the linear measure, as it is easier to work out the impact on the lens focal length. When comparing 45MP vs 24MP that means ~2:1, so 1.4 linear. Which means I can put the same number of pixels on a duck with 400mm rather than 560mm.


I am in 100% agreement with you, except that the previous was not off topic as I did post earlier:


AlanF said:


> Knowing that resolution varies as the square root of the number of pixels for a given size is very useful practically. Suppose for example that you have a 48 Mpx and a 24 Mpx FF camera. The 48 MPx has sqrt(2) times the resolution, ie 1.4x. This means in practice and all other things being equal, a 500mm lens on the 48 has the same resolution as a 1.4x500mm, ie 700mm, on the 24 Mpx and puts as many pixels on the duck. You know that you have to put a 1.4xTC on the 24 Mpx to give it the reach of a 48 Mpx.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 30, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> In the US, for maybe a year or so, Ebay hits the _buyer _with the added sales tax. The seller gets everything (our commission is 12+%, plus a couple percent for their Paypal-ish service). That means buyers are willing to pay less (or end up disappointed at the increased cost). So it's about a 20% hit between buyer and seller compared to a commission-free sale at Fred Miranda (My favorite for buying and selling).


In the UK it’s illegal, on a retail site, to show prices that don’t include taxes. Retailers are not allowed to simply add them at the checkout.

My items on eBay appear at the price I set and people pay that price. I’ve checked using a separate account, all the way to checkout.

eBay say in the UK that VAT is included, just as they do in the US. However, for me, a private seller under the VAT threshold they don’t seem to. Their fee is now 12.5% and PayPal are no longer involved. I get the rest. Perhaps business sellers, or those who go over the VAT threshold are charged more. But me, selling things I no longer want, it doesn’t appear to be the case.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

Ian K said:


> In the UK it’s illegal, on a retail site, to show prices that don’t include taxes. Retailers are not allowed to simply add them at the checkout.
> 
> My items on eBay appear at the price I set and people pay that price. I’ve checked using a separate account, all the way to checkout.
> 
> eBay say in the UK that VAT is included, just as they do in the US. However, for me, a private seller under the VAT threshold they don’t seem to. Their fee is now 12.5% and PayPal are no longer involved. I get the rest. Perhaps business sellers, or those who go over the VAT threshold are charged more. But me, selling things I no longer want, it doesn’t appear to be the case.


I sell a self-published book on eBay. They add sales tax on top of my price to sales in the USA. PayPal is no longer involved except that everyone still pays through them and they still get their cut. It's much easier for me selling electronic versions of my books on Amazon.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Of course Canon will pay vloggers (in money/goods/trips) to state this camera is epic. But the only right thing to do here is: WAIT. For an R1 to be announced with 45 mpix at least. Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45? Canon is starting to be the weakest kid in class now ... they are always late and running behind. I don’t care whatever (paid) nonsense will be posted here as a reaction, but the best thing to do for me and a lot of other pro’s is: WAIT. Unfortunately.


Get a grip.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

navastronia said:


> I came across a quote from Modest Mouse's Isaac Brock today:
> "I quit trying to find my favorite guitar. All the precious pairing of instruments and amps is just time spent not writing"​This made me think of CR and how we have 25 pages of arguing over R3 minutiae, and how that time would be better spent taking photos. I know full-well that I've contributed to these threads in the past, but spending lockdown last year learning to shoot film with a low-end rangefinder, I just can't see a reason to dip back into that pool. Taking 150 years of photography into account, every digital camera on the market in 2021 is kind of a miracle, including the R3, regardless of whether it has 24 MP or 30 MP.


A point very well made, Navastronia. A miracle indeed. But now I have to ask myself, an individual who no longer shoots professionally but loves photography and new tech, "Should I spend $5-6k on a miracle R3, an A1, a Z whatever, just so I can take a better photo of my neighbor's cat(s), looking for prey, raiding my back yard bird feeder?" My R6 coupled to my RF 800 F11 and, in fact my 6Dii body or even my 7D + EF 500 F4 are quite capable of capturing that fleeting moment with perfectly acceptable photos. So, again, I will have to ask myself, "what can the R3 add to this experience?" Thirty FPS of the same moment? Eye controlled auto focus of the cat's eye, shining like a diamond in a goats ass? Will this new body provide a noticeably improved photographic experience for me to pull out my credit card? Perhaps! I hope to see the early hands on reports from actual Olympic use, so I might make a more informed pre-order decision. So, Canon, please let them share some of the miracle of the R3, so we can see the magic at work.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jul 30, 2021)

24Mp = 500 forum posts => very efficient pixel count then.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 30, 2021)

Ian K said:


> In the UK it’s illegal, on a retail site, to show prices that don’t include taxes. Retailers are not allowed to simply add them at the checkout.
> 
> My items on eBay appear at the price I set and people pay that price. I’ve checked using a separate account, all the way to checkout.
> 
> eBay say in the UK that VAT is included, just as they do in the US. However, for me, a private seller under the VAT threshold they don’t seem to. Their fee is now 12.5% and PayPal are no longer involved. I get the rest. Perhaps business sellers, or those who go over the VAT threshold are charged more. But me, *selling things I no longer want*, it doesn’t appear to be the case.



Surely secondhand goods are exempt from VAT?

PS some types of retailer list goods without VAT, it's pretty common for wine merchants as VAT may not be applied if you're buying for storage rather than delivery.


----------



## landon (Jul 30, 2021)

Alright, we've passed the 500 mark, will the real MVPs please stand up.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Surely secondhand goods are exempt from VAT?


Antiques are second hand, and in the UK antiques' dealers have a special scheme of adding VAT to the difference between their buying and selling price. On buying from antiques auctions, you pay VAT on the commission you pay to the auction house, but not the item. If you have a personal item that you sell later at a profit, then you should pay capital gains tax on the profit if you exceed your tax limit. Doesn't affect me as everything I buy plummets in price. What a thread this is: free advice on your tax affairs as well as how to assess resolution. I think there is some mention of an R3.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 30, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> _Nec Hercules contra plures?_


抱歉我看不懂拉丁文


----------



## kaihp (Jul 30, 2021)

Ian K said:


> In the UK it’s illegal, on a retail site, to show prices that don’t include taxes. Retailers are not allowed to simply add them at the checkout.


But only when selling to end-customers, as retail, right? Here in Denmark the law says that you cannot show prices without VAT ("moms") for end-customers, but it is OK to do so when selling to companies (that can deduct the VAT anyway).



AlanF said:


> Antiques are second hand, and in the UK antiques' dealers have a special scheme of adding VAT to the difference between their buying and selling price. On buying from antiques auctions, you pay VAT on the commission you pay to the auction house, but not the item. If you have a personal item that you sell later at a profit, then you should pay capital gains tax on the profit if you exceed your tax limit. Doesn't affect me as everything I buy plummets in price. What a thread this is: free advice on your tax affairs as well as how to assess resolution. I think there is some mention of an R3.


Here in Denmark, when you sell used items the store addes VAT to the difference between their purchase price and their selling price. I haven't looked into how it works for Antiques, but I strongly suspect that the system is exactly the same.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 30, 2021)

canonmike said:


> A point very well made, Navastronia. A miracle indeed. But now I have to ask myself, an individual who no longer shoots professionally but loves photography and new tech, "Should I spend $5-6k on a miracle R3, an A1, a Z whatever, just so I can take a better photo of my neighbor's cat(s), looking for prey, raiding my back yard bird feeder?" My R6 coupled to my RF 800 F11 and, in fact my 6Dii body or even my 7D + EF 500 F4 are quite capable of capturing that fleeting moment with perfectly acceptable photos. So, again, I will have to ask myself, "what can the R3 add to this experience?" Thirty FPS of the same moment? Eye controlled auto focus of the cat's eye, shining like a diamond in a goats ass? Will this new body provide a noticeably improved photographic experience for me to pull out my credit card? Perhaps! I hope to see the early hands on reports from actual Olympic use, so I might make a more informed pre-order decision. So, Canon, please let them share some of the miracle of the R3, so we can see the magic at work.


I am a big believer in buying what makes you feel creative. Some folks like film, some like Leicas. If it gets you out to shoot and you enjoy it then it is money well spent. I am working on a documentary of a place I own for my YouTube channel. I have 100 subs and who knows maybe in 10 years I may have 1000. If one of them enjoys the documentary and I enjoy making it then I have succeeded. That being said I have some paid work which is another kettle of fish. I need something there that works and I am familiar with.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Of course Canon will pay vloggers (in money/goods/trips) to state this camera is epic. But the only right thing to do here is: WAIT. For an R1 to be announced with 45 mpix at least. Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45? Canon is starting to be the weakest kid in class now ... they are always late and running behind. I don’t care whatever (paid) nonsense will be posted here as a reaction, but the best thing to do for me and a lot of other pro’s is: WAIT. Unfortunately.


The usual bullcrap. Canon is late. Canon is behind. Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo. 

Sony A9 - which appears to be the Sony competitor to the R3 is 24 MP. So, when you say everyone else is doing 45 you just sound ignorant - or intentionally lying.

Yes, you will have to wait until the R1 is released. Don't know what you are shooting with now, but it almost certainly does the job and any new camera that comes out will probably not make your photos any better or give you very different results. So, why are you whining like a little child?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Surely secondhand goods are exempt from VAT?
> 
> PS some types of retailer list goods without VAT, it's pretty common for wine merchants as VAT may not be applied if you're buying for storage rather than delivery.


Well, they (second hand goods) aren't exempt from sales tax in the USA, unfortunately.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Get a grip.


The BG-R10 Battery Grip for EOS R5 / R6 costs £419.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 30, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Admin. Those files are watermarked and not the property of CR. Therefore you have pemission to publish and disclose of the metadata? Questionable ethics, editable or not.


You are talking as if this is some person's secret that was released to shame a person. Someone in the forum published it so why wouldn't the site about specs and rumors release the findings. You think no one else will? Is this Jeff Cable burner account. You care a bit too much.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 30, 2021)

Joules said:


> Is the Sony A9 II 45 MP? Last time I checked it was still 24.
> 
> If you are talking about the Z9 or A1, those are different kinda of bodies. An R1 will come. You are right though, it will require some waiting.


The A9 series is from 2017. The A9 II wasnt that big of an upgrade. Canon is a bit late with the competition.... I wonder if Sony would even follow up that series. The A7IV will most likely be better overall compared to an A9 and much cheaper.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jul 30, 2021)

Joules said:


> Is the Sony A9 II 45 MP? Last time I checked it was still 24.
> 
> If you are talking about the Z9 or A1, those are different kinda of bodies. An R1 will come. You are right though, it will require some waiting.


Unfortunately the issue is one of timing and perception..

The A1 is here and the Z9 is coming and they can’t be ignored. There’s nothing wrong with Canon releasing a 24mp body that targets the pro sports market. 
The problem is that for many people who want and need extra resolution the R3 if its in fact 24mp doesn’t meet their needs. If Canon had also developed a 50mp / 30fps stacked sensor / no EVF blackout body that goes head to head with the Sony/Nikon offerings that would have kept everyone happy.

An R1 is probably quite a while away yet


----------



## reef58 (Jul 30, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> The A9 series is from 2017. The A9 II wasnt that big of an upgrade. Canon is a bit late with the competition.... I wonder if Sony would even follow up that series. The A7IV will most likely be better overall compared to an A9 and much cheaper.


You do know Sony release a 12mp camera just last year and it is the interest darling. There is a reason for 20mp class cameras. They fill a need. The R5 at 45mp also exists.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jul 30, 2021)

My 5DMK4 is ageing.. if this is going to be 24mp ill go for R5


----------



## scyrene (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, they (second hand goods) aren't exempt from sales tax in the USA, unfortunately.


Ouch!


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I am a big believer in buying what makes you feel creative. Some folks like film, some like Leicas. If it gets you out to shoot and you enjoy it then it is money well spent. I am working on a documentary of a place I own for my YouTube channel. I have 100 subs and who knows maybe in 10 years I may have 1000. If one of them enjoys the documentary and I enjoy making it then I have succeeded. That being said I have some paid work which is another kettle of fish. I need something there that works and I am familiar with.


I am a firm believer in buying what you want, not necessarily what you need, budget constraints, if any, being the limiting factor.....good luck with your YT channel.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> [..]Here in Denmark, when you sell used items the store addes VAT to the difference between their purchase price and their selling price. I haven't looked into how it works for Antiques, but I strongly suspect that the system is exactly the same.


In my high school economics class it that scheme was explained as "Value Added Tax is a tax being applied to the added value." You can opt to apply it to the whole amount when selling and when filing taxes, deduct the amount you paid when buying, but that works out exactly the same. This applies mostly to (re)sellers, as a consumer I don't have to deal with those shenanigans.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I am a firm believer in buying what you want, not necessarily what you need, budget constraints, if any, being the limiting factor.....good luck with your YT channel.


I agree. Always frustrating when people here say, "Why do you need this or that..." 

At the price point of some high end things, need is of low importance. It's about want.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Unfortunately the issue is one of timing and perception..
> 
> The A1 is here and the Z9 is coming and they can’t be ignored. There’s nothing wrong with Canon releasing a 24mp body that targets the pro sports market.
> The problem is that for many people who want and need extra resolution the R3 if its in fact 24mp doesn’t meet their needs. If Canon had also developed a 50mp / 30fps stacked sensor / no EVF blackout body that goes head to head with the Sony/Nikon offerings that would have kept everyone happy.
> ...


Good points. Perhaps Canon may surprise us with a dual R3 release, like they did with the R5/R6??? Doubtful, based on press releases so far but you never know. At any rate, I'm loving all the tech coming down the gear pipe line, across all Mfgs., the sheer number of incredible offerings surprising given declining market conditions.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree. Always frustrating when people here say, "Why do you need this or that..."
> 
> At the price point of some high end things, need is of low importance. It's about want.


We are on the same page CanonFanBoy.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 30, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I can definitely understand why the R3 is 24 MP, the time it takes to process images on my 18MP vs 32MP cameras is a very big difference. The R3 market needs to process and send the photos to their company as quickly as possible.


The R5 offers JPEG outputs of varying sizes. Is the pro market shooting JPEG? Is there a reason why an M size image could not be used when speed is required and an L size image used when higher resolution is required? When presented with these options it does not seem like in practice high MP would slow anything down with correct settings. Can you please explain the issue?
How does the pro market feel about one CFExpress and one SD card slot? It seemed that common wisdom on this forum was that pros “need” two identical cards. If Canon designed the R3 for pros, they either didn’t know about this preference or didn’t think it was worth following. (The same could be true for MP preference, however unlikely it seems at the moment.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> It seemed that common wisdom on this forum was that pros “need” two identical cards. If Canon designed the R3 for pros, they either didn’t know about this preference or didn’t think it was worth following.


There is no such thing as common wisdom on this forum. Of the 1D cameras, only the X and X III have had a pair of identical card slots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Of course Canon will pay vloggers (in money/goods/trips) to state this camera is epic. But the only right thing to do here is: WAIT. For an R1 to be announced with 45 mpix at least. Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45? Canon is starting to be the weakest kid in class now ... they are always late and running behind. I don’t care whatever (paid) nonsense will be posted here as a reaction, but the best thing to do for me and a lot of other pro’s is: WAIT. Unfortunately.


*rummages through desk looking for can of troll spray*


----------



## reef58 (Jul 30, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I am a firm believer in buying what you want, not necessarily what you need, budget constraints, if any, being the limiting factor.....good luck with your YT channel.


Hopefully you didn't take what I said the wrong way. I was merely stating if it makes you happy and you can afford it, go for it.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 30, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Hopefully you didn't take what I said the wrong way. I was merely stating if it makes you happy and you can afford it, go for it.


No offense taken. Thx for your input. Totally agree.....


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> ...I don’t care whatever (paid) nonsense will be posted here as a reaction, but the best thing to do for me and a lot of other pro’s is: WAIT. Unfortunately.


I keep checking my mail box, but the check from Canon never seems to arrive.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I keep checking my mail box, but the check from Canon never seems to arrive.


I've been hoping to get your forwarding address. Canon keeps sending your commission checks to me.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Hopefully you didn't take what I said the wrong way. I was merely stating if it makes you happy and you can afford it, go for it.


This little side discussion reminds me that sometimes its worth just the joy of owning a well-made object. I think we Americans find it particularly difficult to just appreciate something for what it is without rationalizing our need for it. Sometimes just owning a beautifully made camera or lens, whether or not we actually need all its features, is money well spent.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've been hoping to get your forwarding address. Canon keeps sending your commission checks to me.


Keep them. You probably need them more than I do.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

As a wildlife photographer who's been using 1 Series for several years, and just getting the R5 and discovering what 45mp can do, I really don't see a wildlife need for effectively an R6 in a pro body. Canon used to do 2 flavours of 1 series, low res for sports and hi-res for fashion / wildlife etc. I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> As a wildlife photographer who's been using 1 Series for several years, and just getting the R5 and discovering what 45mp can do, I really don't see a wildlife need for effectively an R6 in a pro body. Canon used to do 2 flavours of 1 series, low res for sports and hi-res for fashion / wildlife etc. I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.


That's the coming R1. R3 is not meant to be a direct competitor. You know that, so it is strange that you pretend not to know it. Is a pretender the same as a poser? Yup. Any fool knows this.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.



In their* April *press release Canon wrote that the R3 is "positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III cameras." That's why it's called an R3, not an R1.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Knowing that for a given size sensor the resolution is proportion
> 
> The 5DIV and EOS R have basically the same sensor, so you would not expect any difference. They both have AA-filters. The Leica M 240 sensor does not have an AA-filter and so should be inherently sharper and compensate for the lower pixel count.


I know, but my intention was a bit different. I should have been more explicit...
What I meant, was that "only" 24 MP for the R3 are no reason to expect "low" definition. A better or a lack of AA filter, a new and improved sensor could lead to higher quality pictures, better than 24 MP imply.
By the way, according to TDP, the R's sensor seems to be a bit less "sharp" than the 5DIV's.


----------



## Alan B (Jul 30, 2021)

Here is what 30fps looks like on the R3. Taken by Atiba Jefferson at the Olympics


----------



## AEWest (Jul 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In their* April *press release Canon wrote that the R3 is "positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III cameras." That's why it's called an R3, not an R1.


Although for many the R3 surpasses the 1DX3 - likely higher mp, higher framerate, better sensor, better autofocus, and access to RF as well as EF lenses.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That's the coming R1. R3 is not meant to be a direct competitor. You know that, so it is strange that you pretend not to know it. Is a pretender the same as a poser? Yup. Any fool knows this.


Ah! Deep joy, the gentleman with 5,000+ posts on this site wades in. Pretenders pretend, posers pose. The two are fundamentally different. QED. On a more useful note, you seem very sure of what the R1 'is'. Could you enlighten us on your ability to see the future even beyond the R3. I'm sure you weren't fooled for a second by talk of a 30MP sensor for the R3......or were you? Mmm?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

Alan B said:


> Here is what 30fps looks like on the R3. Taken by Atiba Jefferson at the Olympics


This raises a question for me. If you can shoot stills at 30fps and most video is shot at 24-30fps, I wonder what the practical difference is. Now, from the video I see some stuttering, which I assume is because he was not shooting at the customary 2x the frame rate, but rather at a much faster shutter speed in order to capture sharp stills. Still, it's not that noticeable and could certainly be used as a short clip without most people noticing. 

Of course video files are usually in a different format, but you could easily shoot in raw or jpg and edit in post and then merge frames, which Photoshop is already set up to do. Would be a lot more time consuming I know, but if your primary interest is in the stills and the video is secondary, it seems like an option.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In their* April *press release Canon wrote that the R3 is "positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III cameras." That's why it's called an R3, not an R1.


Hi John. Yes, I agree with you "positioned squarely between" and while it's not ALL about megapixels: R5 (45MP) and 1Dxiii (20MP), somehow 24MP doesn't feel quite so "squarely between", sure there are other features but likely of less use to wildlife photographers than the MP's (purely a personal view).


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I know, but my intention was a bit different. I should have been more explicit...
> What I meant, was that "only" 24 MP for the R3 are no reason to expect "low" definition. A better or a lack of AA filter, a new and improved sensor could lead to higher quality pictures, better than 24 MP imply.
> By the way, according to TDP, the R's sensor seems to be a bit less "sharp" than the 5DIV's.


Fair enough. The difference between 24 and 30 MPx is only 12%, and given that the new AA-filters from Canon are not as harsh as the old, a new 24mm would be similar enough to the old 5DIV. The resolutions of the 5DIV and R sensors have been measured by optyczne.pl https://www.optyczne.pl/413.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/351.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV_Rozdzielczość.html and appear to be very similar.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> . I'm sure you weren't fooled for a second by talk of a 30MP sensor for the R3......or were you? Mmm?


Certainly not fooled that this is supposed to compete with the Sony you think it should, even at 30mp.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> ”delenda”


My knowledge of Latin grammar is poor. I know that Cato used to say "delenda" but he was saying "Carthage must be destroyed."

kaihp is not trying to say "Canon must be destroyed" as an demand/call to action, but rather "Canon will be destroyed" (or more loosely...Canon is d**med) and for all I know that might actually call for the "-am" ending.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Knowing that resolution varies as the square root of the number of pixels for a given size is very useful practically. Suppose for example that you have a 48 Mpx and a 24 Mpx FF camera. The 48 MPx has sqrt(2) times the resolution, ie 1.4x. This means in practice and all other things being equal, a 500mm lens on the 48 has the same resolution as a 1.4x500mm, ie 700mm, on the 24 Mpx and puts as many pixels on the duck. You know that you have to put a 1.4xTC on the 24 Mpx to give it the reach of a 48 Mpx.


You could express that same relationship in terms of area where the numerical differences would be 2x but the lens/teleconverter choices would be the same. We use the linear form because it is convenient for mental computation, and because it bypasses the human tendency to hear "twice as much resolution" and subsequently multiply a linear value by 2x instead of the area. But the linear form is not resolution. It is a way of modeling resolution and predicting certain things related to resolution. It's no more or less valid than area in your use case.

I would say that if you're talking about data captured then it's more useful to treat the sensor as the 2D object which it is. Absent the linear qualification, if you ask me the resolution difference between 24mp and 20mp as a percentage the answer is going to be 20%.

Let's get down to it: this debate exists in general in the photographic community because someone with a shiny new camera with more pixels wants to hear the bigger number (area), while someone who has an older model with fewer pixels wants to hear the smaller number (linear). Which is why I explicitly pointed out that none of this directly relates to human impressions of a photograph. Resolution is relevant and can be important in some circumstances. But there are so many factors at play that you can literally have a situation where a casual observer thinks a 16x20 8mp print is sharper and more detailed than a 16x20 24mp print.

tl;dr - The extra 4mp in the R3 will give a bit more room to crop or enlarge. It's not a dramatic improvement but it is an improvement while still keeping a sports camera fast and file sizes relatively small.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 30, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I believe @AlanF is right. The number of pixels here is just a number of data samples. Its relation to *resolution *depends on dimensionality _d_ of the data we capture.


The dimensionality is literally, physically 2. The traditional test is 1 for convenience, not because the sensor is a single line like in a flatbed scanner. Note that the traditional lp/mm test is performed _twice_ in _two different orientations_ any time anyone really wants to be accurate about the resolving power of an optical system. Which gets to the heart of what I'm trying to communicate.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for putting this into general context. To sum up, if your interest is knowing the number of data points or colloquially how many pixels you have on a duck, then what matters is the number of pixels in your sensor and also the focal length of your lens squared. But, if you are interested in the information content of those data points, or in practical terms whether you can resolve the individual feathers of the duck, then that scales with the square root of the number of pixels or the focal length of the lens.


Feathers of a duck are 3D objects projected onto a 2D space in a camera. How well they can be resolved relates to how many data points are captured in two dimensions. It's easier to use just one dimension when computing focal lengths and print sizes. But it's not more valid to do so. In fact, it would be less valid under certain circumstances. This would be unavoidably apparent if any cameras had a pixel shape or CFA arrangement which resulted in more detail along one dimension than along the other.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Antiques are second hand, and in the UK antiques' dealers have a special scheme of adding VAT to the difference between their buying and selling price. On buying from antiques auctions, you pay VAT on the commission you pay to the auction house, but not the item. If you have a personal item that you sell later at a profit, then you should pay capital gains tax on the profit if you exceed your tax limit. Doesn't affect me as everything I buy plummets in price. What a thread this is: free advice on your tax affairs as well as how to assess resolution. I think there is some mention of an R3.


That's why it's called a "value added tax" rather than a "sales tax", no? It's actually a very different concept.

As I understand it, if I am a widget manufacturer, I buy raw materials (the prices of which will include VAT), work on them and perhaps sell for double the price of the raw materials. I must add in tax on my increase in the value of the materials in turning them into widgets. Or alternatively, I include and charge VAT on the full price but get to deduct the VAT I paid for the raw materials. Either way, it must be a bookkeeping nightmare, but at least in principle it's impossible to evade the tax by pretending to be "wholesale." A US sales tax doesn't get applied until a retail sale.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 30, 2021)

Ian K said:


> No it costs £4300. We don’t use us$. You can’t just convert our prices to $ either. Ours includes sales *tax at 20%*, theirs don’t. That’s £3583 without tax. At today’s rate that’s $4970.


20%...*OUCH*!!

And I've been compiling about 10% sales tax down here in the New Orleans area.

Ok, I"m still complaining about it, but am glad I don't have 20%!!!
:O

C


----------



## cayenne (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ebay charges sales tax these days.


Many smaller, single stores online do not collect sales tax.

Of course, most states ask you at EOY to self report these so you can pay a "use tax".

I'm sure everyone does this. [rolls eyes]


----------



## cayenne (Jul 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> In my state, you have a choice. You can send the state your unpaid sales taxes on internet purchases when you pay your income taxes, or you can pay an estimate that the state calculates for you based on your income. If you pay the estimate, you do not have to document anything and they guarantee that you will not be audited or prosecuted for underpayment of sales taxes. I always pay the estimate at tax time, so I guess I'm not "normal."


OUCH!!

WTF state is this that assumes you buy things online?

If you didn't buy online from places that didn't collect sales tax, how do you prove a negative?


----------



## Atlasman (Jul 30, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I am a big believer in buying what makes you feel creative. Some folks like film, some like Leicas. If it gets you out to shoot and you enjoy it then it is money well spent. I am working on a documentary of a place I own for my YouTube channel. I have 100 subs and who knows maybe in 10 years I may have 1000. If one of them enjoys the documentary and I enjoy making it then I have succeeded. That being said I have some paid work which is another kettle of fish. I need something there that works and I am familiar with.


Nothing like a new shinny toy for bring in a flood of motivation.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

cayenne said:


> OUCH!!
> 
> WTF state is this that assumes you buy things online?
> 
> If you didn't buy online from places that didn't collect sales tax, how do you prove a negative?


Super easy.

No one pays cash online. You pay with a card or through a third party like Pay Pal. Therefore, there is a record of all your online purchases and it's easy to see which ones collected sales taxes and which ones didn't.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Certainly not fooled that this is supposed to compete with the Sony you think it should, even at 30mp.


Oh dear! One thing at a time CanonFanBoy. Firstly you were going to do something useful and illuminate this group on what the R1 'is', (you seem strangely quiet). Secondly you were no doubt going to debate your earlier 'pretend' vs 'pose' point but I guess you concede that one (good move). Now you seem to be making the same mistake again and when I said 'hoped' have now (incorrectly) used your word 'supposed' (to compete with the Sony camera). We can all 'hope'. Certainly I 'hope' you'll buy a dictionary dear boy.


----------



## slclick (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> Oh dear! One thing at a time CanonFanBoy. Firstly you were going to do something useful and illuminate this group on what the R1 'is', (you seem strangely quiet). Secondly you were no doubt going to debate your earlier 'pretend' vs 'pose' point but I guess you concede that one (good move). Now you seem to be making the same mistake again and when I said 'hoped' have now (incorrectly) used your word 'supposed' (to compete with the Sony camera). We can all 'hope'. Certainly I 'hope' you'll buy a dictionary dear boy.


Wow, simply...wow. You really come off as a pompous twat here Meg. Does it have to be so judgmental and disdainful? I guess the internet allows it so you go whole hog, right? Sure I name called and you could see that as hypocrisy but I had to call out your post as being pretty petty. CFB has a reputation for being civil and fair, you not so much.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Surely secondhand goods are exempt from VAT?
> 
> PS some types of retailer list goods without VAT, it's pretty common for wine merchants as VAT may not be applied if you're buying for storage rather than delivery.


Company to company sales are vat exempt if they’re both vat registered. Sort of. As someone said in different way.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

slclick said:


> Wow, simply...wow. You really come off as a pompous twat here Meg. Does it have to be so judgmental and disdainful? I guess the internet allows it so you go whole hog, right? Sure I name called and you could see that as hypocrisy but I had to call out your post as being pretty petty. CFB has a reputation for being civil and fair, you not so much.


Civil and fair, are you sure? I'm not the one using (any) rude words like "fool" and "pompous twat".


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> The dimensionality is literally, physically 2. The traditional test is 1 for convenience, not because the sensor is a single line like in a flatbed scanner. Note that the traditional lp/mm test is performed _twice_ in _two different orientations_ any time anyone really wants to be accurate about the resolving power of an optical system. Which gets to the heart of what I'm trying to communicate.


I have already posted that resolution is measured twice in different orientations, which can show astigmatism.


AlanF said:


> That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. *As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.*


----------



## Ian K (Jul 30, 2021)

cayenne said:


> 20%...*OUCH*!!
> 
> And I've been compiling about 10% sales tax down here in the New Orleans area.
> 
> ...


Yup. Country wide. We do get free health care too. It kind of valences out. The least I remember it being is 15%, mostly 17.5%. Currently 20% since the financial crisis.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Feathers of a duck are 3D objects projected onto a 2D space in a camera. How well they can be resolved relates to how many data points are captured in two dimensions. It's easier to use just one dimension when computing focal lengths and print sizes. But it's not more valid to do so. In fact, it would be less valid under certain circumstances. This would be unavoidably apparent if any cameras had a pixel shape or CFA arrangement which resulted in more detail along one dimension than along the other.


The resolution of 3-dimensional objects is central to my field of work, the structure of proteins determined by X-ray crystallography and cryoem. It is a linear 1-D measurement; nanometres, nm (or Å) - see https://proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Resolution

As I referred you to earlier, "(optical) Resolution depends on the distance between two distinguishable radiating points." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution For X-ray crystallography of 3D objects, resolution is the smallest distance between crystal lattice planes that is resolved. In cryo-electron microscopy, the data are collected on a sensor just like in photography. The attainable resolution similarly depends on the pixel size. Just as in photography, the Nyquist theorem specifies that the theoretically attainable resolution is limited to twice the pixel size. What determines the size of a pixel is the square root of the number of pixels - double the number of pixels and the attainable resolution from the Nyquist theorem increases by 1.4x, not 2x.

PS, when it comes to the effect of number of data points on increased precision, that also scales as the square root of the number of points: double the number of points, precision is improved by 1.4x, not 2x.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 30, 2021)

reef58 said:


> You do know Sony release a 12mp camera just last year and it is the interest darling. There is a reason for 20mp class cameras. They fill a need. The R5 at 45mp also exists.


yeah they made a 12mp camera that most if not all consumers bought mostly for video. If that is the case the c70 is an 8MP camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> Oh dear! One thing at a time CanonFanBoy. Firstly you were going to do something useful and illuminate this group on what the R1 'is', (you seem strangely quiet). Secondly you were no doubt going to debate your earlier 'pretend' vs 'pose' point but I guess you concede that one (good move). Now you seem to be making the same mistake again and when I said 'hoped' have now (incorrectly) used your word 'supposed' (to compete with the Sony camera). We can all 'hope'. Certainly I 'hope' you'll buy a dictionary dear boy.


Actually, you wanted me to illuminate. As dominant as you may be, I don't obey your riding crop.

There was no debate regarding pose vs pretend. Same thing. 

Yup, you hoped the R3 would compete with the Sony. Really, you didn't. That's just your troll talking point.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 30, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> yeah they made a 12mp camera that most if not all consumers bought mostly for video. If that is the case the c70 is an 8MP camera.


So you agree for a specific purpose releasing a lower megapixel camera is okay? Why does Sony get a pass? 

You cannot take photos with the C70.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 30, 2021)

cayenne said:


> OUCH!!
> 
> WTF state is this that assumes you buy things online?
> 
> If you didn't buy online from places that didn't collect sales tax, how do you prove a negative?


The key is that these few tax-hungry states require you to file an annual report and sign under oath and with criminal penalties for lying, swaeaiung as to your actual unpaid sales taxes, or paying them their required minimum. Most states with a few notable exceptions don't do anything, including go after individuals (or it would be big news).


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, you wanted me to illuminate. As dominant as you may be, I don't obey your riding crop.
> 
> There was no debate regarding pose vs pretend. Same thing.
> 
> Yup, you hoped the R3 would compete with the Sony. Really, you didn't. That's just your troll talking point.


Shall we do this line by line?

You stated originally very boldly "That's the coming R1", which it may well be, but we don't know that, I certainly don't. Yes, I set a challenge, which was to back up your bold assertion with some facts. You haven't. Can you? Or are you the one pretending to know more?

Here you state pose vs pretend. Same thing. Erm, not so fast, you are changing words again to suit your (changing) argument. You originally stated pretender and poser. These are very clearly NOT the same thing. If you are a pretender you are entering in an imaginative game or fantasy, while a poser would be behaving affectedly in order to impress others. 

Lastly you claim I hope the R3 would compete with the Sony, but "oh no, wait a minute" I didn't really. Erm, news flash I kinda was hoping the R3 would be more competitive (in the megapixel count, with the Sony). Just playing in straight.

So let's just refresh ourselves of my post (MY VERY FIRST POST ON THIS SITE BTW) which caused you to use words such as "pretender", "poser" and latterly "troll".

As a wildlife photographer who's been using 1 Series for several years, and just getting the R5 and discovering what 45mp can do, I really don't see a wildlife need for effectively an R6 in a pro body. Canon used to do 2 flavours of 1 series, low res for sports and hi-res for fashion/wildlife etc. I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.

It's hardly an offensive first post is it? Or is it?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> Shall we do this line by line?
> 
> You stated originally very boldly "That's the coming R1", which it may well be, but we don't know that, I certainly don't. Yes, I set a challenge, which was to back up your bold assertion with some facts. You haven't. Can you? Or are you the one pretending to know more?
> 
> ...


Not offensive at all. Never said so.

However, you already knew it wouldn't. Thus, pretender/poser/troll, or maybe just glib.

As this is the R3, we already know this isn't another flavor of the R1... which is yet to be released. Certainly, it isn't a 1 series..


----------



## Emyr Evans (Jul 30, 2021)

Can I ask a dumb question?

This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):

"I set my ISO to 1000, had an aperture of f/3.5, which gave me the desired shutter speed of 1/1000 sec."

Why wouldn't a Pro sports photographer dial in and set his shutter speed in first (say in shutter priority or manual with auto-ISO) of 1/1000 and worry about his aperture second and ISO last?

I don't get it.


----------



## Alan B (Jul 30, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...



He is shooting in Aperture priority in all of his shots with the R3, so the cam is setting the shutter speed!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


It was a total decision where all three were interlinked, one did not begat the other. I can walk up to a scene and manually set the three parameters I expect will work, sometimes I nail it most times I need to adjust one of the metrics. So he had 1/1000 in mind then preset the other two to see if that was what he got.

The choice of auto mode or full manual is normally dictated by the light source on the subject varying or not, and how much the background will vary across frames. Sand reflects a lot more light that signage (in general) so if the subject is going to track across the two then manual makes more sense. Even AF point linked spot metering is easily fooled if the uniforms are varied.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not offensive at all. Never said so.
> 
> However, you already knew it wouldn't. Thus, pretender/poser/troll, or maybe just glib.
> 
> As this is the R3, we already know this isn't another flavor of the R1... which is yet to be released. Certainly, it isn't a 1 series..


Well you know what, there's a lot there I agree with. Except the idea that I'm out to be insincere or troll (not my style). So why don't we just head off our respective ways, and when we actually get the full facts on either the R3 and in time R1 buy and enjoy them, or not, as we see fit?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 30, 2021)

reef58 said:


> So you agree for a specific purpose releasing a lower megapixel camera is okay? Why does Sony get a pass?
> 
> You cannot take photos with the C70.


The primary use is for video. I dont let the form factor fool me. A stills camera in 2021/22 shouldnt be trying to compete with a camera from 2017. Thats my point. The A9 was supposed to be Sony's answer to the 1DXII. The c70 does indeed take photos and they are 8MP JPG.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> Well you know what, there's a lot there I agree with. Except the idea that I'm out to be insincere or troll (not my style). So why don't we just head off our respective ways, and when we actually get the full facts on either the R3 and in time R1 buy and enjoy them, or not, as we see fit?


Do a long-distance (covid-safe) shake hands and put it behind you. It's too easy for these things to get out of hand unintentionally.


----------



## MonsMeg (Jul 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Do a long-distance (covid-safe) shake hands and put it behind you. It's too easy for these things to get out of hand unintentionally.


Wise words AlanF.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 30, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


Neither do I. I would have shot it in manual with the ISO allowed to float. I've had the situation where the scene is so bright that the ISO reaches its minimum then the camera starts to overexpose. I think some Nikons allow you to tell the camera to change the shutter speed or aperture when that happens.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 30, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


 I would have used M with autoISO which would have allowed me to control aperture and shutter speed as needed. With that said, I am only a enthusiast wildlife photographer so I know nothing about photographing the Olympics,


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


People do what they are familiar with, which is usually what they learned when they first started shooting. You get used to doing something a certain way, and that is likely to be the way you will keep doing it. Most pros tend to stick with what they know because it works and they can't afford to be trying something new when their livelihood depends on delivering an image.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


I don’t understand either. One of the great advantages of mirrorless is you see the exposure directly through the evf. I use full manual Fv for my nature/action shots, set the shutter speed and aperture, and then twiddle the iso with a dial or control ring when composing to what I think looks right or to avoid clipping highlights. Anyway, I’m just an amateur.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

Modifying my comments slightly. Think about what he said: "I set my ISO to 1000, had an aperture of f/3.5, which gave me the desired shutter speed of 1/1000 sec."

So, he got to the venue. He looks at the lighting and thinks "I'll need an ISO of 1000. I want my aperture to be about f3.5 (not wide open, but close), what's that gonna do for my shutter speed? Okay, it's at 1000. I'm good to go." 

He probably is shooting manual and adjusting the settings. He's also experienced enough that he can probably eyeball most settings when he enters the venue. If he found the lighting wasn't going to give him the settings he wanted, he would have adjusted them. He's not saying he used aperture priority, he's just saying that he had an aperture of f3.5. Maybe he did use aperture priority, I don't know, but I'm guessing that whatever setting he used, he pretty much knew from experience what he needed and how he arrived at it didn't matter.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2021)

Side note. I shoot a lot of volleyball (regular, not beach) and I'm loving the way he could shoot through the net with the R3. I've had pretty good luck with the 1DxIII (better than the 1DxII) shooting through the net, but it looks like the R3 is even better. "Canon, I just can't quit you."


----------



## stevelee (Jul 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> My knowledge of Latin grammar is poor. I know that Cato used to say "delenda" but he was saying "Carthage must be destroyed."
> 
> kaihp is not trying to say "Canon must be destroyed" as an demand/call to action, but rather "Canon will be destroyed" (or more loosely...Canon is d**med) and for all I know that might actually call for the "-am" ending.


"delenda" is a peculiar verb form that is something like a future passive participle or gerundive. If you want to say "will be destroyed," you would use a simple future tense of the verb in passive voice.

We are obsessing over a cute joke. I'm sorry that I got into the fray. The quotation is so well known that even folks who don't know (or like me don't remember much) Latin would catch the error.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 30, 2021)

MonsMeg said:


> (MY VERY FIRST POST ON THIS SITE BTW)


What an attitude to adopt for a newcomer. And you're surprised people have responded antagonistically? This is textbook passive aggression. Be nicer, or bore off.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 31, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> The primary use is for video. I dont let the form factor fool me. A stills camera in 2021/22 shouldnt be trying to compete with a camera from 2017. Thats my point. The A9 was supposed to be Sony's answer to the 1DXII. The c70 does indeed take photos and they are 8MP JPG.


So Sony goes back in time with 12mp all is good. Canon uses 24mp not good. Got it. You certainly seem objective.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jul 31, 2021)

reef58 said:


> So Sony goes back in time with 12mp all is good. Canon uses 24mp not good. Got it. You certainly seem objective.


The A7SIII is a primary video camera above stills.

Sony has the A9 series as their standard resolution sports body and the A1 as their flagship. Canon are releasing a non flagship body after Sony already have and just before Nikon release theirs.
Some will be happy to be getting the R3 but going from some of the comments there’s definitely some disappointment as well.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Side note. I shoot a lot of volleyball (regular, not beach) and I'm loving the way he could shoot through the net with the R3. I've had pretty good luck with the 1DxIII (better than the 1DxII) shooting through the net, but it looks like the R3 is even better. "Canon, I just can't quit you."


I was also impressed on how well he was able to focus through the net with the AF.


----------



## Eersel (Jul 31, 2021)

I mean is it not also possible that the photographer used a cropping mode? If this is cropped in-camera that would actually mean its closer to 36 mp.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 31, 2021)

Photographer testing the EOS R3 gives what is easily one of the highest shutter counts on a single battery that I've *ever* seen. Wow. I'm sure most of it was 30 fps, but even on the R5 at 20 fps you'd get no where close!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 31, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 199282
> 
> 
> 
> Photographer testing the EOS R3 gives what is easily one of the highest shutter counts on a single battery that I've *ever* seen. Wow. I'm sure most of it was 30 fps, but even on the R5 at 20 fps you'd get no where close!


The R3 battery, LP-E19, has nearly twice the mWh the R5 battery has.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 31, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> The A7SIII is a primary video camera above stills.
> 
> Sony has the A9 series as their standard resolution sports body and the A1 as their flagship. Canon are releasing a non flagship body after Sony already have and just before Nikon release theirs.
> Some will be happy to be getting the R3 but going from some of the comments there’s definitely some disappointment as well.


I'm not disappointed about the R3 but I am hovering on the fence, waiting for full specs, so I can then make an informed decision about buying it, or not. We all want to see what its capabilities are and shortcomings, as well, if any. It may very well play out that I'll purchase and R5 instead. On the other hand, I might just buy the R3 regardless, knowing in the short run that if I determine its not the camera for me, it wouldn't be too difficult to sell it and get good market value for it, at least in the short term.


----------



## JamesG25 (Jul 31, 2021)

The R3 very much feels like how the R was to the R5/R6. Is Canon’s opportunity to test some concepts for a pro-body e.g size, button placement, flip screen and eye controlled autofocus. Very much feels that there will be no MKII version of this camera, just like the original EOS3. Having said that I still think that it will be a great camera to use, with some trade offs, just like the R.

Now that we know most of the specifications and assuming that the 24mp sensor is correct, what are people’s feeling on price? My guess that in US market we are going to see annouced at $5499, that will give space for Canon to price an eventual R1 at $6899.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 31, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The R3 battery, LP-E19, has nearly twice the mWh the R5 battery has.


Even so, 16,000+ shots is way higher than I have gotten with a gripped R5, very impressive!


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 31, 2021)

JamesG25 said:


> The R3 very much feels like how the R was to the R5/R6. Is Canon’s opportunity to test some concepts for a pro-body e.g size, button placement, flip screen and eye controlled autofocus. Very much feels that there will be no MKII version of this camera, just like the original EOS3. Having said that I still think that it will be a great camera to use, with some trade offs, just like the R.
> 
> Now that we know most of the specifications and assuming that the 24mp sensor is correct, what are people’s feeling on price? My guess that in US market we are going to see annouced at $5499, that will give space for Canon to price an eventual R1 at $6899.


There is a thread dedicated to guessing the price of the R3 here, if you'd like to see the estimates of others:





Place your bets! What do you think the R3 will cost?


Greetings! We have the information from Canon that the R3 pricing will undercut the competition. From what we know, though, the specs of the R3 don't quite line up with any competition we know about anyway. It is rumored to have more megapixels and FPS than the 1DXiii and the Sony A9. But it is...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jul 31, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 199282
> 
> 
> 
> Photographer testing the EOS R3 gives what is easily one of the highest shutter counts on a single battery that I've *ever* seen. Wow. I'm sure most of it was 30 fps, but even on the R5 at 20 fps you'd get no where close!



Quite impressive! Perhaps this battery life goes some way to confirm the 24mp. I would assume that processing less data per frame (i.e. less pixel count) would help prolong battery life further compared to the R5 for example.


----------



## skullsession (Jul 31, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


Because I want to be in full control of my ISO and I want to adjust my exposure compensation without pressing a secondary button first. I've employed many talented shooters that use auto ISO that do not use exposure compensation effectively for this very reason.


There are a small amount of times where I'll shoot full manual (not to be confused with M with an automatic ISO). The rest of the time I'll use aperature priority and hand-hold the choices it makes, essentially shooting mostly manually but letting the camera adjust too if the clouds break/descend and my light jumps 0.7-1.5 stops in a half second, and would ruin a great shot that was perfectly exposed before said cloud.


----------



## st jack photography (Jul 31, 2021)

So yeah, I get that 30 FPS almost always means less mp, even though it doesn't have to as a rule....and to be honest, 18mp is enough, and so is 24. AND if I had to I would use the 14mp 5D Classic, but still.....still....

*I would rather it be 25 FPS and 30mp, not 30 FPS and 24mp. Save the 24/30FPS for the R1.*

24mp for what is definitely going to be a $4899 to $5899 camera? Just to get 30 frames per second? With a BSI sensor, I expected much better. I am not crushed, or angry, but I am bummed about the preorder I had planned. Welp, maybe they will finally eventually release a R5Sr 100mp monster (that does 5 FPS and has 800 usable ISO tops, but hey, 100mp and no low-pass.) Come on 2022.


----------



## sanj (Jul 31, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Can I ask a dumb question?
> 
> This is from Jeff Cable's latest blog - he's photographing beach volleyball (not sure it it's the R3 or not):
> 
> ...


He is still focusing on stutter speed.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 31, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> T*he A7SIII is a primary video camera above stills.*
> 
> Sony has the A9 series as their standard resolution sports body and the A1 as their flagship. Canon are releasing a non flagship body after Sony already have and just before Nikon release theirs.
> Some will be happy to be getting the R3 but going from some of the comments there’s definitely some disappointment as well.


I get that. My point being there are reasons to release lower MP cameras opposed to the person who insinuated Canon was living in 2015 or some such year with the R3 due to 24mp. It seems only Sony is allowed to have specialized cameras.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 31, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Quite impressive! Perhaps this battery life goes some way to confirm the 24mp. I would assume that processing less data per frame (i.e. less pixel count) would help prolong battery life further compared to the R5 for example.


Good point. When I got the first 5DS I was surprised how it ate through battery power compared with the 5DII


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jul 31, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I get that. My point being there are reasons to release lower MP cameras opposed to the person who insinuated Canon was living in 2015 or some such year with the R3 due to 24mp. It seems only Sony is allowed to have specialized cameras.


Canon absolutely can have specialised cameras too, the issue for many though is that the A1 is already here, 50mp at 30fps (with compressed RAW) 20fps uncompressed RAW. Nikon have the Z9 coming soon with 45mp at 20pfs or more. A perception is being created that Canon should match those specs in another body that should be coming out at the same time as the R3. The R5 as good as it is, isn't the answer due to its slower sensor read out speed and rolling shutter.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 31, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Good point. When I got the first 5DS I was surprised how it ate through battery power compared with the 5DII


It's more complicated than that. My 30 Mpx 5DIV burns through batteries compared with my 50 Mpx 5DSR, and the CIPA ratings for the 5DIV are 700 shots compared with 900 for the 5DSR. Power consumption by the processor etc is important. With my R5 when I am using EFCS and not taking bursts I get from a few hundred to 600 shots per charge. At 20 fps in ES I can easily get a couple of thousand, but very many identical. The guy with the R3 would have been firing away at 30 fps for only 9 minutes to chalk up his 16000. I am not going to actuate the R5 continuously to see how many I can get!


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 31, 2021)

If you consider the importance of a rapid reaction time, the R3 battery makes sense. The camera will often need to be on all the time in the sense that a DSLR is on all the time.

And the Mpx might be a bit on the high side for the intended customers. Given that the 1DX iii is 20Mpx and there appears to be no complaints from the customers.

When you sit and wait for something to happen and something happens, you bring up your R5 or R6 to your eye, you get a black wall for at least half a second before you can see what is going on. That is enough time for whatever was happening to have happened and the world is completely uninteresting again.

If you want the same reaction time with a mirrorless as with a 1DX mark iii, you will use battery like there is no tomorrow.

So for wildlife and action photography a 1DX iii or s 7D2 for that matter, makes sense. I discovered that trying to photograph seagulls in flight with a R6.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 31, 2021)

tarjei99 said:


> When you sit and wait for something to happen and something happens, you bring up your R5 or R6 to your eye, you get a black wall for at least half a second before you can see what is going on. That is enough time for whatever was happening to have happened and the world is completely uninteresting again.
> 
> If you want the same reaction time with a mirrorless as with a 1DX mark iii, you will use battery like there is no tomorrow.
> 
> So for wildlife and action photography a 1DX iii or s 7D2 for that matter, makes sense. I discovered that trying to photograph seagulls in flight with a R6.


I half-press the shutter the instant I begin to bring the camera up to my eye and the camera is fully active by the time it gets there. Get into the habit of doing that and you won't hit the black wall! It's your technique not the camera that is the problem.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 31, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I half-press the shutter the instant I begin to bring the camera up to my eye and the camera is fully active by the time it gets there. Get into the habit of doing that and you won't hit the black wall! It's your technique not the camera that is the problem.


AlanF this is great advice. It took me a couple of weeks to adjust from a 1Dx MkIi to a R5 and this is exactly what I do when photographing wildlife with the R5. As long as one half pressed the shutter as one brings the camera to one's eye one will rarely miss a shot due to the slower response. Maybe Canon has removed this bottleneck in the R3 or at the very least reduced the lag time.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 31, 2021)

An R6 with a built-in battery grip. 
Well done Canon! 

We need a mirrorless pro body with at least 45 mpix and at least 15fps. 
How hard is that? Do I speak japanese?
Who wants an R6 in a pro body? Yeah, eye controlled autofocus.. Yeey! 

C’mon...


----------



## degos (Jul 31, 2021)

tarjei99 said:


> Given that the 1DX iii is 20Mpx and there appears to be no complaints from the customers.


I know several people, myself included, who decided not to upgrade to the 1DX3 because it didn't offer a resolution bump.

So there's a selection bias in that statement. Customers might have been happy with 20MP but other potential customers were lost.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 31, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> An R6 with a built-in battery grip.
> Well done Canon!
> 
> We need a mirrorless pro body with at least 45 mpix and at least 15fps.
> ...


Search results: it looks like you have just reinvented a canon (No. 14)...


----------



## kaihp (Jul 31, 2021)

cayenne said:


> 20%...*OUCH*!!
> 
> And I've been compiling about 10% sales tax down here in the New Orleans area.


25% VAT says hello from Denmark, Norway and Sweden*.

*) Sweden has a differentiated VAT rate, e.g. food has a lower rate


----------



## tjphoto (Jul 31, 2021)

1DXMkiii doesn’t do 30 FPS with electronic shutter and flash . R5, R6 don’t do it either . I will buy this camera for this feature alone.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 31, 2021)

People want 30 fps for stills, but 24 fps for movies, according to threads here. That reminds me a bit of folks who put their thermostats on 68 in the summer and 78 in the winter.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 31, 2021)

JamesG25 said:


> The R3 very much feels like how the R was to the R5/R6. Is Canon’s opportunity to test some concepts for a pro-body e.g size, button placement, flip screen and eye controlled autofocus. Very much feels that there will be no MKII version of this camera, just like the original EOS3. Having said that I still think that it will be a great camera to use, with some trade offs, just like the R.
> 
> Now that we know most of the specifications and assuming that the 24mp sensor is correct, what are people’s feeling on price? My guess that in US market we are going to see annouced at $5499, that will give space for Canon to price an eventual R1 at $6899.


A proto


sanj said:


> He is still focusing on stutter speed.


the guy can shoot whataver way he wants as long as he gets the shots and look good. A lot of real world real life photogs arent settings nazis. Get the shot and keep it moving.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 31, 2021)

stevelee said:


> People want 30 fps for stills, but 24 fps for movies, according to threads here. That reminds me a bit of folks who put their thermostats on 68 in the summer and 78 in the winter.


That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 31, 2021)

My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 31, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.
> 
> My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.











FUJIFILM GFX100 | Cameras | FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global


Product information for mirrorless digital camera FUJIFILM GFX100 for FUJIFILM GFX system




fujifilm-x.com












Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format Mirrorless Camera


Come celebrate your Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format Mirrorless Camera and your favorite Fujinon lenses! :) Be cool! :)




www.flickr.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.


In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that _we_ did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.
> 
> Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?
> 
> ...


My year was 1968-69 in a crummy building with no dehumidification in the summer and huge heat loss in the winter. Modern labs are superb. My present one is a work of art as well as needing very complex programming to run the heating and airflow.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 1, 2021)

eliz82 said:


> I don't think this is firmware related but sensor hardware architecture related.
> 
> 1) This kind of sensors with multiple raw sizes like for example 7D, 5D mark II, 5D mark III used to have, do not exist anymore. Except the recent cameras like 6D mark II for example, that still use old sensors (single gain), this camera still have multiple raw resolutions, but worse dynamic range.
> Since they added dual gain to sensors (since 1D X mark II), multiple resolutions in RAW mode have disappeared.
> ...



Yes, sensor-based but resolution is selectable in firmware. The Leica M11 is rumored to have a new 60mp BSI sensor that will shoot in three resolution modes. And since Canon is designing their own new BSI sensor, they may have found a way around any downsides.


----------



## sanj (Aug 1, 2021)

degos said:


> I know several people, myself included, who decided not to upgrade to the 1DX3 because it didn't offer a resolution bump.
> 
> So there's a selection bias in that statement. Customers might have been happy with 20MP but other potential customers were lost.


Yes, true.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 1, 2021)

So you pay 6000 for a R6 + 10fps extra ... Whatever rocks your boat peeps!

If it is definitely 24 mpix, I’ll wait for the R1 ... but my patience is being tested on a scale beyond belief.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> FUJIFILM GFX100 | Cameras | FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global
> 
> 
> Product information for mirrorless digital camera FUJIFILM GFX100 for FUJIFILM GFX system
> ...


There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.


For someone really requiring resolution - and that means an output size large enough to see that increase, sensor size wins every time. As has been mentioned in other treads, virtually no one is outputting at that kind of size, and for those that do it will be the exception not the rule.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.


It does outresolve the R5 with a 3.76µ pixel pitch compared with 4.39µ.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.


The lens selection for GFX is quite limited though, and overall cost will still be much higher than an R5 with a EF trinity.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.


Yes, I could get a lens or two and still be under $10,000. For my purposes it definitely seems a better choice than getting into the RF cameras. But it would be such a splurge for my limited use that I'll really have to be in the right mood to buy (mainly a dreary one: deciding that life is too short to forego having the camera, and why should I care about having an extra $10K in my estate). I would still use my Canon gear as much as ever for most things. The 100S would be for additional landscape shooting mostly. A Zeiss monochrome camera might be a good choice for that instead. Or maybe just get the 24mm TS-E for my inner desire to be Ansel Adams. I realize I'm thinking of compensating myself for not traveling since March 12, 2020, using the money I would have spent. I have used photography as a way to try to stay sane during this time, and have shot locally. I get assignments to shoot for the neighborhood newsletter, and those can be fun, like shooting the doll houses made by a woman down the street. I may be the third best photographer in the neighborhood. My only anticipated big purchase will be when the new larger iMac comes out.


----------



## GoldWing (Aug 1, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Am I the only one surprised that the pros are using auto white balance? I can’t say I know anyone who’s sole income comes from photography, that uses auto white balance. I don’t shoot sports, or know anyone making a living shooting sports, so maybe it’s just a sports thing?


Depends on the camera. Some OOC Jpegs with AWB shot outdoors are spot on. Easy to batch and correct. Using grey card, meter, color checker all good until a cloud comes or you change direction. Also if athletes are at a distance.... challenging. If they are shooting tethered how do you know they are not correcting in the truck? Too many factors....


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The R3 battery, LP-E19, has nearly twice the mWh the R5 battery has.


But the R5 battery grip gives you two batteries!


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Aug 1, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> The key is that these few tax-hungry states require you to file an annual report and sign under oath and with criminal penalties for lying, swaeaiung as to your actual unpaid sales taxes, or paying them their required minimum. Most states with a few notable exceptions don't do anything, including go after individuals (or it would be big news).


B&H will credit you the sales tax if you use their credit card.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 1, 2021)

In Singapore you will get the sales tax back at the airport when you leave and they will NOT tell your local tax authorities about it. So you can basically shop tax free in Singapore. Of course you should get rid of the packaging of your new camera and look like a tourist who bought it at home. That way the R5 costs almost 700 Euros less than in Germany and that is enough money for an economy flight to Singapore and back.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Aug 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> In Singapore you will get the sales tax back at the airport when you leave and they will NOT tell your local tax authorities about it. So you can basically shop tax free in Singapore. Of course you should get rid of the packaging of your new camera and look like a tourist who bought it at home. That way the R5 costs almost 700 Euros less than in Germany and that is enough money for an economy flight to Singapore and back.


And what you should do when you return to EU is to walk the red line and declare your goods at the customs office, and pay the VAT and possible import duties (though no duties on cameras in EU at the moment). That is, if you want to be a lawful citizen, and not a smuggler.


----------



## Monty (Aug 1, 2021)

With over 600+ comments on the rumored 24 Mp R3, it's like reading a great mystery novel. I think I've read all of the threads and sub-threads but here is my guess and 2 cents, based upon clues mentioned earlier throughout. The comment(rumor) that talked about the new R3 providing high resolution but with a trick suggests to me that even though the new R3 may only have a 24 MP sensor,, canon maybe holding back on announcing that they will have a "pixel shift" mode that would provide a higher resolution picture! Other clues I'm taking into consideration: 1.) New form of IBIS(sensor shift for accomplishment of pixel shift?) 
Anyway, can't wait for the official release!
Cheers


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2021)

Monty said:


> With over 600+ comments on the rumored 24 Mp R3, it's like reading a great mystery novel. I think I've read all of the threads and sub-threads but here is my guess and 2 cents, based upon clues mentioned earlier throughout. The comment(rumor) that talked about the new R3 providing high resolution but with a trick suggests to me that even though the new R3 may only have a 24 MP sensor,, canon maybe holding back on announcing that they will have a "pixel shift" mode that would provide a higher resolution picture! Other clues I'm taking into consideration: 1.) New form of IBIS(sensor shift for accomplishment of pixel shift?)
> Anyway, can't wait for the official release!
> Cheers


Has anybody implemented pixel shift where it is anything but a spec sheet point? It seems to me if both camera and subject movement have to be limited to less than a pixel width it is a 'feature' with very little real world value.


----------



## JohnC (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Has anybody implemented pixel shift where it is anything but a spec sheet point? It seems to me if both camera and subject movement have to be limited to less than a pixel width it is a 'feature' with very little real world value.


In a stacked sensor design, can the sensors move independently of each other? If so you could at least in theory get a shifted image in one exposure.


----------



## Monty (Aug 1, 2021)

I believe that a number of other good camera manufacturers have implemented pixel shift technology. That said, many caveat it with practical suggestions that it would be good for landscape or portrait photography where there is little or no movement


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2021)

JohnC said:


> In a stacked sensor design, can the sensors move independently of each other? If so you could at least in theory get a shifted image in one exposure.


No. You are misunderstanding the term stacked sensor. All the light sensitive photodiodes are on the same level and physical 'thing'.


----------



## JohnC (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No. You are misunderstanding the term stacked sensor. All the light sensitive photodiodes are on the same level and physical 'thing'.


Okay thank you. I wasn’t sure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2021)

Monty said:


> I believe that a number of other good camera manufacturers have implemented pixel shift technology. That said, many caveat it with practical suggestions that it would be good for landscape or portrait photography where there is little or no movement


Yes the technology has been implemented by several man=ufacturers, my question was has anybody done it where it has practical real world uses outside very still life subjects in studios? I don't believe so.


----------



## Monty (Aug 1, 2021)

Don't know. Let's let the community weigh-in.
Cheers


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 1, 2021)

Monty said:


> I believe that a number of other good camera manufacturers have implemented pixel shift technology. That said, many caveat it with practical suggestions that it would be good for landscape or portrait photography where there is little or no movement


This could very well be the trick but it’s hard to see how this would be an exciting feature on a high speed sports and action camera if the feature cannot be used for any moving subjects.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2021)

Monty said:


> Don't know. Let's let the community weigh-in.
> Cheers


By definition pixel shift technology will always be a sideshow with practically no real world use (particularly in a low resolution sports orientated camera) as it necessitates several different exposures.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 1, 2021)

BurningPlatform said:


> And what you should do when you return to EU is to walk the red line and declare your goods at the customs office, and pay the VAT and possible import duties (though no duties on cameras in EU at the moment). That is, if you want to be a lawful citizen, and not a smuggler.


I never understood why a country thinks it has the right for taxes on something I bought somewhere else. And I do not like the EU a bit. They invent new taxes all the time.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> By definition pixel shift technology will always be a sideshow with practically no real world use (particularly in a low resolution sports orientated camera) as it necessitates several different exposures.


Predictions have a nasty habit of coming back to bite you! The Pentax K-3 III already has a primitive motion compensation for pixel shift and the clever programmers may well will work out more efficient ways of neutralising movement between shots. There is quite a lot of published work on compensation for movement between images.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Predictions have a nasty habit of coming back to bite you! The Pentax K-3 III already has a primitive motion compensation for pixel shift and the clever programmers may well will work out more efficient ways of neutralising movement between shots. There is quite a lot of published work on compensation for movement between images.


I know, half the time I say stuff like that just to be proven wrong!

The truth is 24mp 95% of the time and pixel shift - that works- for the other 5% of the time would suit me perfectly!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> The key is that these few tax-hungry states require you to file an annual report and sign under oath and with criminal penalties for lying, swaeaiung as to your actual unpaid sales taxes, or paying them their required minimum. Most states with a few notable exceptions don't do anything, including go after individuals (or it would be big news).


Yes, the sheer audacity of some states wanting people to follow the law and pay the revenues they legally owe.

So if your state doesn’t go after you, then committing an illegal act is perfectly fine? That seems to be your implication over several posts. Is claiming your dog as a dependent on your tax return ok, as long as you don’t get caught? Stealing from your employer? Mugging that little old lady walking home from cashing her social security check? Hey, as long as you don’t get caught, it’s all good, right?

Now, I know you’re not advocating robbery. But what about when that little old lady that you didn’t rob has her house burn to the ground because there was another fire in the area and the local fire department was inadequately resourced, because they didn’t get their share of the billions of dollars of state revenue lost to scofflaws like you? Or maybe it will be your house. But you can relax, because in your opinion you’re committing and encouraging a ‘victimless crime’. Bravo!

Ps, you _do_ know that not paying use tax on out of state purchases is illegal like all forms of tax fraud, don’t you? And you know that it’s not the merchant’s responsibility to pay it, it’s yours, right?


----------



## Mekos (Aug 1, 2021)

Hope R6 mark II will come (2022) to the non-pro but expert market with a minimum of 32 Mp (and a maximum of 36 Mp)! If not, I guess Fujifilm X-H2, even not being a FF camera, costing below $2500, will rule that market! Besides their excellent lenses, there're great adapters for our Canon lenses, EF and FD included!!! Please, Canon, don't let us down again!


----------



## john1970 (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Has anybody implemented pixel shift where it is anything but a spec sheet point? It seems to me if both camera and subject movement have to be limited to less than a pixel width it is a 'feature' with very little real world value.


I agree. I find pixel shift technology completely useless in the read world. Sounds great on a spec sheet, but that is about it especially on a camera designated for sports. Now if the sensor is a quad-bayer array that is a different story, but I do not anticipate such technology. Wait another 4-6 weeks for an official announcement....


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2021)

Mekos said:


> Hope R6 mark II will come (2022) to the non-pro but expert market with a minimum of 32 Mp (and a maximum of 36 Mp)! If not, I guess Fujifilm X-H2, even not being a FF camera, costing below $2500, will rule that market! Besides their excellent lenses, there're great adapters for our Canon lenses, EF and FD included!!! Please, Canon, don't let us down again!


There will be no R6II in 2022. Fujifilm has a long way to go to rule the market -- indeed, even Fujifilm has admitted they are in the market for sentimental reasons more than anything else. If you feel Canon has let you down, then buy something else. Posting on a web forum isn't going to make any difference.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 1, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I never understood why a country thinks it has the right for taxes on something I bought somewhere else. And I do not like the EU a bit. They invent new taxes all the time.


The former French president wanted even to implement a tax on emails !
No, it isn't a joke...
And a several years ago, in France, wheelchairs for disabled people were considered vehicles and submitted to the same luxury taxation (33% if I'm not mistaken) as Porsches, Lamborghinis or Renault cars.
And again, this is no joke...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 1, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> The former French president wanted even a tax on emails !
> No, it isn't a joke...


In Germany some cities have a tax on rain. I think a tax on air might be next.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> The former French president wanted even a tax on emails !
> No, it isn't a joke...


I’d fully support a tax on bulk emails. If it cost companies (and politicians) money to send out millions upon millions of emails maybe they’d actually unsubscribe you when you asked rather than simply sell your email to other similar companies and politicians.


----------



## emailfortom (Aug 1, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> But the R5 battery grip gives you two batteries!


A single battery offers a significant advantage. Try changing the batteries in the R5 and R3... "quickly", and you will see the value of the LP-E19. Replacing or swapping out the two LP-E6NH from the battery grip's sled is a pain in the ass if you're trying to do it quickly, in the field. I reached out to Canon to see if I could purchase another battery grip sled, but they don't offer it for sale.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d fully support a tax on batch emails. If it cost companies (and politicians) money to send out millions upon millions of emails maybe they’d actually unsubscribe you when you asked rather than simply sell your email to other similar companies and politicians.


He meant also private emails...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2021)

emailfortom said:


> A single battery offers a significant advantage. Try changing the batteries in the R5 and R3... "quickly", and you will see the value of the LP-E19. Replacing or swapping out the two LP-E6NH from the battery grip's sled is a pain in the ass if you're trying to do it quickly, in the field. I reached out to Canon to see if I could purchase another battery grip sled, but they don't offer it for sale.


I never checked, but I'm kind of surprised. I used to buy extra battery "sleds" (interesting phrase, never heard it, but it fits) for my Canon speedlite battery packs. That way, if I needed to change the batteries mid-shoot, I could just slide an extra pack in, rather than changing out multiple batteries. It would be handy to do that with battery packs for the grips.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d fully support a tax on batch emails. If it cost companies (and politicians) money to send out millions upon millions of emails maybe they’d actually unsubscribe you when you asked rather than simply sell your email to other similar companies and politicians.


Something I didn't realize until recently and still not sure I understand, is that emails actually contribute to global warming. So, I would not be surprised to see some sort of energy tax in the future. I make no claims regarding the accuracy of this article and it is just one example I found, but it is interesting nonetheless.


----------



## sandhar (Aug 1, 2021)

Monty said:


> With over 600+ comments on the rumored 24 Mp R3, it's like reading a great mystery novel. I think I've read all of the threads and sub-threads but here is my guess and 2 cents, based upon clues mentioned earlier throughout. The comment(rumor) that talked about the new R3 providing high resolution but with a trick suggests to me that even though the new R3 may only have a 24 MP sensor,, canon maybe holding back on announcing that they will have a "pixel shift" mode that would provide a higher resolution picture! Other clues I'm taking into consideration: 1.) New form of IBIS(sensor shift for accomplishment of pixel shift?)
> Anyway, can't wait for the official release!
> Cheers



this is a complete swag .. but is it possible that the DPAF sub-pixels, instead of being combined into a single R, G or B value - actually get retained as R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 .. and there is a post processing "resolution trick" to take advantage of this subtle difference in light capture of all the surrounding sub-pixels and create a new image with higher resolution ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2021)

sandhar said:


> this is a complete swag .. but is it possible that the DPAF sub-pixels, instead of being combined into a single R, G or B value - actually get retained as R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 .. and there is a post processing "resolution trick" to take advantage of this subtle difference in light capture of all the surrounding sub-pixels and create a new image with higher resolution ?


Higher resolution in only one dimension. So if it’s 24 MP, that trick would change your 6000x4000 image to 12000x4000.


----------



## Devcam (Aug 2, 2021)

sandhar said:


> this is a complete swag .. but is it possible that the DPAF sub-pixels, instead of being combined into a single R, G or B value - actually get retained as R1, R2, G1, G2, B1, B2 .. and there is a post processing "resolution trick" to take advantage of this subtle difference in light capture of all the surrounding sub-pixels and create a new image with higher resolution ?


I wonder if this trick is possible. As far as I understand the DPAF the two images from the sub pixel are thealmost the same, but shifted for the out of focus parts. So if the whole images is in focus the two images should be the identical. If my understanding of the DPAF is approximately right, it cannot really prove the resulution...

However, canon could put different colorfilter in front of the sup pixel, which would double the color information and probable improve the debayer process.


----------



## NKD (Aug 2, 2021)

Possibly, already covered. 
Apparently Nikon had their pro body testing w/ variants of sensors from ~40 - 60mp within their bodies.
Still hopeful Canon's ~24 MP sensor was input just for Olympics to meet demand in time, as a speed burst shooter. 
Seems the R5 is best suited as a second body for non-action shots.

Love the design
Would buy if this was at least 30mp+. 

Otherwise hold tight for the 5dSr replacement
Hope this has a built in grip, just like the R3 & not a tack on battery grip.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I never checked, but I'm kind of surprised. I used to buy extra battery "sleds" (interesting phrase, never heard it, but it fits) for my Canon speedlite battery packs. That way, if I needed to change the batteries mid-shoot, I could just slide an extra pack in, rather than changing out multiple batteries. It would be handy to do that with battery packs for the grips.





emailfortom said:


> A single battery offers a significant advantage. Try changing the batteries in the R5 and R3... "quickly", and you will see the value of the LP-E19. Replacing or swapping out the two LP-E6NH from the battery grip's sled is a pain in the ass if you're trying to do it quickly, in the field. I reached out to Canon to see if I could purchase another battery grip sled, but they don't offer it for sale.


“Sled” is a good term. I’d suggest “magazine” as well. And I suggest contacting Canon to see what they charge for a replacement when reporting “mine broke”. As I presume they do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2021)

NKD said:


> Otherwise hold tight for the 5dSr replacement
> Hope this has a built in grip, just like the R3 & not a tack on battery grip.


A 5DsR replacement would have a 5-series form factor, not a 1-series form factor.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 2, 2021)

NKD said:


> ... Still hopeful Canon's ~24 MP sensor was input just for Olympics to meet demand in time, as a speed burst shooter.
> Seems the R5 is best suited as a second body for non-action shots...


I don't want to pick on you since you are "new here." But, this talk about Canon putting a different sensor in for the Olympics...limiting the resolution available to Olympic photographers...testing the sensor at the Olympics before making a final decision...manipulating the EXIF data...etc. etc., is just fantasy land.

It is far too late to be making any changes in the camera, especially something major like sensor resolution. Canon is not going to do anything funky to the camera before handing it out to Olympic photographers. One of the main purposes of making it available is to compile a nice selection of photos that Canon can use in marketing the camera. That means, what the camera is today is what it will be when it is released. The only thing that's going to change would be if the users found some issue that required a firmware adjustment.

Also, in what world would the R5 be "best suited as a second body for non-action shots." Take 30 seconds and google the R5 then take a look at the dozens of videos from photographers using the R5 to capture birds in flight.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't want to pick on you since you are "new here." But, this talk about Canon putting a different sensor in for the Olympics...limiting the resolution available to Olympic photographers...testing the sensor at the Olympics before making a final decision...manipulating the EXIF data...etc. etc., is just fantasy land.
> 
> It is far too late to be making any changes in the camera, especially something major like sensor resolution. Canon is not going to do anything funky to the camera before handing it out to Olympic photographers. One of the main purposes of making it available is to compile a nice selection of photos that Canon can use in marketing the camera. That means, what the camera is today is what it will be when it is released. The only thing that's going to change would be if the users found some issue that required a firmware adjustment.
> 
> Also, in what world would the R5 be "best suited as a second body for non-action shots." Take 30 seconds and google the R5 then take a look at the dozens of videos from photographers using the R5 to capture birds in flight.


A high resolution BSI sensor that hardware scales to two smaller sizes is possible. Firmware to fully support the higher resolutions (heat management issues for example) may not be finished, so a scenario where Canon locks the resolution to the lowest setting is within the realm of possibility. Unlikely. But possible.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Something I didn't realize until recently and still not sure I understand, is that emails actually contribute to global warming. So, I would not be surprised to see some sort of energy tax in the future. I make no claims regarding the accuracy of this article and it is just one example I found, but it is interesting nonetheless.


Every post you make here adds to global warming. So, there is one way you can make your personal contribution to saving the planet…


----------



## sanj (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> In Germany some cities have a tax on rain. I think a tax on air might be next.


Yes, agree, the mpx count (the topic of this thread) is now very boring.


----------



## Joules (Aug 2, 2021)

sanj said:


> Yes, agree, the mpx count (the topic of this thread) is now very boring.


Maybe it is so low because Canon are trying to evade some new tax on megapixels


----------



## tapanit (Aug 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't want to pick on you since you are "new here." But, this talk about Canon putting a different sensor in for the Olympics...limiting the resolution available to Olympic photographers...testing the sensor at the Olympics before making a final decision...manipulating the EXIF data...etc. etc., is just fantasy land.
> 
> It is far too late to be making any changes in the camera, especially something major like sensor resolution. Canon is not going to do anything funky to the camera before handing it out to Olympic photographers. One of the main purposes of making it available is to compile a nice selection of photos that Canon can use in marketing the camera. That means, what the camera is today is what it will be when it is released. The only thing that's going to change would be if the users found some issue that required a firmware adjustment.


Without any inside information on Canon's logistics, I tend to believe it's already too late to make even firmware changes, if they're going to announce it in September and have it actually available soon after that. An updated firmware could be published and made downloadable at the same time, but by now there must already be cameras in boxes waiting to be shipped and their firmware obviously cannot be changed any more.

I also agree that the camera in the hands of testers now must have essentially final firmware. I can just barely imagine Canon doing a custom tester firmware with no other changes than fake exif data for the resolution, but even that is really stretching it.

So I guess the resolution is indeed 6000x4000 pixels. Which presumably means 4K video will be cropped, 1.04x with oversampling from 5760 pixel width (6K) or 1.56x raw.

I must, however, admit a small voice in my head telling me that those exif reports are apparently only based on a chrome plugin, which may not be reliable...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> Maybe it is so low because Canon are trying to evade some new tax on megapixels


The EU already had a tax on video cameras that can shoot longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. So a megapixel tax might not be unthinkable, because with a lot of megapixels you can make a high quality copy of documents and prints and of course copy machines are taxed.


----------



## tron (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The EU already had a tax on video cameras that can shoot longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. So a megapixel tax might not be unthinkable, because with a lot of megapixels you can make a high quality copy of documents and prints and of course copy machines are taxed.


You are joking right? Because taxes already apply plus document copies can be made with flatbed scanners much easier and cheaper.


----------



## Joules (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The EU already had a tax on video cameras that can shoot longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. So a megapixel tax might not be unthinkable, because with a lot of megapixels you can make a high quality copy of documents and prints and of course copy machines are taxed.


Relax, it was a joke. You seem to think taxes just exist to annoy people.

There will not be a megapixel tax, as there is no need to incentivize people to shoot with lower resolutions. As was already pointed out, multiplying documents can be done a whole lot easier than with cameras.

Just as there is no point anymore in the recording length tax, which is why it also does not exist anymore. As far as I know, it came from the time when camcorders could be used to easily record and copy movies and TV, which certain lobbying groups have an interest in discouraging.

As for the rain water, as far as I'm aware that is a control tax to discourage people from sealing all their property and thereby increase the public cost of canalization.

The market is poor at accounting for public or long term cost, hence taxes exist to at least partially discourage certain behaviors without banning them.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> Relax, it was a joke. You seem to think taxes just exist to annoy people.
> 
> There will not be a megapixel tax, as there is no need to incentivize people to shoot with lower resolutions. As was already pointed out, multiplying documents can be done a whole lot easier than with cameras.
> 
> ...


There are those of us who believe that taxes are necessary and worthwhile to provide public services and to support those who are less fortunate than ourselves. And that group tends to support the aims of the EU in levelling up countries and their citizens (or in my case subjects). And, as you imply, taxes on things like carbon dioxide emission are there to promote the common good.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> There are those of us who believe that taxes are necessary and worthwhile to provide public services and to support those who are less fortunate than ourselves. And that group tends to support the aims of the EU in levelling up countries and their citizens (or in my case subjects). And, as you imply, taxation on things like carbon dioxide emission are there to promote the common good.


Those copyright taxes were there to compensate copyright holders for copyright violations. So on every recording, storage or printing device there was a tax, even if you did not use that device for copyright violations. That always made me very angry, because it meant that all law abiding people had to pay a part of the fines for copyright violations. Many years ago drivers in the EU even made flatbed scanners much slower than in the US to make it more difficult to scan a whole book for example. So if you installed a driver from the US for example, your scanner suddenly was much faster. I hate it to be treated as a criminal before I really have committed a crime. Imagine instead of finding out who drives too fast the police would just send very car owner a $10 fine for speeding. 

And are there people who are even less fortunate than photographers who have learned that Canon will likely stop producing DSLRs?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Those copyright taxes were there to compensate copyright holders for copyright violations. So on every recording, storage or printing device there was a tax, even if you did not use that device for copyright violations. That always made me very angry, because it meant that all law abiding people had to pay a part of the fines for copyright violations. Many years ago drivers in the EU even made flatbed scanners much slower than in the US to make it more difficult to scan a whole book for example. So if you installed a driver from the US for example, your scanner suddenly was much faster. I hate it to be treated as a criminal before I really have committed a crime. Imagine instead of finding out who drives too fast the police would just send very car owner a $10 fine for speeding.
> 
> And are there people who are even less fortunate than photographers who have learned that Canon will likely stop producing DSLRs?


The taxes are imposed by individual countries and not the EU. Germany, your country, was the first to apply them in 1965. After a consultation began in 2008, Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive allowed EU member states to introduce private copying exemptions to copyright infringement in their respective countries. However, the implementation of this provision across Europe is quite different. Some countries like the UK (during and after membership of the EU) and Ireland do not have copyright levy schemes at all.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Aug 2, 2021)

Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:



> Anyway, as we have learned, the photographer Jeff Cable - who is testing the camera and whose photos have served to know the supposed resolution - ensures that the R3 has more than 24 megapixels. If it is true or just a piece of information to mislead, we will surely know it in a short time.



Though, it it is unclear for me where this information/claim comes from.

I think already I have mentioned that if the camera is higher resolution, but offers option to shot in 20-24mp, Jeff Cable would probably choose the lower resolution mode. From an old "wishlist" on Jeff Cable's blog:



> ** User selectable image resolution*
> 
> Many of the newer DSLR and mirrorless cameras are offering really high resolutions, in the 40MP to 70MP range. For most of my photography, I don't need or even want that type of resolution. But I would love to have the choice to shoot at various resolutions, depending on what I am capturing. I would love to have a camera that would let me shoot anywhere from 20MP to 50MP, and make it use selectable.


( http://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/01/my-wish-list-for-next-canon.html )


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great link Stig!


----------



## reef58 (Aug 2, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wholly mackerel if that is true.

Maybe the resolution "trick" Cable has referenced is shooting at a lower mp in this case 24?


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 2, 2021)

DPR confirmed from a photo editor at the Olympics that the resolution is, in fact, 24 MP. It might still have some resolution trick, though.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Every post you make here adds to global warming. So, there is one way you can make your personal contribution to saving the planet…


You first.


----------



## R1-7D (Aug 2, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> DPR confirmed from a photo editor at the Olympics that the resolution is, in fact, 24 MP. It might still have some resolution trick, though.



Do you have a link you can provide us in which the photo editor confirms this?


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 2, 2021)

Just the one from DPR itself:








Exclusive: Olympics photo editor confirms Canon's EOS R3 has a 24MP sensor


After speaking with a photo editor working with files captured at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, DPReview has confirmed that the native resolution of the Canon is 24MP.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## lethiferous (Aug 2, 2021)

Finally those not willing to accept the truth can stop their wishful thinking. The resolution trick is simple, its called pixel shift. Everyone has it just except Canon and Nikon. Even the 10 Pentax users have pixel shift.


----------



## Joules (Aug 2, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> Just the one from DPR itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"DPReview can confirm the maximum resolution of files coming straight out of Canon EOS R3 cameras being used at the Olympics is 6000 x 4000 pixels, meaning the sensor inside is 24MP. File sizes come in between 14MB and 16MB."

So not really confirmation of the sensor resolution at all. Clearly those are JPEGs that are being talked about, as the file size of 24 MP RAWs from my 80D sits between 20 and 35 MB. Or are they shooting some super lossy variant of CRAW? Edit: I checked and underestimated the potential of CRAW. Apparently those file size reductions sound about right. Now, I don't know if CRAW might come with downsizing options like the old mRAW and sRAW options now. If it doesn't, like on the current bodies, that does indeed sound like confirmation after all... 

While 24 most likely is the the right MP count, the JPEGs coming out of the camera are rather poor proof of it. As was mentioned multiple times, Canon can easily limit those in firmware.


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> "DPReview can confirm the maximum resolution of files coming straight out of Canon EOS R3 cameras being used at the Olympics is 6000 x 4000 pixels, meaning the sensor inside is 24MP. File sizes come in between 14MB and 16MB."
> 
> So not really confirmation of the sensor resolution at all. Clearly those are JPEGs that are being talked about, as the file size of 24 MP RAWs from my 80D sits between 20 and 35 MB. Or are they shooting some super lossy variant of CRAW? Edit: I checked and underestimated the potential of CRAW. Apparently those file size reductions sound about right. Now, I don't know if CRAW might come with downsizing options like the old mRAW and sRAW options now. If it doesn't, like on the current bodies, that does indeed sound like confirmation after all...
> 
> While 24 most likely is the the right MP count, the JPEGs coming out of the camera are rather poor proof of it. As was mentioned multiple times, Canon can easily limit those in firmware.


The resolution doesn't change if you're shooting JPEGs. Source: I've shot JPEGs all my life. The R5's JPEGs still show up as 45 MP, and the R6's still show up as 20 MP.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 2, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> The resolution doesn't change if you're shooting JPEGs. Source: I've shot JPEGs all my life. The R5's JPEGs still show up as 45 MP, and the R6's still show up as 20 MP.


Even if you choose smaller size JPEGs from the menus?


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Even if you choose smaller size JPEGs from the menus?


 The resolution doesn't change, just the file size.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> The resolution doesn't change, just the file size.


I just tested it with the 1D X. If I look at the EXIF of the small JPEG, it shows half the height and half the width. So these parameters really shrink with the JPEG size. However the EXIF data you get through http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi also shows lines called "Sensor Height" and "Sensor Width". Those lines should give you the real values.


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 2, 2021)

Fair enough. I've always shot the best/largest quality JPEGs.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

I always use the smallest JPEGs, because I only use the JPEGs for previewing my photos in the Windows Explorer. The JPEGs out of the camera are pretty bad, no matter how I tweak the settings. So I am forced to use RAWs if I want to use the photo for anything other than Instagram.


----------



## R1-7D (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I just tested it with the 1D X. If I look at the EXIF of the small JPEG, it shows half the height and half the width. So these parameters really shrink with the JPEG size. However the EXIF data you get through http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi also shows lines called "Sensor Height" and "Sensor Width". Those lines should give you the real values.



Interesting.

Does anyone have anything to add to this?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

I have tried the image from Jeff Cable's Blog and it hardly has any EXIF data. Maybe it was deleted after the "leak", but I did not find the original file from his blog yet. So I could not test it with the EXIF viewer.


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 2, 2021)

I'm gonna look at the JPEG settings of my R5 and R6 when I get home.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

In my camera I can change the JPEG quality (level of compression) and the JPEG resolution. I think that is the case with all cameras.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> "DPReview can confirm the maximum resolution of files coming straight out of Canon EOS R3 cameras being used at the Olympics is 6000 x 4000 pixels, meaning the sensor inside is 24MP. File sizes come in between 14MB and 16MB."
> 
> So not really confirmation of the sensor resolution at all. Clearly those are JPEGs that are being talked about, as the file size of 24 MP RAWs from my 80D sits between 20 and 35 MB. Or are they shooting some super lossy variant of CRAW? Edit: I checked and underestimated the potential of CRAW. Apparently those file size reductions sound about right. Now, I don't know if CRAW might come with downsizing options like the old mRAW and sRAW options now. If it doesn't, like on the current bodies, that does indeed sound like confirmation after all...
> 
> While 24 most likely is the the right MP count, the JPEGs coming out of the camera are rather poor proof of it. As was mentioned multiple times, Canon can easily limit those in firmware.




They are probably using CRAW which tend to end up as around half the size of ordinary RAW.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 2, 2021)

tarjei99 said:


> They are probably using CRAW which tend to end up as around half the size of ordinary RAW.


The photos on Jeff Cable’s blog are JPEG.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I have tried the image from Jeff Cable's Blog and it hardly has any EXIF data. Maybe it was deleted after the "leak", but I did not find the original file from his blog yet. So I could not test it with the EXIF viewer.


The EXIF data is still visible using a Chrome plugin. I checked to see if it was subsequently removed (perhaps a clue that this was an involuntary leak) and it has not been. The Chrome plug-in does not have fields for sensor size.
I could not see EXIF in a downloaded file, but it appears fine within the browser as long as the plugin is used.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The EXIF data is still visible using a Chrome plugin. I checked to see if it was subsequently removed (perhaps a clue that this was an involuntary leak) and it has not been. The Chrome plug-in does not have fields for sensor size.
> I could not see EXIF in a downloaded file, but it appears fine within the browser as long as the plugin is used.


Why is that EXIF data only visible with a Crome plugin, if it came from a Canon camera? If I upload any of my old photos to that EXIF viewer I linked, it shows me hundreds of lines of EXIF data. Did Jeff Cable use some Google program to shrink the photo for his blog or does the R3 have a new EXIF format that old EXIF viewers do not understand?


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Why is that EXIF data only visible with a Crome plugin, if it came from a Canon camera? If I upload any of my old photos to that EXIF viewer I linked, it shows me hundreds of lines of EXIF data. Did Jeff Cable use some Google program to shrink the photo for his blog or does the R3 have a new EXIF format that old EXIF viewers do not understand?


I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, unfortunately. I have zero affiliations with EXIF viewers or Jeff Cable. The viewer I used is called EXIF viewer pro and is available as a free download.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, unfortunately. I have zero affiliations with EXIF viewers or Jeff Cable. The viewer I used is called EXIF viewer pro and is available as a free download.


I found that Exif Viewer, but it only seems to be a available for Chrome. I would not install Chrome on my computer, because it really is the worst browser ever and a privacy nightmare.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I found that Exif Viewer, but it only seems to be a available for Chrome. I would not install Chrome on my computer, because it really is the worst browser ever and a privacy nightmare.



The biggest piece of spyware ever...until Windows 10 came along.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 2, 2021)

You should never use Windows 10 Home. Only Windows 10 Pro gives you enough control over the "telemetry".


----------



## SteveC (Aug 2, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You should never use Windows 10 Home. Only Windows 10 Pro gives you enough control over the "telemetry".


 I switched to linux. Sadly I can't get any photo processing to work on Linux (other than Gimp), and forget DaVinci resolve!! I have an airgapped Windows 7 box for that kind of thing but unfortunately even that is too old for software nowadays. (Worse: to my surprise it apparently isn't even service pack 1, and I can't upgrade it except with a disc, and the disc requires SP 1 to function.)


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 3, 2021)

What would be the reason of testing the camera with artificially limited resolution knowing that the potential problems (overheating/AF speed and accuracy) could rather occur at the final (highest) resolution the sensor delivers?


----------



## WildlifeCan-on (Aug 3, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has been mentioned in early announcements that the R3 should have ”a resolution trick”... due to that your thinking regarding Jeff Cables photos and the EXIF:s from Tokyo, for sure are worth a penny or two...
Will be very interesting to find out about ”the resolution trick” that has been mentioned. Wouldn’t surprise me of we can chose the resolution between perhaps 24 to 48MP... Lets hope for it! )


----------



## drhuffman87 (Aug 3, 2021)

May we please have some new rumors that new rumors will be coming soon? I think everyone on this site understands there is a high probability that the R3 will have 24mp lol.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 3, 2021)

You want to know what really happened? This is it: 

Canon was producing this camera... named it the R1. When suddenly Sony launched the A1. 
50mpix, 30fps. OMG, Canon went crazy.. what to do?? Well.. they decided to call the R1 the R3. Just to keep some photographers happy (mainly sports) and to buy a little time to develop the 'real' R1. 
Sometimes things are so simple. 

Canon is running behind guys. Sure, their glass is nice, cams are good, color is perfect, but they are not in the lead anymore. They are following instead of leading. They have to come up with a mirrorless pro body with built-in battery grip with 45 mpix asap or there are no customers left. I cannot wait forever. 


And: Stop accusing people of beeing a troll when they show some critisism. 
Canon is behind, that's a fact. They need to step up their game now and release the R1. Fast.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 3, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> You want to know what really happened? This is it:
> 
> Canon was producing this camera... named it the R1. When suddenly Sony launched the A1.
> 50mpix, 30fps. OMG, Canon went crazy.. what to do?? Well.. they decided to call the R1 the R3. Just to keep some photographers happy (mainly sports) and to buy a little time to develop the 'real' R1.
> ...


We'll call you a troll if you keep spamming the boards with the same boring, repetitive nonsense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> And: Stop accusing people of beeing a troll when they show some critisism.


But it's perfectly fine for you to post the same one-liner comment over and over in thread after thread, and throw around repeated claims that many posters here are Canon shills. Right.

Criticism of Canon is not the problem with your posts.

*finally finds it, in the back of the drawer where lost things usually end up*


----------



## JGalicki (Aug 3, 2021)

The 24MP isn’t a great thing, but I’d be willing to accept it if the 30fps is not compressed or 12 bit and isn’t limited to small bursts. Being a great low light camera and having a true 30fps may make the camera competitive vs the A1. Sure the R1 is intended to be the flagship mirrorless, but it will probably be competing with the A1 mark II at this point


----------



## schaudi (Aug 3, 2021)

I really don't think the r3 is meant to be comparable to the A1 or whatever. they may be in a similar pricing area, but for different focus groups. As far as I can tell - the 1dx series never had high mp and thous was all around every sporting event. wonder why... 
this series never had any problems and and at least sold well enough to keep it the way it was for a decade. So there is a marked and this marked will now be feeded with this upcoming R3. Fast, rugged and no need for high MP. 
to everyone complaining: If U feel not to be in the targeted group then u just not are. just don't buy it. U don't buy a 911 if u want to drive ur 6 kids family around - is this the fault of Porsche to not produce a 7 seated 911er? No, so why glaring and complaining bout a camera, which is obviously not meant for U? Like Porsche, canon has and will have other products, that maybe will serve ur demands better. and if they don't - then u r free to use any other. but why complaining about canon now? they didn't had a full body high MP camera for nearly a decade so why is this suddenly a problem? its nothing new. 

And why are they "falling behind"? They DO have a lot of higher MP sensors, they obviously just don't want them in THIS camera. I am pretty sure it was an well discussed decision and not just sth the "couldn't" do.


----------



## R1-7D (Aug 3, 2021)

Here's an image with the camera turned on. You can faintly see the back screen, and some of the settings. It's hard to make out what the settings are; I've boosted shadows and enlarged the photo using Gigapixel. 

Can anyone else make out what's on the screen?

Source: https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 3, 2021)

schaudi said:


> I really don't think the r3 is meant to be comparable to the A1 or whatever. they may be in a similar pricing area, but for different focus groups. As far as I can tell - the 1dx series never had high mp and thous was all around every sporting event. wonder why...
> this series never had any problems and and at least sold well enough to keep it the way it was for a decade. So there is a marked and this marked will now be feeded with this upcoming R3. Fast, rugged and no need for high MP.
> to everyone complaining: If U feel not to be in the targeted group then u just not are. just don't buy it. U don't buy a 911 if u want to drive ur 6 kids family around - is this the fault of Porsche to not produce a 7 seated 911er? No, so why glaring and complaining bout a camera, which is obviously not meant for U? Like Porsche, canon has and will have other products, that maybe will serve ur demands better. and if they don't - then u r free to use any other. but why complaining about canon now? they didn't had a full body high MP camera for nearly a decade so why is this suddenly a problem? its nothing new.
> 
> And why are they "falling behind"? They DO have a lot of higher MP sensors, they obviously just don't want them in THIS camera. I am pretty sure it was an well discussed decision and not just sth the "couldn't" do.


Sure, you’ve got a point here, but then the R3 needs to be around 3000 euro’s ... we’ll see


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Sure, you’ve got a point here, but then the R3 needs to be around 3000 euro’s ... we’ll see


_Needs_ to be? Why? So you will buy one? You’ve already said you don’t want one, and regardless Canon doesn’t give a damn whether you buy one or not.

Or do you mean for the R3 to be successful? In other words, you believe you have more experience and knowledge about how to develop and market cameras then Canon. Lol. Good luck selling that BS anywhere.


----------



## degos (Aug 3, 2021)

schaudi said:


> As far as I can tell - the 1dx series never had high mp and thous was all around every sporting event. wonder why...



Once the 1D4 was removed from supported status, what other options did pro users have except the 1DX? The 5D2 wasn't in the same class in terms of ruggedness and performance.

I'd say the 1DX series succeeded despite its specs, not because of. Simply because there was no other in-system alternative.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 3, 2021)

degos said:


> Once the 1D4 was removed from supported status, what other options did pro users have except the 1DX? The 5D2 wasn't in the same class in terms of ruggedness and performance.
> 
> I'd say the 1DX series succeeded despite its specs, not because of. Simply because there was no other in-system alternative.


You say that like Canon Nikon And Sony don't talk or interact with their target market at all, yet all three manufacturers have similar cameras with similar specs aimed at that same market!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 3, 2021)

I will be the smart guy here and ask a good question. Is there still room or a need for the high priced low MP sports cameras since the A1. I know Canon alledged asked people about what is important but that was before we had the A1 and upcoming Z9. This dialog is important because a lot of people do seem dissatisfied with the specs. ANd not to call them all haters because when the R5 was announced i barely saw any of this negativity. Hopefully the price reflects the specs or demand.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I will be the smart guy here and ask a good question. Is there still room or a need for the high priced low MP sports cameras since the A1. I know Canon alledged asked people about what is important but that was before we had the A1 and upcoming Z9.


Will you be? So everyone should/will switch to Sony or Nikon now? Lol, no. So is there a need for a _Canon_ high-spec lower MP sports camera? Given that most of the major sporting events before the ongoing Olympics were filled with 20 MP 1D X IIs/IIIs (and a few Nikon bodies, and sometimes a Sony camera or two), the answer is clearly yes.



RayValdez360 said:


> This dialog is important because a lot of people do seem dissatisfied with the specs.


A lot of people here on the Internet seem dissatisfied. What has been the feedback from the people actually using the R3 to cover the Olympics? You know...the people who actually matter. Because the vast majority of people on this forum complaining about the R3 MP count would not have bought one regardless if the MP count was 20, 30, 45, 60, 100, 200, or any number in between.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 3, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I will be the smart guy here and ask a good question. Is there still room or a need for the high priced low MP sports cameras since the A1. I know Canon alledged asked people about what is important but that was before we had the A1 and upcoming Z9. This dialog is important because a lot of people do seem dissatisfied with the specs. ANd not to call them all haters because when the R5 was announced i barely saw any of this negativity. Hopefully the price reflects the specs or demand.


Is there a market for a 12mp camera since the R5 was announced? It seems to be selling well. I like megapixels as much as the next guy, but an all around such as the R3 will probably be very popular for its intended use. It will be a sweet video rig and a nice photo rig. Not sure what the problem is?


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I will be the smart guy here and ask a good question. Is there still room or a need for the high priced low MP sports cameras since the A1. I know Canon alledged asked people about what is important but that was before we had the A1 and upcoming Z9. This dialog is important because a lot of people do seem dissatisfied with the specs. ANd not to call them all haters because when the R5 was announced i barely saw any of this negativity. Hopefully the price reflects the specs or demand.


Maybe because there is this thing called same or similar ergonomics with other Canon sports cameras and the slight detail of EF and RF big whites! Just saying...


----------



## reef58 (Aug 3, 2021)

Another point to keep in mind Canon is selling cameras faster than they can make them. The specs must be pretty good.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 3, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Is there a market for a 12mp camera since the R5 was announced? It seems to be selling well. I like megapixels as much as the next guy, but an all around such as the R3 will probably be very popular for its intended use. It will be a sweet video rig and a nice photo rig. Not sure what the problem is?


you still on that a7siii knowing that most people went to sony for video when they got into the mirrorless game and the A7SIII is primarily for video shooters.Find me some sports shooters or portrait shooters that use the camera exclusively or for a majority of the time for photos. Also as an event and portrait shooter I def would not be comfortable with 12MP. sometimes i do have to crop to remove distractions or for framing purposes.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 3, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> you still on that a7siii knowing that most people went to sony for video when they got into the mirrorless game and the A7SIII is primarily for video shooters.Find me some sports shooters or portrait shooters that use the camera exclusively or for a majority of the time for photos. Also as an event and portrait shooter I def would not be comfortable with 12MP. sometimes i do have to crop to remove distractions or for framing purposes.


Point being not every camera Canon releases will be 45 MP. They appear to range between 20 and 50. Not everyone is you and not everyone is me.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Will you be? So everyone should/will switch to Sony or Nikon now? Lol, no. So is there a need for a _Canon_ high-spec lower MP sports camera? Given that most of the major sporting events before the ongoing Olympics were filled with 20 MP 1D X IIs/IIIs (and a few Nikon bodies, and sometimes a Sony camera or two), the answer is clearly yes.
> 
> 
> A lot of people here on the Internet seem dissatisfied. What has been the feedback from the people actually using the R3 to cover the Olympics? You know...the people who actually matter. Because the vast majority of people on this forum complaining about the R3 MP count would not have bought one regardless if the MP count was 20, 30, 45, 60, 100, 200, or any number in between.


There are a lot more comsumers in the world than some Olympics shooters. I am a consumer and we as consumers shouldnt bend over for companies. We should let businesses know our demands especially for tools that we use that help us make a living. I mentioned the R5 because of that predictable comment about what I call "haters" R5 did sell good according to Canon is well received by most photographers and some videographers outside of youtubians and tech geeks/trolls. That came was pretty much a home run because it checked most the reasonable boxes of shooters.


reef58 said:


> Point being not every camera Canon releases will be 45 MP. They appear to range between 20 and 50. Not everyone is you and not everyone is me.


you keep talking about a 12mp camera though. i dont have a big problem with 24mp. i think it is low for todays standards but not make or break.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 3, 2021)

amorse said:


> Considering the comments on resolution, I would bet that if Canon thinks there's a market for higher resolution higher speed shooting, they'll produce something to fill that need. Canon doesn't seem to be one to leave money on the table.


Yes, if we live long enough! lol


----------



## tjphoto (Aug 4, 2021)

People shooting a lot 30 fps do not want 45mp images. I had to get an R6 because it was just getting too slow editing and importing all the big images. Just wish the R6 had CF Express, it would be so much better.


----------



## wyotex43n (Aug 4, 2021)

717 post so far. Is this a record? I have been checking this thread just to see how far this can go.


----------



## tron (Aug 4, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> 717 post so far. Is this a record? I have been checking this thread just to see how far this can go.


I was thinking the same thing. I also think that 24mp is not much but it's OK I already have R5 so I will not get that camera. I already have 5DMkIV and 5DsR which I do not want to sell and I have 2 Nikons with 500PF for handheld birding. R5 with 500IIand 2XIII produces high IQ pictures so I do not need more. I already have more than I can handle. 

And if Z9 - with an adapter unfortunately, I would certainly prefer a D880 or something - works with 500PF and TC1.4III as good AF wise as D850 works with the plain 500PF then I will have work to do


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I will be the smart guy here and ask a good question. Is there still room or a need for the high priced low MP sports cameras since the A1. I know Canon alledged asked people about what is important but that was before we had the A1 and upcoming Z9. This dialog is important because a lot of people do seem dissatisfied with the specs. ANd not to call them all haters because when the R5 was announced i barely saw any of this negativity. Hopefully the price reflects the specs or demand.


That’s a very good point but the R6 came out at the same time so those who didn’t want 45mp were also given an option.

Had Canon also made a high mp body capable of shooting 30fps to compete with the A1 and Z9 there wouldn’t be any problems at all.


----------



## tron (Aug 4, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> That’s a very good point but the R6 came out at the same time so those who didn’t want 45mp were also given an option.
> 
> Had Canon also made a high mp body capable of shooting 30fps to compete with the A1 and Z9 there wouldn’t be any problems at all.


Just think of R3 as a guinea pig. It will help Canon to test new tech before applying it to R1. At the same time maybe a 45Mp Backside illuminated stacked sensor is not ready by Canon.


----------



## tmc784 (Aug 4, 2021)

I am totally disappointed !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> There are a lot more comsumers in the world than some Olympics shooters. I am a consumer and we as consumers shouldnt bend over for companies. We should let businesses know our demands especially for tools that we use that help us make a living.


Totally agree there are more consumers than pro shooters at the Olympics, and that ‘we’ should let Canon know ‘our’ demands.

The trap you seem to have fallen into is the belief that _you_ represent ‘we’. You don’t. Like you, I’m a consumer…and I’ll be buying the R3. So will many others, just as many won’t buy it. The difference is that I don’t delude myself into thinking I know what Canon ‘should’ do.

But empirical observation (helpfully facilitated by Canon’s annual press releases proclaiming themselves the ILC market leader for yet another in a long line of consecutive years), indicates that Canon has a very good idea of what they should do to keep consumers buying their cameras.

So, you can decry the ‘unacceptably low’ MP count of the R3 until the keys on your keyboard that you use to type ‘d00med’ fail…the last nearly two decades suggest you’re wrong as far as the overall market for the camera is concerned.


----------



## landon (Aug 4, 2021)

The R3 has a flip out screen, enthusiasts want to buy it too, but not at 24mp, is that the issue?
If it is priced right, I can see many pro-am trying it out at their local sporting events, without the price tag of the R1. $5200?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> ...This dialog is important because a lot of people do seem dissatisfied with the specs...


There are three active threads on this site currently that discuss (using the word generously) the 24mp count of the R3 sensor. As of a few minutes ago, the posts total about 1,250. Let's estimate that 2/3 of those posts are negative (a high estimate) and lets also estimate an average of four posts per user (a very conservative estimate). That would put your "a lot of people" at about 209 people. Let's further estimate that 1/4 of those complainers were never truly in the market for the R3. So, that puts us at about 150 customers dissatisfied with the specs, which is a very generous number. Finally, let's very generously estimate that 2/3 of those dissatisfied customers are going to jump ship to Sony. Suddenly your "a lot of people" doesn't seem like so many and your "dialog" doesn't seem so important. 

The lesson here: internet buzz on geek forums means nothing.


----------



## CanonOregon (Aug 4, 2021)

tron said:


> R5 is a very nice camera to stick with! I have it too and I have not regretted it (I sold my R though). I would like a R5 with R3's body and battery though...


And I'd add in 'Eye Control' focus having had the EOS 3 years ago, it worked great for me and I've always missed that feature.


----------



## degos (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A lot of people here on the Internet seem dissatisfied. What has been the feedback from the people actually using the R3 to cover the Olympics? You know...the people who actually matter.



But again we return to the point that they'll use what they're issued, it's just a tool. The part of the market that Canon needs to attract is that which actively chooses, since that's where the volume is. 

Consider that the biggest agency might take 100 bodies to a major global event. Then consider that there might be 10,000 amateur photographers at a big annual airshow like RIAT ( attendance 120,000 ) and you'll start to see where the market is.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> you still on that a7siii knowing that most people went to sony for video when they got into the mirrorless game and the A7SIII is primarily for video shooters.Find me some sports shooters or portrait shooters that use the camera exclusively or for a majority of the time for photos. Also as an event and portrait shooter I def would not be comfortable with 12MP. sometimes i do have to crop to remove distractions or for framing purposes.


I know a few professional wedding photographers that are more video orientated and use the A7S for the still photography as well when doing both at a venue. In fact it’s a remarkably popular camera for this.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 4, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> That’s a very good point but the R6 came out at the same time so those who didn’t want 45mp were also given an option.
> 
> Had Canon also made a high mp body capable of shooting 30fps to compete with the A1 and Z9 there wouldn’t be any problems at all.


The A1 doesnt shoot 30fps RAW (jpeg and compressed modes) research it. And only nears 30fps in select lenses. The R3 is faster shooting RAW


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

degos said:


> But again we return to the point that they'll use what they're issued, it's just a tool. The part of the market that Canon needs to attract is that which actively chooses, since that's where the volume is.
> 
> Consider that the biggest agency might take 100 bodies to a major global event. Then consider that there might be 10,000 amateur photographers at a big annual airshow like RIAT ( attendance 120,000 ) and you'll start to see where the market is.


But again we return to the question of what fraction of that market would be happy with 24 MP? With 30 MP? With 45 MP? With 60 MP?

Consider that neither you nor I have conducted market research on that issue, but that Canon certainly has, and you’ll start to see where reality is.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that neither you nor I have conducted market research on that issue, but that Canon certainly has, and you’ll start to see where reality is.


I too wonder why it is so difficult to accept that a company present on a market for longer than majority of its customers walks (and leading it for a while too) makes decisions based on its experience, market analysis and R&D capabilities. 

That approach used to work, have been (and is still) working for Canon. And is in accordance with the recent (yet not really earthshaking) findings that: "provide evidence that participants who are able to learn the task use a strategy that maps previously learned policies to novel scenarios."


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2021)

We have to work with what technology provides us with at any given time. I trust Canon is doing the best it can. For a 'speed demon' camera they are launching in R3, 24 mpx seems to be the best compromise between speed and mpx. With time, engines will take more torque and the mpx will increase.


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2021)

Having said the above, R3 does not appeal to me because R5 is fast enough for me. R5 has 8k video. R5 has 45 mpx. I have never used eye focus and since I do not know what I will be missing in that, I can safely wait for R1. R1 may not have higher mpx than R3 and may not have 8k but it will be an awesome still camera that I will relish owning.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 4, 2021)

degos said:


> But again we return to the point that they'll use what they're issued, it's just a tool. The part of the market that Canon needs to attract is that which actively chooses, since that's where the volume is.
> 
> Consider that the biggest agency might take 100 bodies to a major global event. Then consider that there might be 10,000 amateur photographers at a big annual airshow like RIAT ( attendance 120,000 ) and you'll start to see where the market is.


In that case the M50 reigns supreme.


----------



## Skux (Aug 4, 2021)

degos said:


> But again we return to the point that they'll use what they're issued, it's just a tool. The part of the market that Canon needs to attract is that which actively chooses, since that's where the volume is.
> 
> Consider that the biggest agency might take 100 bodies to a major global event. Then consider that there might be 10,000 amateur photographers at a big annual airshow like RIAT ( attendance 120,000 ) and you'll start to see where the market is.


Amateur photographers are not for the most part buying R3s and 600mm lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

sanj said:


> We have to work with what technology provides us with at any given time. I trust Canon is doing the best it can. For a 'speed demon' camera they are launching in R3, 24 mpx seems to be the best compromise between speed and mpx. With time, engines will take more torque and the mpx will increase.


The data throughput of the R5 (45 MP, 20 fps) means the R3 could be 30 MP at 30 fps. If the R3 is 24 MP, that’s a decision not a technological limit.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that their personal wants don’t necessarily represent the majority of the market, and that Canon has a better understanding of the wants of the market as a whole?


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The data throughput of the R5 (45 MP, 20 fps) means the R3 could be 30 MP at 30 fps. If the R3 is 24 MP, that’s a decision not a technological limit.
> 
> Why is it so hard for people to grasp that their personal wants don’t necessarily represent the majority of the market, and that Canon has a better understanding of the wants of the market as a whole?


True, assuming everything else stays the same.

The extra processor headroom might be taken up by a new AF system, the new Eye AF or any number of other things.

Moreover, that's also assuming that the R5 processor is running at full beans - DIGIC X may be up to more workload than we are not aware of.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The data throughput of the R5 (45 MP, 20 fps) means the R3 could be 30 MP at 30 fps. If the R3 is 24 MP, that’s a decision not a technological limit.


Is data throughput an entirely separate processor? I just assumed that running eye controlled AF and perhaps improved AF (happening faster - less time between frames, so even quicker processing required), plus the higher demand on power consumption (driving lens AF and aperture), as well as added heat reducing efficiency, all played a role in the 45x20=30x30 not quite adding up...

Doesn’t 45x20=30x30 assume that every single other detail is the same? Surely, with all the improvements Canon has added to the R3, it’s got to be doing a bit more behind the scenes, no?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> True, assuming everything else stays the same.
> 
> The extra processor headroom might be taken up by a new AF system, the new Eye AF or any number of other things.
> 
> Moreover, that's also assuming that the R5 processor is running at full beans - DIGIC X may be up to more workload than we are not aware of.


They could also use dual Digic processors if needed (or more, the 1D X has three of them), if needed. As I said, 24 MP is a choice.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Aug 4, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> [...]


You beat me to it...


----------



## SereneSpeed (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> They could also use dual Digic processors if needed (or more, the 1D X has three of them), if needed. As I said, 24 MP is a choice.


You’ve changed your context a bit... But, okay.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Is data throughput an entirely separate processor? I just assumed that running eye controlled AF and perhaps improved AF (happening faster - less time between frames, so even quicker processing required), plus the higher demand on power consumption (driving lens AF and aperture), as well as added heat reducing efficiency, all played a role in the 45x20=30x30 not quite adding up...
> 
> Doesn’t 45x20=30x30 assume that every single other detail is the same? Surely, with all the improvements Canon has added to the R3, it’s got to be doing a bit more behind the scenes, no?


The 1D X has two Digic 5+ processors for the imaging pipeline, and a Digic 4 to handle the AE algorithms. No reason the R3 would have to have only one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> You’ve changed your context a bit... But, okay.


No, I haven’t. I was responding to the the claim that 24 MP was a technological limit, and it’s not.


----------



## Joules (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, I haven’t. I was responding to the the claim that 24 MP was a technological limit, and it’s not.


It may be, depending on how confident they are with their sensor production. As it is their first stacked and BSI sensor, we don't have a reference for how well behaved that is, do we?

Of course, that would be more of an economical limit caused by technological challenges, as even if for example their yield was quite low, that could be compensated for by a higher price.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2021)

sanj said:


> We have to work with what technology provides us with at any given time. I trust Canon is doing the best it can. For a 'speed demon' camera they are launching in R3, 24 mpx seems to be the best compromise between speed and mpx. With time, engines will take more torque and the mpx will increase.


I do not believe the 24mp is a compromise. I think the 24mp is a deliberate choice because Canon believe that is the intended markets preference. Just like Sony and the 12mp A7S , A7S II, and A7S III.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 4, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I know a few professional wedding photographers that are more video orientated and use the A7S for the still photography as well when doing both at a venue. In fact it’s a remarkably popular camera for this.


I would use it if i am hired for both video and photos and I know the only place the photos will end up on is social media. I wonder how the noise looks on a low mp camera at a high iso compared to something like an r5


----------



## tron (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I would use it if i am hired for both video and photos and I know the only place the photos will end up on is social media. I wonder how the noise looks on a low mp camera at a high iso compared to something like an r5


As AlanF has mentioned many times to do a proper noise comparison you will have to downscale R5 photos to 24mpixel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

_qa_


RayValdez360 said:


> I would use it if i am hired for both video and photos and I know the only place the photos will end up on is social media.


That makes sense because of course, as we all know, a 12 MP image is entirely unsuitable for printing, enlargement, or any other use than a 0.8 MP instagram upload.




Side note, that image sure is blurry! Probably because it was shot on a 12 MP camera.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> They could also use dual Digic processors if needed (or more, the 1D X has three of them), if needed. As I said, 24 MP is a choice.


Agreed.
I think Canon mentioned 'a' Digic X processor in the R3, so I'm assuming one?

A two year cycle is around average for new Canon processors at the moment, no doubt we'll see a Digic 11 (XI) in the R1 next year, even multi XI processors.


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I do not believe the 24mp is a compromise. I think the 24mp is a deliberate choice because Canon believe that is the intended markets preference. Just like Sony and the 12mp A7S , A7S II, and A7S III.


Ok. Possible. Maybe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Agreed.
> I think Canon mentioned 'a' Digic X processor in the R3, so I'm assuming one?
> 
> A two year cycle is around average for new Canon processors at the moment, no doubt we'll see a Digic 11 (XI) in the R1 next year, even multi XI processors.


I'd assume just one, but I do recall that Canon highlighted the 1D X as having 'dual-digit 5+' in the development announcement, and didn't really mention the extra Digic 4 that was in there for handling AE.


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2021)

I do prefer high mpx than low, and would be happy if Canon one day comes out with a 'speed' camera with higher mpx.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do prefer high mpx than low, and would be happy if Canon one day comes out with a 'speed' camera with higher mpx.


Honest question: is the 20 fps of the R5 not speedy enough for you? Or do you mean a higher MP body with integrated grip (something I prefer strongly, an add-on grip just isn't the same ergonomically)?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I would use it if i am hired for both video and photos and I know the only place the photos will end up on is social media. I wonder how the noise looks on a low mp camera at a high iso compared to something like an r5


I briefly flirted with the idea of a A7S for low light work during church wedding ceremonies. That was until I compared my 5DS cameras with the A7S at my highest required ISO setting - 6400 with the 50mp 5DS downsampled to 12mp. Although the A7S was a little better the difference wasn’t worth bothering with.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 4, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Agreed.
> I think Canon mentioned 'a' Digic X processor in the R3, so I'm assuming one?
> 
> A two year cycle is around average for new Canon processors at the moment, no doubt we'll see a Digic 11 (XI) in the R1 next year, even multi XI processors.



Beside the point a little maybe, but wasn't DIGIC X a cover term for a range of processors? When they first came out, I thought Canon said different iterations could be called that, so it's not like in the past where, eg DIGIC 4 had a given capacity, which was subsequently exceeded by DIGIC 5. I'm not even sure XI comes after X, any more than the 1Dx was followed by 1Dxi.


----------



## Joules (Aug 4, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Beside the point a little maybe, but wasn't DIGIC X a cover term for a range of processors? When they first came out, I thought Canon said different iterations could be called that, so it's not like in the past where, eg DIGIC 4 had a given capacity, which was subsequently exceeded by DIGIC 5. I'm not even sure XI comes after X, any more than the 1Dx was followed by 1Dxi.


Yeah, it will be interesting what they'll go for once they want to push the notion that the processing is a truly new generation. But for now, DIGIC X is just a marketing term that covers different chips.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2021)

sanj said:


> Ok. Possible. Maybe.


Well just use logic, Canon already sell cameras with processors capable of processing much more than 24mp at 30fps, they also already sell sensors with a lot more than 24mp, ergo the choice of 24mp is entirely a choice.

After considering those facts you either think Canon arbitrarily decided to go with 24mp, or they did market research with the intended market for the camera and those potential customers said (in the region of) 24mp.


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honest question: is the 20 fps of the R5 not speedy enough for you? Or do you mean a higher MP body with integrated grip (something I prefer strongly, an add-on grip just isn't the same ergonomically)?


I did not mean just fps. The overall speed of the camera and performance.


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well just use logic, Canon already sell cameras with processors capable of processing much more than 24mp at 30fps, they also already sell sensors with a lot more than 24mp, ergo the choice of 24mp is entirely a choice.
> 
> After considering those facts you either think Canon arbitrarily decided to go with 24mp, or they did market research with the intended market for the camera and those potential customers said (in the region of) 24mp.


But these cameras are not as 'fast' as R3. Logically speaking ie.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2021)

sanj said:


> But these cameras are not as 'fast' as R3. Logically speaking ie.


I don't understand what you mean by "not as fast".


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I would use it if i am hired for both video and photos and I know the only place the photos will end up on is social media.


I have printed many A3 size wedding books when using the original 13 mp 5D and at this output size there is no significant difference in resolution / detail between those and later ones where I have predominantly used 5DS. In fact to be honest when looking back at archived shots taken with the original 5D I never looked at a potentially cracking shot and thought “I wish that had been taken on a 50mp 5DS” when considering resolution / detail. Other IQ aspects of the image, such as higher iso noise, colour definition, DR, soft / missed focus, yes. But never resolution.


----------



## adigoks (Aug 4, 2021)

now how about the price?
with 24 MP sensor it matched a9ii
to be competitive this camera should be priced similar to A9ii with grip
A9 II (release price ) - $4500
battery grip - $400
extra battery - $50
~$5000
plus some extra features you may add another $500
so R3 should be around ~$5000 -$5500.. 
beyond that it could be difficult to justify the price.
unless canon have some trick up their sleeve


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 4, 2021)

adigoks said:


> now how about the price?
> with 24 MP sensor it matched a9ii
> to be competitive this camera should be priced similar to A9ii with grip
> A9 II (release price ) - $4500
> ...


THe a9 isnt even worth that much anymore. I bet sony will cannibalize it completely with the a7iv for like half the price. I wonder if the a7iv will just be a lower MP A1.


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 4, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> THe a9 isnt even worth that much anymore. I bet sony will cannibalize it completely with the a7iv for like half the price. I wonder if the a7iv will just be a lower MP A1.



Not sure. I'm expecting an A9 III. Sony will want a sports camera to compete with the R3


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2021)

adigoks said:


> now how about the price?
> with 24 MP sensor it matched a9ii
> to be competitive this camera should be priced similar to A9ii with grip
> A9 II (release price ) - $4500
> ...


Or, reason backwards from a 1DX III.

So $6,499 less the features the 1DX III has and the R3 doesn't have, which would be what exactly? Oh, wait, the R3 has the $650 WFT-E9A built in, it also has more fps and more mp. So $6,499 plus $650 plus 10% for being 'better' = $7,864.

Now that was slightly tongue in cheek, and Canon have said the R3 sits between the R5 and the 1DX III in the model range, which would imply the price should be somewhere between $3,899 and $6,499. Of course your guesses are between those numbers, but as all R bodies have carried a premium I wouldn't be surprised to see the release price of the R3 at $5,999, and at that price I believe they would sell every one of them. I do not see an R1 coming out at $6,499.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Or, reason backwards from a 1DX III.
> 
> So $6,499 less the features the 1DX III has and the R3 doesn't have, which would be what exactly? Oh, wait, the R3 has the $650 WFT-E9A built in, it also has more fps and more mp. So $6,499 plus $650 plus 10% for being 'better' = $7,864.
> 
> Now that was slightly tongue in cheek, and Canon have said the R3 sits between the R5 and the 1DX III in the model range, which would imply the price should be somewhere between $3,899 and $6,499. Of course your guesses are between those numbers, but as all R bodies have carried a premium I wouldn't be surprised to see the release price of the R3 at $5,999, and at that price I believe they would sell every one of them. I do not see an R1 coming out at $6,499.


If the R3 is the new 1D and the R1 is the new 1Ds, consider that the 1DsIII was at a $2K premium over the 1DIV.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If the R3 is the new 1D and the R1 is the new 1Ds, consider that the 1DsIII was at a $2K premium over the 1DIV.


Indeed, I paid $7,000 for one of my 1DS III”s ten odd years ago. I can easily see an R1 with global shutter high mp and fps and all the bells and whistles coming out at $7,999. Which makes my $5,999 estimate for the R3 even more logical (which means it won’t be anything like it...).


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 4, 2021)

It shoots 30fps compressed RAW with the newer Sony lenses. As what the R3 can do in that aspect its not even out yet so only the few selected photographers who are testing it actually know. Unless you are one of them?


jam05 said:


> The A1 doesnt shoot 30fps RAW (jpeg and compressed modes) research it. And only nears 30fps in select lenses. The R3 is faster shooting RAW


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 4, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Beside the point a little maybe, but wasn't DIGIC X a cover term for a range of processors? When they first came out, I thought Canon said different iterations could be called that, so it's not like in the past where, eg DIGIC 4 had a given capacity, which was subsequently exceeded by DIGIC 5. I'm not even sure XI comes after X, any more than the 1Dx was followed by 1Dxi.


The do seem chronological and sequential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC


----------



## HenryL (Aug 4, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Beside the point a little maybe, but wasn't DIGIC X a cover term for a range of processors? When they first came out, I thought Canon said different iterations could be called that, so it's not like in the past where, eg DIGIC 4 had a given capacity, which was subsequently exceeded by DIGIC 5. I'm not even sure XI comes after X, any more than the 1Dx was followed by 1Dxi.


I recall, but am unable to find a reference for it, that Digic X referred not one specific chip, rather it is a generation of chips that can be tweaked for different models. That is to say, the Digic X in the 1DX III is not identical to the Digic X in the R5, etc. I think this was mentioned in a 1DX Mk III white paper but I can't be certain.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 4, 2021)

Sony A1: 50megapixel and 30fps
Canon R3 six months later: 24megapixel and 30fps

Errggg... what’s wrong Canon?


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 4, 2021)

tron said:


> R5 is a very nice camera to stick with! I have it too and I have not regretted it (I sold my R though). I would like a R5 with R3's body and battery though...


Yes, that’s what most of us want, but Canon is busy making 24mpix cams for sportsphotographers... ok


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Sony A1: 50megapixel and 30fps
> Canon R3 six months later: 24megapixel and 30fps
> 
> Errggg... what’s wrong Canon?


Nothing! What is so hard for you to understand about the fact that the people Canon want to sell the R3 to do not want or need 50mp?


----------



## tron (Aug 4, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Yes, that’s what most of us want, but Canon is busy making 24mpix cams for sportsphotographers... ok


Sports photographers need cameras too...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Yes, that’s what most of us want, but Canon is busy making 24mpix cams for sportsphotographers... ok


How do you know ‘what most of us want’? Who is more likely to know ‘what most of us want’, a multinational corporation with the ability and resources to conduct global market research and a history of selling more ILCs than any other manufacturer every single year for almost two decades, or some rando on the internet? So yeah…ok.


----------



## SaP34US (Aug 4, 2021)

I think that R3 will be between $4500-5200 and when it comes the R1 will be between $6300-7350.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

SaP34US said:


> I think that R3 will be between $4500-5200 and when it comes the R1 will be between $6300-7350.


$6499 and $8499. I don’t want to be right.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> $6499 and $8499. I don’t want to be right.


My guesses would be R3 = $5500 and R1 = $7500. If the R3 sits between the R5 and 1Dx Mk3 in the line up it only makes sense to me that it also sits in between the two cameras in price. With that said, I could easily be wrong. Within the next 5-8 weeks we should know the answer.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do you know ‘what most of us want’? Who is more likely to know ‘what most of us want’, a multinational corporation with the ability and resources to conduct global market research and a history of selling more ILCs than any other manufacturer every single year for almost two decades, or some rando on the internet? So yeah…ok.


Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 5, 2021)

Bespoke cameras would be rather pricey.


----------



## tron (Aug 5, 2021)

Squarely between R5 (high 3K range) and 1DXIII (6.5K) maybe means in price in the 5K range like 5.3K to 5.5K


----------



## sanj (Aug 5, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.


True.


----------



## sanj (Aug 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "not as fast".


FPS. Power up speed. Focus speed. The time it takes to trigger after pressing the shutter. General responsiveness. ETC.


----------



## Talys (Aug 5, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.


I cry crocodile tears for anyone who has to settle... By choosing between an R5 or R3


----------



## Sean C (Aug 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I switched to linux. Sadly I can't get any photo processing to work on Linux (other than Gimp), and forget DaVinci resolve!! I have an airgapped Windows 7 box for that kind of thing but unfortunately even that is too old for software nowadays. (Worse: to my surprise it apparently isn't even service pack 1, and I can't upgrade it except with a disc, and the disc requires SP 1 to function.)


Have you tried WSUS? I haven't checked to verify it still supports Win 7 but it may well. I used it from XP through 8.1 when I reloaded a Windows system to get the updates on it without waiting for downloads. The catch is you'd need access to a connected Win box to make the USB stick. (it's an open source tool that'll pull updates onto a USB stick, then allow applying them offline)


WSUS Offline Update - Update Microsoft Windows and Office without an Internet connection


----------



## sanj (Aug 5, 2021)




----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.


Agree. What most of us will buy is a better way to put it. Better for Canon, too, to keep customers satisfied but wanting still more.


----------



## tapanit (Aug 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree. What most of us will buy is a better way to put it. Better for Canon, too, to keep customers satisfied but wanting still more.


Right. And of course Canon may have R3s or R2 with R3 body but a high-resolution sensor in the works or even ready to go into production on short notice if they think it'd sell well enough. Or maybe they surprise us all by announcing such a thing simultaneously with R3 release...


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 5, 2021)

SaP34US said:


> I think that R3 will be between $4500-5200 and when it comes the R1 will be between $6300-7350.


No. It’s Canon bro.. it will be overpriced.
R3 will be 6000
R1 will be 8000


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I do not believe the 24mp is a compromise. I think the 24mp is a deliberate choice because Canon believe that is the intended markets preference. Just like Sony and the 12mp A7S , A7S II, and A7S III.


True but... They also introduce a new sensor tech - and that could be a limiting factor.


----------



## iheartcanon (Aug 5, 2021)

The R5 went beyond most people's expectations and I am sure the R3 will also be a fantastic camera.
But neither camera is going to make everyone happy.

I love my R5 and don't want/need to replace it but I am curious to see what the R3 looks like and then the R1 will be very interesting.

But mostly I am just trying to help push this thread to 800


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 5, 2021)

I hope it has a Pre-Record facility - like Olympus do.

Would compliment the 30fps perfectly.

....and a Pre-Roll for video? That's probably too much to ask for!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2021)

iheartcanon said:


> But mostly I am just trying to help push this thread to 800


At last, something worth posting about.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do you know ‘what most of us want’? Who is more likely to know ‘what most of us want’, a multinational corporation with the ability and resources to conduct global market research and a history of selling more ILCs than any other manufacturer every single year for almost two decades, or some rando on the internet? So yeah…ok.


As to Canon, I tend to agree with you.
But: remember The Ford Edsel...


----------



## kaihp (Aug 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honest question: is the 20 fps of the R5 not speedy enough for you? Or do you mean a higher MP body with integrated grip (something I prefer strongly, an add-on grip just isn't the same ergonomically)?


For me, the fps in itself is not the major attraction. For shooting motorcycle racing, the AF system of the 1Dx (that I purchased used) is vastly superior to the 5D3 AF system. The 1Dx AF is so much better, that after shooting with the 1Dx for about half an hour, I packed away my 5D3 for the rest of the weekend, the very first time I tried the 1Dx (I picked it up on the way to the MotoGP race). I only bring the 5D3 as a backup body (fortunately I've never had the need to use it as a backup).

Now, the 5D3 has other places where it is superior, like the silent shutter. The 1Dx 'silent' shutter mode is certainly less noisy than the normal shutter, but that's like saying a jackhammer is less noisy than a starting jet aircraft.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 5, 2021)

Ho hum.

Coming from a 5D3 (22Mpix) and a 1DX (18Mpix) and using the 1DX for motorcycle racing and the occasional wildlife from the local deer park, the concept of the R3 sounds really interesting to me. In fact, I've done a pre-order (I didn't have to put down a deposit, I just registered in the "I'm interested" queue, so this was an easy choice).

Coming from the 18/22Mpixels, my original anticipation was of 20-something Megapickels. Then the rumour of 30Mpixels should up, and I was a bit reluctant as I was concerned for file size and editing 'requirements' (computer load). Eventually I concluded that 30Mpixels was "acceptable" to me and the extra megapickels could actually be usefull for cropping. A classic case of post-decision rationalization of choices.

Then this 24Mpixels rumor comes up, and now I have "withdrawal" symptons from the 30Mpixels > 24Mpixels .

Regardless of the actual sensor resolution, the R3 sounds like just the camera for me to enter the RF line - I like _love_ the integrated grip, the AF system and the extra power of the 1D series.

Now,
Dear Canon, please hurry up and release the specs, release the pricing, and release the date when I can get my hands on the R3, so I can see for myself how much my bank account is going to winch. So far this spec & rumor release as taken quite the emotional toll on me (and others, I think).


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Nothing! What is so hard for you to understand about the fact that the people Canon want to sell the R3 to do not want or need 50mp?



Whatever rocks your boat my friend. 
Canon thought they were back on track with camera. Until Sony launched the A1. Then Canon decided to name this camera R3 instead of R1. Let’s hope for the masses that Canon can make an R1 this year. Or they will fall further and further behind.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 5, 2021)

iheartcanon said:


> But mostly I am just trying to help push this thread to 800


I am afraid Mr. Cyborx is trying much harder!


----------



## David_D (Aug 5, 2021)

iheartcanon said:


> But mostly I am just trying to help push this thread to 800


Now for 1000


----------



## Joules (Aug 5, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Whatever rocks your boat my friend.
> Canon thought they were back on track with camera. Until Sony launched the A1. Then Canon decided to name this camera R3 instead of R1. Let’s hope for the masses that Canon can make an R1 this year. Or they will fall further and further behind.


So you think in such a short time span and so far into development they changed the card configuration from dual CFexpress (which you would expect for the R1, just like the 1DX III) for the CFexpress + SD configuration?

If this was supposed to be the R1, it makes no sense to call it anything else. Suppose the R3 started out as the R1 and Canon only changed the name. How does that benefit them? They would have given the appearance of creating a new line without actually doing so. Meaning people wanting a true R1 are expecting it to be released next year and people happy with the R3 will expect an R3 II in three to four years.

Canon can't rush a camera they hadn't scheduled before the A1 announced to market to compete in time for those that expect said competitor to launch next year. So they would reduce sales of the R3 by giving people the illusion a better camera is around the corner for no benefit.

And for the people who buy the R3, Canon would set them selves up for a rough time when conveying to those people that they'll be treated just like the people hanging on for an update of the 7D series or M5.

For what benefit? To look less embarrassing when compared to a body like the A1 - that sits in a completely different market segment anyway? Canon doesn't care about what YouTube and social media think of them. They care about money. Please explain how simply renaming the R1 to R3 would create a financial benefit for Canon.

Edit: Whoop! 800, here we go boiiis  Off to infinity and beyond!


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 5, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Whatever rocks your boat my friend.
> Canon thought they were back on track with camera. Until Sony launched the A1. Then Canon decided to name this camera R3 instead of R1. Let’s hope for the masses that Canon can make an R1 this year. Or they will fall further and further behind.


I always chuckle when I see this assertion. Big companies don't work this way. The R3 has likely been in the works for YEARS, as has the R1. They surveyed the pros who work in this space to find out what they wanted. Considering Sony is still a minor player in this space (professional sports), I doubt that the A1 was any consideration at all. Also, anyone who thinks the A9 was a surprise has clearly never worked at a multi-national. They all know what the other one us up to long before the products make it to market. Sure, small features can change, but the overall product is well known. Canon has their targets for each product and build cameras/lenses for each. Besides, if anything was envisioned at Canon as being a competitor for the A1, it was likely the R5. The R5 can do almost everything the A1 can do for $2500 less. That is how Canon has always operated. They market cameras at similar performance levels using different price points. If anyone was surprised, it was likely Sony with the R5 (though I'm sure they weren't). I would expect a dev announcement on the R1 to come before the end of this year if not with the R3.


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Aug 5, 2021)

This is an interesting take on the market for the R3. I think there are plenty of legacy Canon DSLR users that haven't made the change to the RF mount because there is not a camera available yet that is right for them. I see the R3 as a camera to convice those users to upgrade to mirrorless.

People doing airshows/motorsport/fast action photography need a fast viewfinder, a responsive camera and 'enough' megapickles (24mp is enough) to capture details.

The R5 is good, but until they can replicate OVF type speed and usability then I and many others will not 'upgrade'...


----------



## reef58 (Aug 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> $6499 and $8499. I don’t want to be right.


I am going to guess $5999 and $7499


----------



## reef58 (Aug 5, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.


If you suggest the competition has "better" cameras then why would people "settle" for inferior cameras?


----------



## tron (Aug 5, 2021)

My only complain about Canon (which I like since I have 5DMkIV, 5DsR, 90D and R5) is that they haven't made a high mpixel camera that drives the big whites fast using 11.1 v batteries (for birding purposes).


----------



## Flamingtree (Aug 5, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I always chuckle when I see this assertion. Big companies don't work this way. The R3 has likely been in the works for YEARS, as has the R1. They surveyed the pros who work in this space to find out what they wanted. Considering Sony is still a minor player in this space (professional sports), I doubt that the A1 was any consideration at all. Also, anyone who thinks the A9 was a surprise has clearly never worked at a multi-national. They all know what the other one us up to long before the products make it to market. Sure, small features can change, but the overall product is well known. Canon has their targets for each product and build cameras/lenses for each. Besides, if anything was envisioned at Canon as being a competitor for the A1, it was likely the R5. The R5 can do almost everything the A1 can do for $2500 less. That is how Canon has always operated. They market cameras at similar performance levels using different price points. If anyone was surprised, it was likely Sony with the R5 (though I'm sure they weren't). I would expect a dev announcement on the R1 to come before the end of this year if not with the R3.


Well said. I’m no pro sports photographer, but I can only imagine the hassle of dealing with high megapixel photos in bulk. I get sulky at my computer response to a measly 300 r5 photos, let alone 1,000s of them day after day. 

As to competitor understanding, I work for a multinational too (not in products though) and we have a good understanding of what our competitors will offer and how it will play for us. They all know what the others are up to and how they will respond and try to maintain or grow margin. For canon I think it’s all lure with good bodies that are fit for purpose for the target market ( in this case sports pros / wildlife mainly) and make a killing on those tasty rf lenses.


----------



## TinTin (Aug 5, 2021)

I'm amused to think that, not so long ago, "R3" was one of the names being used on these forums to mean Canon's much-anticipated high megapixel version of the R5.

The irony of it!

And if, by some strange quirk, the R3 does indeed turn out to be that high-megapixel "R3" (with a 24 Mpx resolution "trick") what a wondrous twist that would be. A real roller-coaster!


----------



## tron (Aug 5, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> Well said. I’m no pro sports photographer, but I can only imagine the hassle of dealing with high megapixel photos in bulk. I get sulky at my computer response to a measly 300 r5 photos, let alone 1,000s of them day after day.
> 
> As to competitor understanding, I work for a multinational too (not in products though) and we have a good understanding of what our competitors will offer and how it will play for us. They all know what the others are up to and how they will respond and try to maintain or grow margin. For canon I think it’s all lure with good bodies that are fit for purpose for the target market ( in this case sports pros / wildlife mainly) and make a killing on those tasty rf lenses.


I mainly shoot with D850 and R5 and my laptop behaves decently. No issues.


----------



## TinTin (Aug 5, 2021)

Talys said:


> I cry crocodile tears for anyone who has to settle... By choosing between an R5 or R3


Isn't that the very position Jeff Cable put himself into the other day at the Olympics, when visiting the equestrian jumping event:



> I decided that I would lighten my load on this evening and just take one Canon camera (guess which one) and the Canon 100-500mm lens.



So, given that he took a 1DXiii, 2 x R5 and an R3 body to the Olympics and the reference to the 100-500mm lens rules out the use of the 1DXiii, which did he choose: an R5 or the R3?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 5, 2021)

Will the R3 also restrict the frame rate if a third party lens is attached? I am quite shocked that Sony does that. That is clearly anticompetitive behaviour. I understand that autofocus does not work as smooth with a third party lens, but it could still do the maximum fps, even if the focus lags behind. Sony even resticts FPS in situations were you use wide open lens and the focus does not change at all. So the only reason seems to be forcing people to buy expensive Sony glass. If Canon does the same, the camera should not be marketed with 30 fps.


----------



## degos (Aug 5, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Canon sells plenty 1DX mkiii’s at $6499 with 20mp. Why? In sports you don’t gain much from pushing in and a higher quality sensor with less pixels is demanded.



So how do you explain why they bought 1D Mark IV bodies that were equivalent to 27MP full-frame?


----------



## degos (Aug 5, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> Well said. I’m no pro sports photographer, but I can only imagine the hassle of dealing with high megapixel photos in bulk. I get sulky at my computer response to a measly 300 r5 photos, let alone 1,000s of them day after day.



My technique is to extract the JPEG thumbnail from the raw whilst copying over the RAW. Then you just have to flick through JPEGs until you find the RAW that you want to process.

So whether the RAW is 16 or 24 or 45 MP is irrelevant at the screening stage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Will the R3 also restrict the frame rate if a third party lens is attached? I am quite shocked that Sony does that. That is clearly anticompetitive behaviour. I understand that autofocus does not work as smooth with a third party lens, but it could still do the maximum fps, even if the focus lags behind. Sony even resticts FPS in situations were you use wide open lens and the focus does not change at all. So the only reason seems to be forcing people to buy expensive Sony glass. If Canon does the same, the camera should not be marketed with 30 fps.


Everything has caveats. They are indicated by a footnote somewhere in the spec or marketing materials. My 1D X shoots 12 fps* (*with a shutter speed of 1/1000 s or faster, an aperture setting not more than 4 stops narrower than the lens’ maximum aperture, and ISO 12,800 or lower). It’s still a 12 fps camera.

Guess what? Your car’s mileage will be lower than the manufacturer’s estimate, you’ll pay more in electricity costs for your refrigerator than the manufacture estimated, and even though your doctor may have said you’re healthy you could still die this year. Into each life a little rain must fall, learn to deal with it.

More importantly, you’re talking about 3rd party lens compatibility – why should Canon be under any obligation to ensure that?


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 5, 2021)

TinTin said:


> Isn't that the very position Jeff Cable put himself into the other day at the Olympics, when visiting the equestrian jumping event:
> 
> 
> 
> So, given that he took a 1DXiii, 2 x R5 and an R3 body to the Olympics and the reference to the 100-500mm lens rules out the use of the 1DXiii, which did he choose: an R5 or the R3?


The EXIF data shows that he brought the R3 for that event.
I stopped checking every image a few days ago, but until then he hadn't posted a single image from the 1DXiii.
The shots of his room and facilities and stuff are from an iPhone. Olympic sporting shots posted are about 90% R3 and 10% R5, with some events being 100% R3.
Seems pretty promising for the R3.


----------



## SaP34US (Aug 5, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I am going to guess $5999 and $7499


What does the 1Dx Mk III cost? I would guess that when it comes the R1 will around what the 1Dx MkIII plus a little extra so my guess is the R3 will be between R1 to come and R5 in cost. It would cost somewhere between $3900 & $6500 US so maybe between around $4500-5400US.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 5, 2021)

David_D said:


> Now for 1000


Challenge accepted!

Judging by this presentation by Sony about stacked sensors, the traditional architecture (sensor + ADC + processor) that has been used in the thread to compare a throughput of the R3 and R5 cameras, does not take into account the extra parallel processing capabilities that the stacked sensors allow.


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 5, 2021)

degos said:


> So how do you explain why they bought 1D Mark IV bodies that were equivalent to 27MP full-frame?


To be fair, the 1D Mark IV was a 1.3 crop, so a little less than 21mp. I miss the APS-H. Would've been cool if the R3 was APS-H.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 6, 2021)

Just curious, what are people's thoughts on why Canon has stayed quiet on the sensor resolution? For those thinking Canon strategically chose 24MP, why not disclose that with the rest of the marketing? Do you think there's a reason they've kept this bit of information elusive?


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 6, 2021)

reef58 said:


> If you suggest the competition has "better" cameras then why would people "settle" for inferior cameras?


Is this a serious question? Because number one I didn't suggest anything, I made a statement that didn't need to be read into. Number two, just because a camera doesn't tick all the boxes doesn't make it inferior. And number three, someone invested in a brand and ecosystem isn't going to sell all their gear and jump ship solely because a competitor's camera has some features their brand camera doesn't. Again I ask, was this a serious question?! ;-)


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 6, 2021)

Talys said:


> I cry crocodile tears for anyone who has to settle... By choosing between an R5 or R3


Well, I was speaking in general, not someone having to choose between those two cameras. ;-)


----------



## reef58 (Aug 6, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Is this a serious question? Because number one I didn't suggest anything, I made a statement that didn't need to be read into. Number two, just because a camera doesn't tick all the boxes doesn't make it inferior. And number three, someone invested in a brand and ecosystem isn't going to sell all their gear and jump ship solely because a competitor's camera has some features their brand camera doesn't. Again I ask, was this a serious question?! ;-)


Yes it is a serious question. You said lots folks "settle" for Canon. You also said they are buying cameras they don't necessarily want. These are your words not mine. Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Who knows?


----------



## Flamingtree (Aug 6, 2021)

degos said:


> My technique is to extract the JPEG thumbnail from the raw whilst copying over the RAW. Then you just have to flick through JPEGs until you find the RAW that you want to process.
> 
> So whether the RAW is 16 or 24 or 45 MP is irrelevant at the screening stage.


That sounds interesting, is that an import setting in Lightroom or do you shout raw + low res jpeg?


----------



## Flamingtree (Aug 6, 2021)

tron said:


> I mainly shoot with D850 and R5 and my laptop behaves decently. No issues.


Maybe I need a better computer, but I want to save my funds for rf glass


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 6, 2021)

reef58 said:


> Yes it is a serious question. You said lots folks "settle" for Canon. You also said they are buying cameras they don't necessarily want. These are your words not mine. Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Who knows?


I could WANT a 45MP R3 but SETTLE for a 24MP R3, that certainly wouldn't make the R3 inferior and certainly wouldn't justify me selling all of my Canon gear to buy, say, a Sony A1. The only point I was making was that just because Canon puts out a product and that product sells doesn't mean every person who bought said camera was 100% satisfied with its feature set. Sometimes people settle for a camera that doesn't tick all the boxes but because the cons don't outweigh the pros, it wouldn't be considered inferior by any means. Make sense?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Just curious, what are people's thoughts on why Canon has stayed quiet on the sensor resolution? For those thinking Canon strategically chose 24MP, why not disclose that with the rest of the marketing? Do you think there's a reason they've kept this bit of information elusive?


Canon has released only a handful of headliner features. Unless a camera has some groundbreaking resolution like the highest resolution ever, there's not much sense in wasting valuable marketing dollars and time on it.

Canon doesn't consider the resolution to be important. Why "release" a specification that doesn't matter.

That kind of granular detail doesn't make for good marketing. Much more sense to talk about the new sensor design and the eye-controlled autofocus. 

Marketing isn't about "disclosure" it's about selling. It's the old thing about selling the sizzle not the steak.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Canon has released only a handful of headliner features. Unless a camera has some groundbreaking resolution like the highest resolution ever, there's not much sense in wasting valuable marketing dollars and time on it.
> 
> Canon doesn't consider the resolution to be important. Why "release" a specification that doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


I don't think adding 24MP to the sensor information would increase their marketing dollars whatsoever. But to be fair, most of the "specs" about this camera have come from rumor sites not Canon directly, so maybe they aren't withholding, they just haven't released the granular details. Fair enough.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Sony A1: 50megapixel and 30fps
> Canon R3 six months later: 24megapixel and 30fps
> 
> Errggg... what’s wrong Canon?


It hasn’t occurred to you that maybe Sony have the strategy wrong in offering 50mp ? I’m sure some people that are shooting full raw at that speed are going to soon get sick of data overload. Time will tell.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 6, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> It hasn’t occurred to you that maybe Sony have the strategy wrong in offering 50mp ? I’m sure some people that are shooting full raw at that speed are going to soon get sick of data overload. Time will tell.


Some people maybe, but the folks shooting the 5DS/R and R5 here, as well as the D850 aren't complaining about their 45-50 Mpx files, although only the R5 is really fast, and there are already 84 pages of A1 shots on Fred Miranda https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1690968/83#lastmessage


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Some people maybe, but the folks shooting the 5DS/R and R5 here, as well as the D850 aren't complaining about their 45-50 Mpx files, although only the R5 is really fast, and there are already 84 pages of A1 shots on Fred Miranda https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1690968/83#lastmessage


My 5DS doesn’t shoot at 30 FPS - thank goodness


----------



## AlanF (Aug 6, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> My 5DS doesn’t shoot at 30 FPS - thank goodness


I was out this afternoon doing a butterfly shoot. It's extremely windy today, as you know, and the butterfly I wanted was behind some stalks of grass and all were waving like mad, but the butterfly occasionally was unobstructed. With 20 fps bursts and 1/5000s, I got perfect shots where there were clear views of the Common Blue - the best I have ever had. Even at a distance of 2-2.5m, I had to crop like mad to get 3-4 Mpx, but with the R5 and 100-500, they are sharp and detailed enough. This is where the RF 100-500mm, like the 100-400mm II, is so good for me - I saw only a couple of these in a couple of acres and could carry the light lens with its short mfd.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I was out this afternoon doing a butterfly shoot. It's extremely windy today, as you know, and the butterfly I wanted was behind some stalks of grass and all were waving like mad, but the butterfly occasionally was unobstructed. With 20 fps bursts and 1/5000s, I got perfect shots where there were clear views of the Common Blue - the best I have ever had. Even at a distance of 2-2.5m, I had to crop like mad to get 3-4 Mpx, but with the R5 and 100-500, they are sharp and detailed enough. This is where the RF 100-500mm, like the 100-400mm II, is so good for me - I saw only a couple of these in a couple of acres and could carry the light lens with its short mfd.
> View attachment 199408
> View attachment 199409


It's a great shame we don't seem to have anything like the amount of butterflies now compare to when I was a lad. I remember my parents had a buddleia in their garden, we used to call it the 'Butterfly Bush' and in the summer is was absolutely covered in all kinds of butterflies - Red Admirals, Peacocks, Tortoiseshell, Painted Lady to name a few. I have a buddleia in my garden now and I'm lucky to see a Cabbage White on it, nothing else.
Lovely shots..


----------



## AlanF (Aug 6, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> It's a great shame we don't seem to have anything like the amount of butterflies now compare to when I was a lad. I remember my parents had a buddleia in their garden, we used to call it the 'Butterfly Bush' and in the summer is was absolutely covered in all kinds of butterflies - Red Admirals, Peacocks, Tortoiseshell, Painted Lady to name a few. I have a buddleia in my garden now and I'm lucky to see a Cabbage White on it, nothing else.
> Lovely shots..


It's much more than a shame. Small birds rely on caterpillars for food as well as insects. The number of Blue Tits has declined terribly this year because of the shiortage of caterpillars. Remember how 20 years ago when driving the windscreen got splattered by insects? Now, it it remains largely clean.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's much more than a shame. Small birds rely on caterpillars for food as well as insects. The number of Blue Tits has declined terribly this year because of the shiortage of caterpillars. Remember how 20 years ago when driving the windscreen got splattered by insects? Now, it it remains largely clean.


Yes there is a dramatic difference now in flies splattered on the windscreen. Really dramatic. It’s not due to more aerodynamic shapes of cars and windscreen today either as even my Land Rover that has the aerodynamics of a brick doesn’t get insects on the windscreen. Not good.


----------



## Chig (Aug 6, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Jeff Cable replied to a question on facebook about whether he shoots in RAW .
Looks like no one can open RAW files from the R3 yet , so all available photos must be jpegs which means this rumour has no foundation and the R3's resolution is still unknown 
Edit: didn't realise jpegs can be full resolution size so may well be 24mp which is a sensible size for a sports camera after all


----------



## R1-7D (Aug 7, 2021)

Chig said:


> Jeff Cable replied to a question on facebook about whether he shoots in RAW .
> Looks like no one can open RAW files from the R3 yet , so all available photos must be jpegs which means this rumour has no foundation and the R3's resolution is still unknown
> View attachment 199421



How does this affect the foundation of the rumour? Unless there are multiple JPEG resolution settings, other than what we currently have available on other EOS cameras, it's still not looking good for a resolution of more than 24 megapixels.


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 7, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> It hasn’t occurred to you that maybe Sony have the strategy wrong in offering 50mp ? I’m sure some people that are shooting full raw at that speed are going to soon get sick of data overload. Time will tell.


Getting sick of 50mpix images? 
Are you ok?


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 7, 2021)

The vast majority of us don’t need 30 fps but do like maximum resolution. 20fps is fine. So Canon: give us a R5 in a full pro body please! What’s so difficult here?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 7, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Getting sick of 50mpix images?
> Are you ok?


Yes. I’ve been using 5DS cameras since 2016 and recon I have shares in Western Digital by now. And the 5DS only shoots at 5 FPS - thank goodness


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes. I’ve been using 5DS cameras since 2016 and recon I have shares in Western Digital by now. And the 5DS only shoots at 5 FPS - thank goodness


As you must have seen from my posts, I am happy using the 5 fps of the 5DSR and it can make life a lot easier editing! You have to have a different technique for the high fps - ruthlessly edit quickly, and I have only ever kept the best of each set of shots. Fortunately, Canon CRAW gives file sizes half or less of those from the 5DSR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> The vast majority of us don’t need 30 fps but do like maximum resolution. 20fps is fine. So Canon: give us a R5 in a full pro body please! What’s so difficult here?


Once again: how do you know what ‘the vast majority of us’ want? Show us your market research data. Put up or shut up.

Incidentally, I’m pretty sure ‘the vast majority of us’ can’t afford an R3 or an R1, so there’s that.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 7, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Just curious, what are people's thoughts on why Canon has stayed quiet on the sensor resolution? For those thinking Canon strategically chose 24MP, why not disclose that with the rest of the marketing? Do you think there's a reason they've kept this bit of information elusive?


Don't know the reason, but Canon does not typically give the sensor resolution until the official release announcement. So it is not unusual.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 7, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Canon's research doesn't necessarily equate to what "most of us want"; a lot of folks SETTLE with what Canon options they have. Just because people are buying Canon cameras certainly doesn't mean those cameras are what they wanted. Sometimes good enough is...good enough.


Is market research 100% accurate - of course not. Does is tell Canon what "most of us want"? probably yes. It certainly tells them what MORE people want than other possibilities. That is why companies do market research. If their camera is not what YOU want, do not assume that you are most people. If you feel like you are "settling" for a camera in today''s world where virtually every camera released is amazing and can do pretty much anything that is possible, than maybe it's your attitude that is the problem - not the camera.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 7, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> The vast majority of us don’t need 30 fps but do like maximum resolution. 20fps is fine. So Canon: give us a R5 in a full pro body please! What’s so difficult here?


Canon will no doubt have a high mp pro body camera (R1) within a year. They will not let the Nikon Z9 own that part of the market for very long.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Aug 7, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Is market research 100% accurate - of course not. Does is tell Canon what "most of us want"? probably yes. It certainly tells them what MORE people want than other possibilities. That is why companies do market research. If their camera is not what YOU want, do not assume that you are most people. If you feel like you are "settling" for a camera in today''s world where virtually every camera released is amazing and can do pretty much anything that is possible, than maybe it's your attitude that is the problem - not the camera.


You typed all of this and I wasn't even referring to myself in that post, SMH. Gotta love you forum folks that like writing paragraphs trying to chastise someone. Relax!


----------



## Chig (Aug 8, 2021)

R1-7D said:


> How does this affect the foundation of the rumour? Unless there are multiple JPEG resolution settings, other than what we currently have available on other EOS cameras, it's still not looking good for a resolution of more than 24 megapixels.


ok , didn't realize that full size jpeg is full size resolution


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 8, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> It hasn’t occurred to you that maybe Sony have the strategy wrong in offering 50mp ? I’m sure some people that are shooting full raw at that speed are going to soon get sick of data overload. Time will tell.


No it’s not the wrong strategy, the extra resolution is vital for wildlife and macro work. Also would come in handy for some landscape, portrait and even street photography. In fact I use my RIV for all of the above and it works great.


----------



## tapanit (Aug 9, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Canon will no doubt have a high mp pro body camera (R1) within a year. They will not let the Nikon Z9 own that part of the market for very long.


I will be surprised if they come up with high megapixel R1.

I will be even more surprised if they don't come up with any high mp body. I just expect it will be called something like R5s or R3s or possibly R2. If history is anything to go by, R1 will be first and foremost reliable and fast, the thing to have in big sports events, and high resolution is hard to combine with that. 

Of course, "high resolution" is a relative term. I guess 45 mp would make sense so it could do 8K video. But I would not be surprised if it was 30 mp or even the same 24 mp as R3, especially if it indeed comes out within a year.

(main point here of course being to push this thread closer towards 1000 comments...)


----------



## AEWest (Aug 9, 2021)

tapanit said:


> I will be surprised if they come up with high megapixel R1.
> 
> I will be even more surprised if they don't come up with any high mp body. I just expect it will be called something like R5s or R3s or possibly R2. If history is anything to go by, R1 will be first and foremost reliable and fast, the thing to have in big sports events, and high resolution is hard to combine with that.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine another high speed 24 mp pro body camera. What would the point be? They instead need a high mp pro body camera to fight Nikon Z9 for studio users (probably at least 70mp).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I can't imagine another high speed 24 mp pro body camera. What would the point be? They instead need a high mp pro body camera to fight Nikon Z9 for studio users (probably at least 70mp).


That could easily be an R5s, not a 1-series.


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 9, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I can't imagine another high speed 24 mp pro body camera. What would the point be? They instead need a high mp pro body camera to fight Nikon Z9 for studio users (probably at least 70mp).


I guess I'm trying to understand why anyone would want 70mp for studio work... don't most of us smooth skin during post? Why in the world would I want more resolution? I'm starting to feel like the only ones that really need high mp are landscape and bird photographers. Now I am both of those and high res is great in some instances, but there are times the pixel density gets in the way. I'll have both, but if I had to pick just one I think that resolution would be pretty far down the list of priorities.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That could easily be an R5s, not a 1-series.


I wouldn't want to take on a Nikon Z9 with an R5s. The R5 body is more suited to take on Z7 series - smaller and lighter. A pro body with built in grip and high mp is more appropriate for some users.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I wouldn't want to take on a Nikon Z9 with an R5s. The R5 body is more suited to take on Z7 series - smaller and lighter. A pro body with built in grip and high mp is more appropriate for some users.


Sure, for _some_. But... for how many?

Canon used to have a high-res 1-series and dropped it, then released the 5Ds/R. I'm sure they have the data to support whether returning to a strategy they purposefully abandoned a few years ago would be a wise move.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, for _some_. But... for how many?
> 
> Canon used to have a high-res 1-series and dropped it, then released the 5Ds/R. I'm sure they have the data to support whether returning to a strategy they purposefully abandoned a few years ago would be a wise move.


Times are changing. If they wanted a direct mirrorless replacement to 1DX3, the R3 would have had dual cf express and be called the R1. But it isn't. 

They must have a different plan for the R1. Nikon seems to believe there is a market for this type of camera. Even Fuji is selling 100mp cameras that seem to be selling well (considering their high price point). I would not leave that to an R5 type body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Times are changing. If they wanted a direct mirrorless replacement to 1DX3, the R3 would have had dual cf express and be called the R1. But it isn't.
> 
> They must have a different plan for the R1. Nikon seems to believe there is a market for this type of camera. Even Fuji is selling 100mp cameras that seem to be selling well (considering their high price point). I would not leave that to an R5 type body.


Unless your real name is Fujio Mitarai, what you would or would not do is irrelevant. This and similar forums are full of people who think they know better than Canon what Canon should/must/will do. In repeated, astounding coincidences, what Canon should/must/will do always seems to align with their personal desires. Some of them are correct, but then so is a broken analog clock twice a day.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless your real name is Fujio Mitarai, what you would or would not do is irrelevant. This and similar forums are full of people who think they know better than Canon what Canon should/must/will do. In repeated, astounding coincidences, what Canon should/must/will do always seems to align with their personal desires. Some of them are correct, but then so is a broken analog clock twice a day.


Probably not a good forum for you then.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Times are changing. If they wanted a direct mirrorless replacement to 1DX3, the R3 would have had dual cf express and be called the R1. But it isn't.
> 
> They must have a different plan for the R1. Nikon seems to believe there is a market for this type of camera. Even Fuji is selling 100mp cameras that seem to be selling well (considering their high price point). I would not leave that to an R5 type body.





neuroanatomist said:


> Unless your real name is Fujio Mitarai, what you would or would not do is irrelevant. This and similar forums are full of people who think they know better than Canon what Canon should/must/will do. In repeated, astounding coincidences, what Canon should/must/will do always seems to align with their personal desires. Some of them are correct, but then so is a broken analog clock twice a day.


And yet, there is really no harm in speculating and expressing an opinion. What else do people do here? My opinion (no more valid than yours or anyone else's) is that the times *are* changing and more relevantly, the market is changing. The traditional market for the 1 series is fast disappearing and the growth area is in enthusiasts with high disposable income. So, I don't think we can look to past patterns to predict the future. 

At the same time, I think AEWest is wrong in his belief that studio photographers are the future. They have never been the market for the 1 series and that's unlikely to change. The R5 is much more suitable for studio work as well as on location work. Would you buy a tank to replace a Porsche?

I won't venture a guess as to what the R1 (if it materializes) will look like. But, I don't think it will be a direct descendent of the 1Dx. I think it will be fun and fascinating to see what direction Canon goes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Probably not a good forum for you then.


Oh? I’m not the one making statements like, “[Canon] must have a different plan for the R1.” That’s you, bub.

FWIW, I will buy an R3 but I would be very pleased if Canon were to release a high MP body with an integrated grip (R1, R3s or whatever moniker they choose), and almost certainly buy one of those as well. The difference is that I’m not pretentious enough to claim that Canon _must_ make such a camera simply because I want one. Again, that’s you, bub.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh? I’m not the one making statements like, “[Canon] must have a different plan for the R1.” That’s you, bub.
> 
> FWIW, I will buy an R3 but I would be very pleased if Canon were to release a high MP body with an integrated grip (R1, R3s or whatever moniker they choose), and almost certainly buy one of those as well. The difference is that I’m not pretentious enough to claim that Canon _must_ make such a camera simply because I want one. Again, that’s you, bub.


Relax. Everyone has an opinion. Don't get so worked up.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 10, 2021)

If the 5DV doesn’t have an articulating screen, I would still wind up using my 6D2 a lot of the time anyway. So they need to figure out how to do that and retain the same level of weatherproofing, or they clearly don’t want my business.

(That’s the closest I can come to fitting in the current discussion.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Relax. Everyone has an opinion. Don't get so worked up.


You, like everyone, are entitled to have and express your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts. Also, keep in mind that while people who hold the opinion that the earth is flat are entitled to have and express that opinion, they’ll look like fools for doing so.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If the 5DV doesn’t have an articulating screen, I…….


When you get that 5DV send me a pm will you and tell me where you got it


----------



## emailfortom (Aug 10, 2021)

Chig said:


> Jeff Cable replied to a question on facebook about whether he shoots in RAW .
> Looks like no one can open RAW files from the R3 yet , so all available photos must be jpegs which means this rumor has no foundation and the R3's resolution is still unknown
> Edit: didn't realise jpegs can be full resolution size so may well be 24mp which is a sensible size for a sports camera after all
> View attachment 199421


Can I ask... is Jeff Cable the only EOL Canon sports shooter who publicly released his R3 Olympic images? I struggle with the idea that EVERY other Canon photographer adhered to the very strict constraints demanded by Canon's NDA and that Jeff was the only one to shoot with the R3 and release his photos. And that those photo's EXIF data are the sole source for the 24mp claim. I'm not calling into question the EXIF data.... but where are the other sports shooter's "R3" images supporting the 24mp claim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2021)

emailfortom said:


> Can I ask... is Jeff Cable the only EOL Canon sports shooter who publicly released his R3 Olympic images? I struggle with the idea that EVERY other Canon photographer adhered to the very strict constraints demanded by Canon's NDA and that Jeff was the only one to shoot with the R3 and release his photos. And that those photo's EXIF data are the sole source for the 24mp claim. I'm not calling into question the EXIF data.... but where are the other sports shooter's "R3" images supporting the 24mp claim


Maybe it's like a flying pig...you only need one.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2021)

emailfortom said:


> Can I ask... is Jeff Cable the only EOL Canon sports shooter who publicly released his R3 Olympic images? I struggle with the idea that EVERY other Canon photographer adhered to the very strict constraints demanded by Canon's NDA and that Jeff was the only one to shoot with the R3 and release his photos. And that those photo's EXIF data are the sole source for the 24mp claim. I'm not calling into question the EXIF data.... but where are the other sports shooter's "R3" images supporting the 24mp claim


Good question. A quick internet search seems (I could be wrong) to show that he is not an Explorer of Light, but that he shoots for Team USA and has a sponsorship agreement with Canon. Looks like Getty Images also picks up his photos. Perhaps he was tasked by Canon to blog about his Olympic experience and promote the R3. I think it is highly unlikely that he would have violated any non-disclosure agreement and that Canon either knew or didn't care that people would be able to discern the resolution from his photos. I would expect that many of his photos will be showing up in promotional materials when Canon announces the R3. 

As to why other photographers EXIF data is not showing up, I have no idea. Maybe everyone else was using 1Dx IIIs?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 10, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> When you get that 5DV send me a pm will you and tell me where you got it


Gladly. Since so many are posting about fantasy cameras here, why shouldn't I? Some of those fantasies have a chance of showing up in some form later, unlike my 5DV.

Reality is that I really did consider an impulse purchase of a 5DIV when it briefly dropped below $2,000. I realized that I had used the articulating screen more than usual recently (such as shooting video of myself to be used as part of online church services, and needing to see that I was in the frame). So I figured even with the 5DIV, I would still be using the 6D2 at lot anyway. Last night I did a test of interval shots of the sky to see about how I will set things if get to try for Perseid meteors. With swinging out the screen, I didn't have to lie down to change settings and see results. If I see somewhere a new 5DIV for around $1800, I probably won't resist this time.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You, like everyone, are entitled to have and express your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts. Also, keep in mind that while people who hold the opinion that the earth is flat are entitled to have and express that opinion, they’ll look like fools for doing so.


Please advise as to which facts I am making up. I also think it is beneath you to start name calling just because you disagree with my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Please advise as to which facts I am making up. I also think it is beneath you to start name calling just because you disagree with my opinion.


Careful, sounds like you're getting worked up.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Please advise as to which facts I am making up. I also think it is beneath you to start name calling just because you disagree with my opinion.


I guess I am a little confused by this as well. Perhaps he read this statement as a command, rather than speculative. I simply took it to mean your opinion is that Canon "probably" has a different plan for the R1. 


AEWest said:


> They must have a different plan for the R1.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 10, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I guess I am a little confused by this as well. Perhaps he read this statement as a command, rather than speculative. I simply took it to mean your opinion is that Canon "probably" has a different plan for the R1.


Correct. As this is a speculative topic on camera that have yet to be introduced, it is definitely my opinion only. 

It's kind of like saying a sports team "must" get a certain player, the fan who says it is obviously does not have control over the decision making, but is expressing his opinion.


----------



## AEWest (Aug 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Careful, sounds like you're getting worked up.


Me. LOL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I guess I'm trying to understand why anyone would want 70mp for studio work... don't most of us smooth skin during post? Why in the world would I want more resolution? I'm starting to feel like the only ones that really need high mp are landscape and bird photographers. Now I am both of those and high res is great in some instances, but there are times the pixel density gets in the way. I'll have both, but if I had to pick just one I think that resolution would be pretty far down the list of priorities.


Agreed, which is why I personally am fine with the presumed 24 MP of the R3.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I guess I'm trying to understand why anyone would want 70mp for studio work... don't most of us smooth skin during post? Why in the world would I want more resolution? I'm starting to feel like the only ones that really need high mp are landscape and bird photographers. Now I am both of those and high res is great in some instances, but there are times the pixel density gets in the way. I'll have both, but if I had to pick just one I think that resolution would be pretty far down the list of priorities.


Even then the landscapers need to be printing big, which frankly most don’t, and the birders only when they are cropping hard and are focal length limited. So even these two scenarios end up as niches within niches.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Even then the landscapers need to be printing big, which frankly most don’t, and the birders only when they are cropping hard and are focal length limited. So even these two scenarios end up as niches within niches.


So of course, Canon must make a camera for those sub-niches. They simply must. A professional-type body. The R5 need not apply.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So of course, Canon must make a camera for those sub-niches. They simply must. A professional-type body. The R5 need not apply.


Duh! If they don’t then Canon don’t stand a chance of holding back the tidal wave of people jumping to or buying Sony and Nikon high megapixel options. And don’t give me that sales numbers stuff you always spout, I’m sure I don’t need to say *the word*, Kodak!


----------



## SaP34US (Aug 10, 2021)

We have to wait and see about the R1.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I guess I'm trying to understand why anyone would want 70mp for studio work...


I think people imagine the days of Irving Penn and other classic studio photographers with large format cameras. The big glossy magazines are mostly gone. The fashion magazines that remain seem more interested in the individual style of the photographer. The quality of digital today can match large format film and if the photographer wants that look, they will probably use a large format camera anyway. There are a handful of art photographers (real art, as in those that get their images in national galleries) that work in huge sizes and large formats, but they wouldn't constitute a market for a mass produced camera like the R1 (Although I recall Martin Parr doing some big prints of beachgoers with the 5Ds but I think that was a Canon-sponsored project and isn't how he normally shoots)

Those that would need or want a high resolution R body would likely be fine with an R5s, as I don't know why studio photographers would need a 1 series body (From what I've seen in videos, most of the Explorers of Light that do studio/fashion/wedding work are using 5 series.)

It is a mystery to me where the currently mythical R1 will land. I don't see it going below the R3, but I also don't see it setting a resolution record. It seems like 30-50 mp might be the sweet spot.


----------



## Ryan Loco (Aug 11, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I guess I'm trying to understand why anyone would want 70mp for studio work... don't most of us smooth skin during post? Why in the world would I want more resolution? I'm starting to feel like the only ones that really need high mp are landscape and bird photographers. Now I am both of those and high res is great in some instances, but there are times the pixel density gets in the way. I'll have both, but if I had to pick just one I think that resolution would be pretty far down the list of priorities.


The R5 is more than enough for studio stuff. Sometimes I won't even use it because I don't want to have to deal with the long upload/transferring due to garbage hotel wifi.


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 11, 2021)

Ryan Loco said:


> The R5 is more than enough for studio stuff. Sometimes I won't even use it because I don't want to have to deal with the long upload/transferring due to garbage hotel wifi.


I honestly will grab my R6 for portrait work much more than the R5.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2021)

AEWest said:


> A new Peter McKinnon R3 video. Camera is noticeably smaller than 1dx2.


Seriously? You missed the complete thread on this one, it’s already 4 pages....






Peter McKinnon shows off the Canon EOS R3


Peter McKinnon has posted a video showing a couple of Canon EOS R3’s in his possession. He is not allowed to post and videos or photographs taken from the camera as of yet, but he does give a rundown of some of the features and size comparisons between the EOS R3 and EOS-1D X Mark III and EOS...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## AEWest (Aug 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Seriously? You missed the complete thread on this one, it’s already 4 pages....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My mistake. Can't keep track of all the R3 threads on this forum!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2021)

AEWest said:


> My mistake. Can't keep track of all the R3 threads on this forum!


Good point!


----------



## tapanit (Aug 11, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It is a mystery to me where the currently mythical R1 will land. I don't see it going below the R3, but I also don't see it setting a resolution record. It seems like 30-50 mp might be the sweet spot.


It's a mystery to everybody outside Canon (and a small number of people even there). But here's a prediction (read: wild guess):

Within a year or a bit more, Canon will announce (and hopefully release) two high-end bodies:

* R1 with 45 megapixels (just enough for 8K, no more) and other specs matching or exceeding the R3.

* A 90 megapixel body, either R5s or R3s depending on which body type they see better for it; probably the latter, as it would make heat management easier.

Another prediction (much safer): the longest canonrumors discussion thread about both of those will exceed that of the R3.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2021)

tapanit said:


> It's a mystery to everybody outside Canon (and a small number of people even there). But here's a prediction (read: wild guess):
> 
> Within a year or a bit more, Canon will announce (and hopefully release) two high-end bodies:
> 
> ...


All three 1Ds models came out basically a year after their 1D counterparts, when the 1Ds launched in 2002 it was $7,999, close to $12,000 in todays money.

I expect the R1 to have a lot the R3 doesn't, and it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't have a couple of things the R3 has. I wouldn't be surprised if an R1 didn't have a flip screen or the eye controlled focus for instance.

What I do expect it to have are quad pixel AF along with a semi practical way of doing pixel shift for those that love specs or shoot still life/product in a studio on a Foba (but the second group all shoot medium format already). If it had an 8k optimized 45mp resolution sensor it could claim 180mp with pixel shift, just like Hasselblad do. But wouldn't be surprised to see it beat the 5Ds/r for resolution and hit 55 or 60mp natively, this would be a 'first' of over 200mp in a pixel shift. I can hear the lens not up to the resolution threads already.....

The other biggie, which is a $2,000 option on the Cinema cameras, is a global shutter.

If the R3 comes in at $5,500 (nicely between the R5 and 1DX III) that puts the R1 over $7,500 but it would, potentially, out spec the Z9 and A1 effortlessly.


----------



## emailfortom (Aug 11, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Good question. A quick internet search seems (I could be wrong) to show that he is not an Explorer of Light, but that he shoots for Team USA and has a sponsorship agreement with Canon. Looks like Getty Images also picks up his photos. Perhaps he was tasked by Canon to blog about his Olympic experience and promote the R3. I think it is highly unlikely that he would have violated any non-disclosure agreement and that Canon either knew or didn't care that people would be able to discern the resolution from his photos. I would expect that many of his photos will be showing up in promotional materials when Canon announces the R3.
> 
> As to why other photographers EXIF data is not showing up, I have no idea. Maybe everyone else was using 1Dx IIIs?


I can not believe that Jeff was the only shooter at the Olympics using the R3. AND... if we are to believe that the R3 will be released in September... then many of the EOL's had to have the camera in their hands for at least two to three weeks before the games in order to prepare to shoot with it. I just think all of the "resolution hoopla", which is generated from a single source, smells fishy. Of course Canon's marketing is mute on the subject and will not support or refute claims about Jeff's EXIF data prior to the proposed September announcement. Lastly, regarding other shooters using their 1Dx lll's - I would bet that many kept their 1Dx's close by... in their bags.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 11, 2021)

emailfortom said:


> I can not believe that Jeff was the only shooter at the Olympics using the R3. AND... if we are to believe that the R3 will be released in September... then many of the EOL's had to have the camera in their hands for at least two to three weeks before the games in order to prepare to shoot with it. I just think all of the "resolution hoopla", which is generated from a single source, smells fishy. Of course Canon's marketing is mute on the subject and will not support or refute claims about Jeff's EXIF data prior to the proposed September announcement. Lastly, regarding other shooters using their 1Dx lll's - I would bet that many kept their 1Dx's close by... in their bags.


All good questions. I am not computer literate enough to know if EXIF data is readily available from any random photo on the internet and how much work is involved in extracting that data from published photos. On the other hand, it would seem likely that just through random conversations with people shooting the Olympics, that there would be more confirmation of the resolution. There were tons of R3s available from the photos, so presumable lots and lots of photographers tried them out and know what the resolution of the pictures they took were. Maybe no one has bothered to ask anyone else? Maybe as a condition of borrowing an R3 you agreed not to talk to anyone about it. I don't know. I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories though, so I'm inclined to think that what has been leaked is accurate. In a few weeks, everyone will know.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So of course, Canon must make a camera for those sub-niches. They simply must. A professional-type body. The R5 need not apply.


Canon will make a professional type body 45-50MP camera and its likely (but unconfirmed) to be the R1. That category is not that niche. Sony and Nikon are not treating it a sub niche group. The birder is often the landscape and portrait photographer too. They are Flagship models showing the best they can do and there is a good market for that and it helps sell their other models. The 1 series has always been important to Canon.


----------



## emailfortom (Aug 13, 2021)

unfocused said:


> All good questions. I am not computer literate enough to know if EXIF data is readily available from any random photo on the internet and how much work is involved in extracting that data from published photos. On the other hand, it would seem likely that just through random conversations with people shooting the Olympics, that there would be more confirmation of the resolution. There were tons of R3s available from the photos, so presumable lots and lots of photographers tried them out and know what the resolution of the pictures they took were. Maybe no one has bothered to ask anyone else? Maybe as a condition of borrowing an R3 you agreed not to talk to anyone about it. I don't know. I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories though, so I'm inclined to think that what has been leaked is accurate. In a few weeks, everyone will know.


I promise to make this my last reply... and like you I too am not a believer in conspiracy theories... yet I am also inclined to disregard "single source" statements especially when given the volume of attention Jeff's image has garnered. And as you say, " In a few weeks, everyone will know"


----------



## tapanit (Aug 13, 2021)

unfocused said:


> All good questions. I am not computer literate enough to know if EXIF data is readily available from any random photo on the internet and how much work is involved in extracting that data from published photos. On the other hand, it would seem likely that just through random conversations with people shooting the Olympics, that there would be more confirmation of the resolution. There were tons of R3s available from the photos, so presumable lots and lots of photographers tried them out and know what the resolution of the pictures they took were. Maybe no one has bothered to ask anyone else? Maybe as a condition of borrowing an R3 you agreed not to talk to anyone about it. I don't know. I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories though, so I'm inclined to think that what has been leaked is accurate. In a few weeks, everyone will know.


Extracting exif data from a downloaded photo is very easy, if it hasn't been scrubbed away. Some photos may, however, be published in such a way that downloading will remove the exif data, and it appears to be the case with the images in question: only some bug in the process allows a Chrome plugin see it anyway. Unfortunately it only shows a limited subset of exif data, and it's not impossible that the data it shows is inaccurate or incorrect in some cases. So there's still some room for speculation that it's not 24Mp after all. Not exactly likely IMHO, but likelier than Qanything things some people believe in so...


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 14, 2021)

Looks like Glenn and Jan aren't too enticed by 24MP for birds, but awaiting full specs to be released, just like the rest of us! I'd love to see them get R3s to test out, as their content is a lot more relevant to me than Peter McKinnon's as someone interested in nature and wildlife photography.

This was probably posted already, but if it was, I missed it, and others may have too.


----------



## entoman (Aug 14, 2021)

How many sports shooters shot RAW?

Not many I'd guess.

So if almost everyone is shooting JPEGs, the buffer at maximum burst speed would be limitless, even with a 45MP sensor.

Canon's decision to limit the sensor to 24MP (if true) can only be a product differentiation tactic designed to make people crave for the R1.

I can see no major reason why Canon couldn't have fitted a 45MP sensor, and allowed users to select a lower resolution for the occasions when they shoot RAW and need a massive buffer. It would have made the R3 a more versatile camera. If it truly is limited to a maximum of 24MP, it will be far less appealing to bird and animal photographers who need to crop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> Canon's decision to limit the sensor to 24MP (if true) can only be a product differentiation tactic designed to make people crave for the R1.
> 
> I can see no major reason why Canon couldn't have fitted a 45MP sensor, and allowed users to select a lower resolution for the occasions when they shoot RAW and need a massive buffer. It would have made the R3 a more versatile camera. If it truly is limited to a maximum of 24MP, it will be far less appealing to bird and animal photographers who need to crop.


By your logic, there’s no reason Canon couldn’t have fitted a 50 MP sensor (the 5Ds/R launched just before the 1D X II) into the 1D X III.

When they limited the 1D X III to 20 MP, that must only have been done as a product differentiation tactic to make people crave the _________. (Since this is your logic, you should have no trouble filling in that blank for us.)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> How many sports shooters shot RAW?
> 
> Not many I'd guess.


At least one. I can process an image faster and better in Adobe Camera Raw than I can in Photoshop and I never have to worry about color balance when shooting indoor sports, as I can adjust it easily in raw.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> If it truly is limited to a maximum of 24MP, it will be far less appealing to bird and animal photographers who need to crop.


I'm not sure Canon cares. Canon may figure they already have that group covered with the R5, which many reviewers have said is the best bird and wildlife camera ever.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

miketcool said:


> Canon sells plenty 1DX mkiii’s at $6499 with 20mp. Why? In sports you don’t gain much from pushing in and a higher quality sensor with less pixels is demanded.



Do they, though? 

Unofficial reports have been that the 1D X III sold far fewer copies than the 1D Mark II did in the year following each's respective introduction, and by many accounts the 1D X Mark II also had lower sales numbers than the 1D X. 

As most high profile sports shooters have transitioned from staff positions with company provided equipment to freelancers being paid less to provide their own equipment, the replacement cycle among pro sports shooters has slowed decidedly. Even the staffers don't always get the most up-to-date gear. My friend who is the entire photography staff at the Tuscaloosa News (a Gannett owned publication), where his main sports activity is covering University of Alabama sports, particularly Alabama football not only for the local paper but also for all other Gannett publications, is still shooting with a 1D X (2012) and an EF 400mm f/2.8 IS the T-town News bought shortly after it was introduced in 1999.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> There's lens serial number. If the lens was provided by Canon or registered with Canon...
> 
> However there's another interesting detail - it looks like the R3 may have a GPS.



Every Canon body also puts the body serial number in the maker notes section of the EXIF. Adobe products just ignore most of the maker note section, and strip it when one uses the Adobe DNG convertor or exports an image from any Adobe product.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS-1D X Mark II has two card slots, one each for CF and for CFast 2.0.



Most digital 1-Series bodies that have/had two card slots had dissimilar card slots. 

Only the 1D X Mark III (CFExpress) and the 1D X (CF) had two matching card slots.

The 1D Mark II, 1D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, 1Ds Mark II, and 1Ds Mark III all had one faster CF card slot and one slower SD card slot.

The 1D and 1Ds only had single CF card slots.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I am a 1DX II shooter and have been a 1 series shooter for 20 odd years, I’ll be getting an R3.



But are you an imaging professional who makes the majority of their income from making photos?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Most digital 1-Series bodies that have/had two card slots had dissimilar card slots.
> 
> Only the 1D X Mark III (CFExpress) and the 1D X (CF) had two matching card slots.
> 
> ...


Yes, and water is wet. Thanks.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

SilverBox said:


> Still more mpix than my current EOS 3 body



That depends upon what film you've got loaded. Very fine grain low ISO film still has more information per unit area than a 24MP FF sensor does. But you need a drum scanner to get that detail to a digital format.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

xps said:


> what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...
> 
> But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
> I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.



I've been saying for a while that most folks got it backwards. 

The R3 is the lower resolution sports camera ala the original 1D series.
The R1 will be the higher resolution studio/landscape camera ala the original 1Ds series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, and water is still wet. Thanks.


There, fixed that for 'ya.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I have three bodies. For most of my work, I carried the 5D and R. When shooting sports, it was the 1d and the 5D. With three bodies I need two bags since some days I'll be shooting with the 5D and R during the day and then switching to the 1D and 5D for sports in the afternoon or evening. There are features of the R that I prefer for shooting events (mostly the thumb control focus). But the R sucks for sports.
> 
> It's a pain in the butt to lug everything around and switch lens systems back and forth. I now have the R5 and could get by with that and the R for non-sports shooting, but I still need the 1D for sports. So, for me, the idea of an R3 that would allow me to dump both the 1D and the R and get back to only carrying two bodies and one set of lenses is very appealing. I've gotten spoiled by the 45mp of the R5 and the 30mp of the R, so I was hoping for a little higher resolution in the R3. Still, as I said I'm coming to grips with the lower resolution which will still be higher than the 1D. I realize I'm a unique case, but you asked.



I'm in a similar place even though I'm still using only EF bodies and lenses. For outdoor events/whatever in daylight and sports even under lights or in gyms I tend to use a 7D Mark II with the 70-200/2.8 and the 5D Mark IV with a 24-105/4 or 24-70/2.8. Indoors or at night for anything other than sports I switch to using the 5D Mark IV as my "long" body and a 5D Mark III as my "wide" body. Depending upon just how dark, the long lens will be the 70-200/2.8 or a 135/2. Wider lenses will be the 24-70/2.8 or 35/2, 50/1.4, 851.8 primes.

So if I shoot an outdoor event in the afternoon and then shoot an indoor concert in the evening I have to take the 5D Mark III out of my second bag and put either the 24-70/2.8 (possibly from the 5D Mark IV) or a prime out of my main bag on it (and another prime in a cargo pocket) and then put the 70-200/2.8 or 135/2 on the 5D Mark IV and move the 7D Mark II body along with the 24-105/4 if that was on the 5D Mark IV, to the second bag.

All of this is usually done while stooping over and leaning into my car's trunk while praying no potential thieves see what I'm doing and want what I leave behind.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Alan B said:


> Is it possible that Canon has sent out R3 bodies with different MP's in them!. So the "testers" at the Olympics to try out and report back ?
> 
> Hence why they haven't disclosed what it is yet!!
> 
> Remember that is an exif data from just 1 camera out of xxxx!





OTMT said:


> I've been wondering whether or not it's possible that Canon is testing 2 different sensors. That would also explain why they've been so secretive about the sensor resolution.



They have field tested pre-production bodies with different resolutions before, but that was much earlier in the development stages of those cameras and not used at high profile events like the Olympics. If they were still deciding sensor resolution then it will be late next year at the earliest before it would be available, not this fall as expected.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay..........but that's at the cost of half the resolution and a myriad of video features. Then you realize it will most likely cost closer to $6000 and you have to laugh. Kinda lame honestly, IMHO.
> 
> 
> A lot of people here keep taking exception to others comparing this to the A1. It's a valid comparison because that camera has been released for nearly six months. What they don't realize is that Canon's own release from a year ago makes this camera look bad too. Shame, really.



Anyone who has never shot sports/action with Big Whites fails to understand how much difference the larger battery with higher voltage makes in terms of AF speed with large lenses having heavier AF elements when compared to similarly spec'd cameras with lower voltage batteries. It can often be the difference between keeping up with the subject or not during continuous tracking in continuous drive mode.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> I am a professional bird and wildlife photographer that takes 1000+ photographers out in the field on tours each year and I have been doing it for over 20 years. I am not sure where your "...but those are the minority." data came from, but from what I have seen over the years there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of money and they switch systems and shoot multiple systems. Since Sony came out with the a9, then the a9II, and now the a1 I have seem many of my repeat clients switch from Nikon and Canon to Sony. Many of these folks shot the other systems for many years and where highly invested in those system. This is just one example. These people are not just professionals, but also enthusiasts. There is inertia as you put it, but also thousands of people who go with the flow and switch systems to meet their desires. Within the realm of bird and wildlife photographers, I am not sure those who switch systems or shoot multiple system are a minority, but instead may be closer to the majority, and there are a lot of wildlife photographers out here with more joining their ranks every day. Just one persons somewhat educated perspective.



You kind of make Goldwing's point. Those who are switching are not, for the most part, professionals who earn their living by selling photographs. It sounds like even you might be more of a professional photography teacher who makes a good portion, maybe even the majority, of your income from the tours you conduct, rather than from the photos you license to commercial clients.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

notsure said:


> Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
> If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage).



Careful, don't confuse them with facts.



notsure said:


> On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.



It ain't gonna be $7,000 USD. It's going to be priced close enough to the α9II to be competitive.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

tron said:


> Why are they useless? What stops all lenses to work at 30fps fully open? Also aren't EF lenses supposed to work OK with 1DxIII? So 16fps must be doable with many modern big white EF lenses.



All EF lenses are supposed to work at least as well on RF mount cameras as they work on EF mount cameras. They're not necessarily supposed to work as well as RF lenses on RF mount cameras.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> For when we can't remember where that dang stadium was.


Well, there is the Tour de France, and GPS might also be helpful in identifying exactly at which hole on a links golf course a photo was taken.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

miketcool said:


> When you're a professional photo journalist, action, or sports photographer; switching to a rival camera system is the option. The gear is paid for on your first or second assignment. The semi-pro and enthusiast crowd own pro bodies as a luxury item.



I'm glad to hear your day rate is a lot higher than what many of my friends who once were former staffers at major (and minor) newspapers using company equipment are now getting paid to shoot sports with their own gear on spec these days.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I know I am the exception, but I've never found the ergonomics of the 1 series to be that much superior to the five or seven series, especially if you choose to add a grip. In fact, the older I get the more I like not having to lug around the extra weight of a 1 series body. Part of it, I know, is just the way I shoot. After decades of using film cameras, my muscle memory is so accustomed to leaving my hands in the same place when I switch to vertical, so I find the vertical controls on the 1 series and grips to be useless for me.



I used to shoot portrait mode that way until I ruined my right rotator cuff. Now I can't really shoot vertical without a grip. Even on days I have the range of motion, which isn't very often, I don't have the stability I need in that position.


----------



## tapanit (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> There, fixed that for 'ya.


I hope the R3 will perform well when water is dry. That is, cold snow.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Confirmed 24 MP makes this push a wee bit ahead of the 45MP+ Z9 in my opinion. But it is still going to depend on what the big boy lenses look like on both. Nikon seem to have all new 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 instead of 'old' lenses with built in adaptors.


It seems to me the EF 600mm f/4L IS III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III released in 2018 could just as well have been purpose built RF lenses with shortened rear barrels. They're pretty much totally new optical designs compared to the II versions of both those lenses.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It seems to me the EF 600mm f/4L IS III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III released in 2018 could just as well have been purpose built RF lenses with shortened rear barrels. They're pretty much totally new optical designs compared to the II versions of both those lenses.



Note the single quotation marks around old. However, they are clearly not RF native designs. I don’t believe like some that making all new designs so soon after release is necessary nor required, but I also expect designing for RF from the get go will produce lenses that better match the RF design.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> By your logic, there’s no reason Canon couldn’t have fitted a 50 MP sensor (the 5Ds/R launched just before the 1D X II) into the 1D X III.
> 
> When they limited the 1D X III to 20 MP, that must only have been done as a product differentiation tactic to make people crave the _________. (Since this is your logic, you should have no trouble filling in that blank for us.)


Typical neuroanatomist condescending reply.

There's a simple and obvious reason why the 50MP sensor from the 5DS wasn't put into the IDxiii.
It simply wasn't good enough for the applications the ID series are primarily aimed at, i.e. reportage, sports and wildlife, in low-light / high ISO conditions.
Photographers using the 1D series typically shoot at high ISO, but the 5DS (I owned one) was crap at anything over ISO 1000.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm not sure Canon cares. Canon may figure they already have that group covered with the R5, which many reviewers have said is the best bird and wildlife camera ever.


Yes you may be right, the R5 has the resolution covered and meets most of the requirements of wildlife photographers - although I could suggest a few basic improvements (and have passed my comments to Canon).


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It seems to me the EF 600mm f/4L IS III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III released in 2018 could just as well have been purpose built RF lenses with shortened rear barrels. They're pretty much totally new optical designs compared to the II versions of both those lenses.


Canon has said that these lenses were not designed for RF. They have also said that they released the RF versions of these lenses by popular demand, but that this was not the original plan. Presumably that means that more telephotos that were planned are still being actively worked on.
There was a thread covering this on Canon Rumors, and here is the source:








Canon interview: 'Development of compact devices supporting 8K is a very high priority'


As part of our ongoing series of executive interviews at major camera and lens companies, we talked recently with Go Tokura, Chief Executive of the Image Communication Business Operations at Canon.




m.dpreview.com


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> It simply wasn't good enough for the applications the ID series are primarily aimed at, i.e. reportage, sports and wildlife, in low-light / high ISO conditions.
> Photographers using the 1D series typically shoot at high ISO, but the 5DS (I owned one) was crap at anything over ISO 1000.


Not when you downsample to the same 20mp as the 1D it isn’t.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> At least one. I can process an image faster and better in Adobe Camera Raw than I can in Photoshop and I never have to worry about color balance when shooting indoor sports, as I can adjust it easily in raw.


It's often stated that among the prime requirements of sports and reportage photographers, is the ability to have small file sizes that can be rapidly transmitted straight to the picture desk - and that means JPEGs (or possibly low-res CR3 RAWs). That's what I hear and read regularly, so I'm guessing it's true.

I think you must be one of the few who shoot RAW for sports (I'm more than happy to be corrected  ).

If you do your own processing in ACR, it implies that your work is non-urgent....
Is your photography for your own use, rather than for instant publication on the media?


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Not when you downsample to the same 20mp as the 1D it isn’t.


Yes that's true.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

xps said:


> what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...
> 
> But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
> I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.


Yes, a higher MP for the R3 would indeed be valued by wildlife and BIF photographers, and probably sports and reportage photographers too.

But R5? Seriously? You need more than 45MP?

I see the "R5s" with its rumoured 90MP as being a studio, advertising and landscape camera, not a sports or wildlife camera. It's unlikely to achieve more than 6-8fps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> Typical neuroanatomist condescending reply.
> 
> There's a simple and obvious reason why the 50MP sensor from the 5DS wasn't put into the IDxiii.
> It simply wasn't good enough for the applications the ID series are primarily aimed at, i.e. reportage, sports and wildlife, in low-light / high ISO conditions.
> Photographers using the 1D series typically shoot at high ISO, but the 5DS (I owned one) was crap at anything over ISO 1000.


Read more carefully. I didn’t say they should have used the 5Ds/R sensor in the 1D X III, I said give it 50 MP. Just as when you suggested they could have given the R3 a 45 MP sensor, I didn’t assume you were suggesting they just reuse the R5 sensor and it’s traditional architecture rather than making it a stacked, BSI sensor like the R3 will have. But maybe that was giving you too much credit.

Given that the R5 launched not long after the 1D X III, the better architecture found in the R5 sensor was being developed concurrently with the 1D X III. Also, as @Sporgon pointed out (and you acknowledged), downsampling the image would eliminate the concern of high ISO even has they used an older architecture as in the 5Ds/R sensor. I trust you recall that your argument for a high-MP R3 was based on downsampling…

So, will you be the typical forum dweller unable to admit when they were wrong or their logic was flawed? Or will you continue to maintain that the only reason they didn’t make a high MP R3 (assuming the 24 MP spec is true) is as a differentiation tactic to push R1 sales (assuming the R1 has substantially higher MP)? In the latter case, I’m still waiting for you to fill in that blank…..


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Read more carefully. I didn’t say they should have used the 5Ds/R sensor in the 1D X III, I said give it 50 MP. Just as when you suggested they could have given the R3 a 45 MP sensor, I didn’t assume you were suggesting they just reuse the R5 sensor and it’s traditional architecture rather than making it a stacked, BSI sensor like the R3 will have. But maybe that was giving you too much credit.
> 
> Given that the R5 launched not long after the 1D X III, the better architecture found in the R5 sensor was being developed concurrently with the 1D X III. Also, as @Sporgon pointed out (and you acknowledged), downsampling the image would eliminate the concern of high ISO even has they used an older architecture as in the 5Ds/R sensor. I trust you recall that your argument for a high-MP R3 was based on downsampling…
> 
> So, will you be the typical forum dweller unable to admit when they were wrong or their logic was flawed? Or will you continue to maintain that the only reason they didn’t make a high MP R3 (assuming the 24 MP spec is true) is as a differentiation tactic to push R1 sales (assuming the R1 has substantially higher MP)? In the latter case, I’m still waiting for you to fill in that blank…..


I'm perfectly able to admit when I'm wrong or when my logic is flawed, as unlike yourself I'm not perfect  .
Perhaps you'd be less irritating if you took a less condescending attitude when replying to people.

As you are so clever, perhaps you'll enlighten the world and explain why Canon apparently chose to limit the R3 to 24MP, when they could have used the R5 sensor?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> I'm perfectly able to admit when I'm wrong or when my logic is flawed, as unlike yourself I'm not perfect  .
> Perhaps you'd be less irritating if you took a less condescending attitude when replying to people.
> 
> As you are so clever, perhaps you'll enlighten the world and explain why Canon apparently chose to limit the R3 to 24MP, when they could have used the R5 sensor?


LOL. I'm a fan of cogent, logical arguments even when I disagree with them, but I admit that I have a low tolerance for inane arguments that are clearly not well thought out. Ridiculous statements engender ridicule.

I don't think we _know_ that they've chosen to use a 24 MP sensor in the R3. This 'conclusion' is based on the EXIF data from images from a single photographer using a Chrome plugin that is reporting the EXIF info on a camera that has not been released, and other EXIF viewers, e.g. the excellent exiftool, do not show that information on downloaded images. 

But, assuming Canon is releasing an R3 with a 24 MP sensor, presumably it's because they believe that's what they perceive as the major market for it wants. The 1D X was 18 MP, and both the MkII and MkIII versions of that camera were 20 MP. If the R3 is targeting that market, 24 MP is very logical.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> LOL. I'm a fan of cogent, logical arguments even when I disagree with them, but I admit that I have a low tolerance for inane arguments that are clearly not well thought out. Ridiculous statements engender ridicule.
> 
> I don't think we _know_ that they've chosen to use a 24 MP sensor in the R3. This 'conclusion' is based on the EXIF data from images from a single photographer using a Chrome plugin that is reporting the EXIF info on a camera that has not been released, and other EXIF viewers, e.g. the excellent exiftool, do not show that information on downloaded images.
> 
> But, assuming Canon is releasing an R3 with a 24 MP sensor, presumably it's because they believe that's what they perceive as the major market for it wants. The 1D X was 18 MP, and both the MkII and MkIII versions of that camera were 20 MP. If the R3 is targeting that market, 24 MP is very logical.


... and why exactly would the major market for the R3 demand a 24MP sensor, when a 45MP sensor could be fitted?

It's not at all "logical" to assume that because previous generation models were limited by technology to lower resolution, that the R3 should be limited (if it is) to 24MP. Using *your* logic, that would mean we should never have advanced beyond 5MP, or welcomed any other advances such as AF! 

There is no noise benefit or DR benefit to having a lower resolution sensor, and no reason why the R3 processor can't cope with 30fps, given that the R5 can cope with 45MP RAWs at long 20fps bursts.

... and in any case, if a 45MP sensor was fitted, users could select a lower res if and when they required it.

Only the ridiculous are tempted to ridicule. Cogent logical replies are welcome, condescending ones are indicative of general intolerance and an unjustified superiority complex, which comes across in almost all of your replies, not just to my "inane argument".


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> ...Is your photography for your own use, rather than for instant publication on the media?


I shoot for a small college. My photos are posted to social media, added to a website gallery, submitted to the local media and saved for use in college publications. I am the "picture desk." No staff, so everything is my responsibility. After a game, I cull through the photos and process the best ones. I generally do that the night of the game. The next morning I post them to social media and add them to the athletics website. 

I wait until the next morning because a social media or website post at 10 p,m. or midnight is not going to get the same viewership as one posted mid-morning. I also upload them to Dropbox by morning so the sports information staffer can share that link with the local media. These days "local media" in a small town means one newspaper with one editor and a lag time of at least a day, plus a couple of online publications which post things as soon as they get them. Later I'll add them to the college's server so the marketing staff has them for publications. For a typical game I'll process 10-40 images out of the thousands of frames I will have shot.

I can process a raw file faster than messing with jpgs because that's what I'm used to. I can see how those in big organizations with support staffs might do things differently, but remember, they represent just a small fraction of working photographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> ... and why exactly would the major market for the R3 demand a 24MP sensor, when a 45MP sensor could be fitted?
> 
> It's not at all "logical" to assume that because previous generation models were limited by technology to lower resolution, that the R3 should be limited (if it is) to 24MP. Using *your* logic, that would mean we should never have advanced beyond 5MP, or welcomed any other advances such as AF!


Why was the 1D X III 20 MP, then? It uses a Digic X just like the R5, so clearly faster data throughput was possible. You still haven’t addressed this basic question. I suspect that’s because you realize the 1D X III was not limited to 20 MP for technological reasons, but admitting that is tantamount to admitting that your logic has more holes than Swiss cheese. 

And again you’re attributing statements to me that I’m not making. Where did I suggest technology shouldn’t advance? It does. It certainly did between the 1D X II, which had dual Digic 6+, and the 1D X III, which has Digic X. The MkII was 14/16 fps (might be the max for dual Digic 6+), the MkIII is 16/20 fps and Digic X runs 45 MP @ 20 fps in the R5, so for data throughput the MkIII could obviously have been 45 MP. 

Your logic is that the R3 has lower MP because Canon is limiting it as a marketing tactic to drive (future) R1 sales. 

So let me ask you again – why was the 1D X III was limited to 20 MP? If not as a marketing tactic to drive sales of _______ (still avoiding that original question, aren’t you), then why?

A very logical answer is that the market for the 1-series would be satisfied or even would prefer a 20 MP sensor. Canon knew that, because they conduct extensive market research. 

Thus, it’s equally logical that they’ve done the same for the R3, and determined that (the presumed) 24 MP is appropriate for the intended market. 



entoman said:


> There is no noise benefit or DR benefit to having a lower resolution sensor, and no reason why the R3 processor can't cope with 30fps, given that the R5 can cope with 45MP RAWs at long 20fps bursts.
> 
> ... and in any case, if a 45MP sensor was fitted, users could select a lower res if and when they required it.


All true. All apply to the 1D X III, which Canon fitted with a 20 MP sensor. Dare I ask again…why?


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why was the 1D X III 20 MP, then? It uses a Digic X just like the R5, so clearly faster data throughput was possible. You still haven’t addressed this basic question. I suspect that’s because you realize the 1D X III was not limited to 20 MP for technological reasons, but admitting that is tantamount to admitting that your logic has more holes than Swiss cheese.
> 
> And again you’re attributing statements to me that I’m not making. Where did I suggest technology shouldn’t advance? It does. It certainly did between the 1D X II, which had dual Digic 6+, and the 1D X III, which has Digic X. The MkII was 14/16 fps (might be the max for dual Digic 6+), the MkIII is 16/20 fps and Digic X runs 45 MP @ 20 fps in the R5, so for data throughput the MkIII could obviously have been 45 MP.
> 
> ...


I'm still waiting for you to provide a believable theory why Canon hasn't put a 45MP sensor in the R3. To say or imply that it's just because 1Dxiii users are happy with 20MP and don't want more, is just plain daft, as they'd have the option of using a lower res than 45MP when they needed it, just by selecting it in the menu. And at the same time they'd have a much more flexible camera that provided far greater cropping options - very important to many users, particularly as the extra cropping ability allows them to use shorter, lighter and cheaper lenses to achieve the same end result.

There simply is no advantage to having a low res sensor if comparing same-generation sensors of the same size. DR is identical, and noise levels are *lower* with a high res sensor if the output is printed at the same size. I don't believe that the R3 would have any problems maintaining long 30fps bursts with 45MP either. And it's unlikely that a 45MP sensor costs much more to produce than a 24MP sensor - certainly a bit more due to lower yield rates, but as a percentage of the cost of what is likely to be a $5500 camera, the difference in cost would be pretty insignificant.

So I'll ask you again, exactly what advantage is there for a user to be limited to 24MP? Other than unfounded and uninformed fear about differences in noise levels - https://www.dpreview.com/videos/794...esolution-sensors-are-not-better-in-low-light

And answer me honestly, if you had the choice between 2 otherwise identical cameras, one with 45MP (with an option to select 24MP), and the other limited to a maximum of 20 or 24MP, which would you choose?

There may well be an alternative explanation that neither you or I have thought of, but Canon more than any other manufacture is renowned for using product segmentation and so-called "crippling" to protect sales of other cameras in its range (including models under development).

Perhaps also the reason why they didn't put 45MP in the 1Dxiii was simply because they knew that the 1Dxiii was an interim camera and that the truth is that they would much rather steer people to the RF system and sell a bucketload of new lenses.

They would also be very aware that Sony and Nikon were working on new top of range pro models, and are putting out the R3 with a deliberately lower spec (and probably more affordable price) while they continue to develop the R1.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

B


SwissFrank said:


> How are noise levels lower? I'd agree to a statement that they were identical--especially now with the electronics on the back, meaning the entire front is gathering photons. With the electronics on the sensor front, as its been until now, a fixed amount per pixel cannot gather photons, so as you quadruple resolution you quadruple the non-photon-gathering portion of the sensor. In contrast, with the electronics on the back, a 96MP sensor down-sampled 4:1 to 24MP should make literally an identical image to a native 24MP in this case... no worse for sure... but also, I'd have guessed, no better??


Because if the print size is the same for both, the individual noise elements from the high MP camera would be smaller, due to lower magnification. Effectively you'd be looking at e.g. 2 small noise "specks" rather than one big and more conspicuous one.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 15, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't think so, for telephotos.
> 
> Basically, if you come up with a natural lens design for a long lens, it won't typically have elements especially near the sensor. In contrast as angles get wider, the natural place to put the rear elements gets closer and closer to the sensor. Some wide angles for Leicas and so on were mere millimeters from the film.
> 
> ...



This is all very well known. But the design of a lens is more than just where the elements are placed and how close to the sensor they are. I am talking more about button placement, control rings, build in TC's (of note the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 is rumoured to have a built in 1.4x TC), and other value add. At the very least a lens build natively for RF hopefully won't have a naff looking overly long silver mount. Once some new design RF super tele lenses come out I think it'll be much more clear what to expect from the 400 and 600 mk2.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> B
> 
> Because if the print size is the same for both, the individual noise elements from the high MP camera would be smaller, due to lower magnification. Effectively you'd be looking at e.g. 2 small noise "specks" rather than one big and more conspicuous one.


If you have twice as many noise pixels but they are half the size each the result is the same amount of noise. It will be just as visible as less’ larger‘ noise.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> This is all very well known. But the design of a lens is more than just where the elements are placed and how close to the sensor they are. I am talking more about button placement, control rings, build in TC's (of note the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 is rumoured to have a built in 1.4x TC), and other value add. At the very least a lens build natively for RF hopefully won't have a naff looking overly long silver mount. Once some new design RF super tele lenses come out I think it'll be much more clear what to expect from the 400 and 600 mk2.


Yes control ring design etc is very important. My EF 24-105mm was recently stolen so I've just replaced it with the RF 24-105mm F4. In some ways it's a much better lens - sharper, smaller, MUCH faster AF. But in other ways it's inferior to the old EF model - e.g. the zoom ring is much stiffer, and the close spacing and identical rubbers of the zoom and focus rings mean that I often grab the focus ring when I want the zoom ring, and vice versa. Hopefully the muscle memory will adapt soon...


----------



## entoman (Aug 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If you have twice as many noise pixels but they are half the size each the result is the same amount of noise. It will be just as visible as less’ larger‘ noise.


I disagree - the total "volume" of noise will be the same in both cases, but beyond a certain threshold (dependent on viewing distance) the half-size noise elements will effectively disappear, but the larger (i.e. more highly magnified) noise elements will still be conspicuous. This was actually demonstrated on dpreview a couple of days ago - https://www.dpreview.com/videos/794...tm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2021)

entoman said:


> I disagree - the total "volume" of noise will be the same in both cases, but beyond a certain threshold (dependent on viewing distance) the half-size noise elements will effectively disappear, but the larger (i.e. more highly magnified) noise elements will still be conspicuous. This was actually demonstrated on dpreview a couple of days ago - https://www.dpreview.com/videos/794...tm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source


Not in my experience, when images are optimally post processed, that is not processed the same but as well as each can be done, the noise is constant for same generation same sized sensors irrespective of pixel count.

I have been saying this since the 7D was released and I compared it to my 1DS III, and even DPReview is now catching up!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2021)

entoman said:


> I'm still waiting for you to provide a believable theory why Canon hasn't put a 45MP sensor in the R3. To say or imply that it's just because 1Dxiii users are happy with 20MP and don't want more, is just plain daft, as they'd have the option of using a lower res than 45MP when they needed it, just by selecting it in the menu. And at the same time they'd have a much more flexible camera that provided far greater cropping options - very important to many users, particularly as the extra cropping ability allows them to use shorter, lighter and cheaper lenses to achieve the same end result.


Not sure why you cannot grasp this, it's not complicated. Canon released the 1D X III with a 20 MP sensor, even though it could have had more MP. If the R3 is announced at 24 MP as the topic of this thread suggests, then Canon will have released it with a 24 MP sensor, even though it could have had more MP.

So, either Canon is daft and releasing cameras with lower-than-possible MP sensors for no conceivable reason, or they have a reason and you cannot understand it, cannot accept it, or both.

The onus is not on me to provide a theory as to why. You can choose to believe they're daft and have no reason. But if you think that large, successful companies are capricious like that, it's you who's daft.

They made a choice with the 1D X III, they may have made an analogous choice with the R3. I'm certain they have good, logical reasons. Since we seem to agree that those reasons are _not_ technical limitations, they are most likely market-driven, as I suggested some time back.

You suggest the idea that 20-24 MP is sufficient for many people is daft, but honestly, how much real market research have you conducted? Sent out surveys to a few thousand CPS members around the world? Canon does that regularly. Tracked the camera and lens buying habits of individuals and organizations via product registrations over decades? Canon does that. Assessed what gear photographers at sporting events around the world use? Canon does that. Logged the equipment that professional photographers of all genres evaluate on loan, compared to the equipment they actually buy? Canon does that.

So please, tell me what market research you've sponsored or personally conducted to provide data on how many MP people would find sufficient. Read a few posts on the internet? You know a few people with cameras? LOL.




entoman said:


> There simply is no advantage to having a low res sensor if comparing same-generation sensors of the same size. DR is identical, and noise levels are *lower* with a high res sensor if the output is printed at the same size. I don't believe that the R3 would have any problems maintaining long 30fps bursts with 45MP either. And it's unlikely that a 45MP sensor costs much more to produce than a 24MP sensor - certainly a bit more due to lower yield rates, but as a percentage of the cost of what is likely to be a $5500 camera, the difference in cost would be pretty insignificant.
> 
> So I'll ask you again, exactly what advantage is there for a user to be limited to 24MP? Other than unfounded and uninformed fear about differences in noise levels - https://www.dpreview.com/videos/794...esolution-sensors-are-not-better-in-low-light


There isn't any. So what? My point is that Canon is making what they believe to be rational decisions on these matters, with real data to drive those decisions. Data you clearly don't have.



entoman said:


> And answer me honestly, if you had the choice between 2 otherwise identical cameras, one with 45MP (with an option to select 24MP), and the other limited to a maximum of 20 or 24MP, which would you choose?


I have to choose between an R5 with 45 MP and (presumably) an R3 with 24 MP. More MP, or better performance and better (for me) ergonomics. Would I choose a 45 MP R3 over a 24 MP R3? Yes, I would. Do I have that choice? No, I don't. Is 24 MP sufficient for me? Yes, which is why I'll be buying the R3.



entoman said:


> There may well be an alternative explanation that neither you or I have thought of, but Canon more than any other manufacture is renowned for using product segmentation and so-called "crippling" to protect sales of other cameras in its range (including models under development).


Canon's so-called 'crippling' of cameras really boils down to Canon not making the specific camera with the specific features that internet complainers and forum dwellers claim they would buy (when in reality, most would not).

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what this whole discussion is really about – you want an R3 with 45 MP, and Canon is apparently not giving you one, so you're repetitively and petulantly demanding an explanation.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The point is that Canon is letting Sony and Fuji walk away with a market that Canon created and once dominated. And it's not because the others outmaneuvered them, Canon simply gave up on it.
> 
> I don't believe I said anything about the R3 specifically in this thread, but you're right, at this point it's not a package that appeals to me. What is interesting is that 24MP, if true, indicates that Canon isn't being drawn into another pitched megapixel war.



Maybe Canon isn't walking away from the low end market so much as almost the entire low end market is walking away from all the major camera manufacturers?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Note the single quotation marks around old. However, they are clearly not RF native designs. I don’t believe like some that making all new designs so soon after release is necessary nor required, but I also expect designing for RF from the get go will produce lenses that better match the RF design.



How, exactly, are the "clearly not RF native designs?"


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Not when you downsample to the same 20mp as the 1D it isn’t.



Why go to the hassle, additional overhead (processing, storage, etc.), and expense of a 50MP sensor if you're ultimately going to down sample to 20MP anyway? That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Canon has said that these lenses were not designed for RF. They have also said that they released the RF versions of these lenses by popular demand, but that this was not the original plan. Presumably that means that more telephotos that were planned are still being actively worked on.
> There was a thread covering this on Canon Rumors, and here is the source:
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, I hadn't seen that as I was busy with a large shooting assignment that week.

Based on the DP Review writer's response, I don't think it was unreasonable to ask if those lenses had been developed with the RF system in mind.

"It was surprising to learn from Mr. Tokura that the EF 400 F2.8 and 600mm F4 professional telephoto lenses were _not_ developed with future native RF support in mind originally, although it does at least explain the absence of a control ring from the new RF-mount versions."


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's often stated that among the prime requirements of sports and reportage photographers, is the ability to have small file sizes that can be rapidly transmitted straight to the picture desk - and that means JPEGs (or possibly low-res CR3 RAWs). That's what I hear and read regularly, so I'm guessing it's true.
> 
> I think you must be one of the few who shoot RAW for sports (I'm more than happy to be corrected  ).
> 
> ...



Not all sports and reportage shooters have "instant" deadlines. The guys whose clients/employers want it five minutes _before_ it happened are under increasing pressure to get images out as quickly as possible. But as data transmission rates have increased dramatically, more news/sports shooters are using raw in certain situations where it increases the odds of a better result.

In well lit major sporting venues, though, one who knows what they are doing can get JPEGs straight from camera that are so close to what one could do spending a lot more time processing raw files that it isn't worth the extra processing time. The lighting in major college and pro stadiums is like being inside a giant light box. It's bright, full spectrum, and no flickering. It's in times and places where the lighting is not so great that the benefits of raw make a difference. Crappy high school stadiums and gyms, for instance. The dimmer, more limited spectrum flickering light one finds in those places needs more raw color correction than bright, full spectrum, non-flickering light that most major sports venues now use.

Some news shooters have actually seen things go the other way in terms of deadlines. My hometown newspaper no longer publishes a print edition on Saturday. As a result, their staff photographer no longer has to file his photos of Friday night games by 10:30 p.m. to make the printing deadline. As long as his images are up by early Saturday morning when subscribers wake up and look online to see photos from Friday night's game, everyone is happy. Back when they still had two staffers (at the same paper only twelve or fifteen years ago they had four full-time staff photogs _and_ a photo editor that rarely had to cover a shooting assignment), the newer, younger guy shot raw and processed in his car on his laptop during halftime and after the game. The older guy kept shooting JPEG. The newer guy's photos tended to have better color when his images were viewed online, but it made very little different in newsprint, which is incredibly lo-res and color limited. The newer guy is now "the photo staff" at a sister publication in a town fifty miles away since the last old-timer there retired a couple of years ago. The other guy is still in my hometown and still shooting JPEG most of the time, as far as I know. He has always used raw for feature photo illustrations and the like sometimes, too.

I used to shoot sports with JPEG due to handling speed issues. The buffers of the cameras I was using couldn't keep up when saving raw files. But as the capabilities of cameras improved, I moved to raw a long time ago. I don't have a hard deadline 20 minutes after the game is over. I'm not looking for a handful of images to publish in a newspaper or online and then forget it and move on to the next of several assignments the following day. I'm looking to get a lot more images that feature as many of the different participants from the team I'm covering as possible and put them in a place where parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. can buy prints or digital downloads of "their" player. Sometimes I see as many sales of high school football and marching band images in the spring near graduation time as I do during the fall, especially for seniors. Their parent are using them to create displays for graduation parties and the like.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> How, exactly, are the "clearly not RF native designs?"



It is well documented and obvious from their design. We'll see what native RF super-tele's look like with the 300, 500, or maybe even the 200-400.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Keep in mind that you are comparing the R3 to a 10 year old camera. That doesn't make sense. Certainly a 1DX is a great camera but technology doesn't stop and if that's what you want buy a 1DX.



The nine years old 1D X was 18 MP. The 20MP 1D X Mark III was introduced in March of 2020, barely over one year ago.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I'd buy a new 1992 Integra, but Acura rather small-mindedly doesn't make them any more.
> 
> Cars aren't improving nearly as rapidly as cameras (and in many respects are un-improving).
> 
> That aside the point you were making is a good one with respect to cameras.



Honda/Acura is brining back the Integra, reportedly in 2022.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It is well documented and obvious from their design. We'll see what native RF super-tele's look like with the 300, 500, or maybe even the 200-400.



You still haven't said _what, exactly_, has been "well documented.

What specific design features make it obvious?

Lens design advances with time. The II and III versions of many Great Whites were better than the older, original versions. Saying a native Super Telephoto RF lens created in the future is sharper because it is RF, rather than because it is a seven years newer design, proves nothing about the difference in mount of the older lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

AEWest said:


> For whatever reason Canon has deliberately chosen not to announce MP count for the R3.
> I don't think they would allow the loaner R3s to spill the beans from exif data - they may as well announce it then.



Canon has never announced the MP count for any digital camera before the official release announcement. Never. Not one time.

Why do you act like this is the first time this has ever occurred?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> In well lit major sporting venues, though, one who knows what they are doing can get JPEGs straight from camera that are so close to what one could do spending a lot more time processing raw files that it isn't worth the extra processing time. The lighting in major college and pro stadiums is like being inside a giant light box. It's bright, full spectrum, and no flickering.


Colleges have lighting geared for TV broadcasts. Over the past year, almost all sports have been broadcast if not on regular TV or cable, at least over ESPN+ or otherwise on line. Many fewer high schools can afford or see the need for that level of lighting quality.

A friend of mine shoots college sports professionally. I think he does pretty well, since he complained in spring of last year that cancellations had cost him $50,000 in income. I once asked him how he got such great color balance in his basketball shots. Video I have shot in the local college’s arena had greenish tints I couldn’t get rid of completely. I suspected gaps in the spectrum. He said that he has flash units up at the ceiling. I have never seen a flash go off during a game, so I don’t know how that works. The college replaced the lighting a couple years ago to give a better TV result, and he says they repositioned the lights better for last season. I have not tried shooting under the new lights, and of course have not been in the arena for over a year. Supposedly we will be able to attend games this fall. I have already bought my tickets. If so, I may take my G5X II along some time and shoot some video just to see how the light shows up.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Honda/Acura is brining back the Integra, reportedly in 2022.



The current "successor" model is the ILX. But I'm actually very glad to hear this.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Why go to the hassle, additional overhead (processing, storage, etc.), and expense of a 50MP sensor if you're ultimately going to down sample to 20MP anyway? That makes absolutely no sense.


Of all the images taken with 50mp cameras how many are actually outputted at that size for people to see ? I would guess that it is a tiny fraction of one percent, and if that’s the case then most of the time the 50mp makes no sense. Actually as a long term 5DS user I can sympathise with your point of view. Reasons for 50mp have been debated adnauseam; there are some valid ones, but I’d suggest that 50mp shots are nearly _always_ downsampled for viewing as a complete picture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Of all the images taken with 50mp cameras how many are actually outputted at that size for people to see ? I would guess that it is a tiny fraction of one percent, and if that’s the case then most of the time the 50mp makes no sense. Actually as a long term 5DS user I can sympathise with your point of view. Reasons for 50mp have been debated adnauseam; there are some valid ones, but I’d suggest that 50mp shots are nearly _always_ downsampled for viewing as a complete picture.


It’s all about future-proofing. Someday, an entire wall of everyone’s family/living room will be a display, probably at least 128K. We’ll all be sitting close to it using genetically-enhanced hyperacute vision. 50 MP will barely cut it – even with AI-driven dynamic upscaling, it will seem to our future selves like a half-melted Polaroid seems to us.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your presumptions are as wrong as your 'facts'. Just more bullish!t.
> 
> "_Of the 45 states with sales and use taxes, 38 also have an individual income tax. Of these 38 states, in 2012 27 provided for taxpayers to report use tax obligations on the individual income tax return, and another six, including Minnesota, provide information about the use tax in the individual income tax booklets._" (reference)
> 
> ...



If you look at the list of states it's a good bit more than half the country in terms of population. Most of the states with the highest populations have both state income tax and require filers to report unpaid sales tax on items bought in other states. The states with no income tax are, for the most part, some of the least populated states - Florida and Texas being exceptions to both rules. Together Texas and Florida have just under 16% of the total U.S. population. The next most populous state without state income tax is Tennessee, the 16th most populous state with ≈2% of the total U.S. population.

California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio all have state income tax and require self reporting of unpaid sales taxes. Those five states alone account for 29% of the total U.S. population.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s all about future-proofing. Someday, an entire wall of everyone’s family/living room will be a display, probably at least 128K. We’ll all be sitting close to it using genetically-enhanced hyperacute vision. 50 MP will barely cut it – even with AI-driven dynamic upscaling, it will seem to our future selves like a half-melted Polaroid seems to us.


Farenheit 451?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 17, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Colleges have lighting geared for TV broadcasts. Over the past year, almost all sports have been broadcast if not on regular TV or cable, at least over ESPN+ or otherwise on line. Many fewer high schools can afford or see the need for that level of lighting quality.
> 
> A friend of mine shoots college sports professionally. I think he does pretty well, since he complained in spring of last year that cancellations had cost him $50,000 in income. I once asked him how he got such great color balance in his basketball shots. Video I have shot in the local college’s arena had greenish tints I couldn’t get rid of completely. I suspected gaps in the spectrum. He said that he has flash units up at the ceiling. I have never seen a flash go off during a game, so I don’t know how that works. The college replaced the lighting a couple years ago to give a better TV result, and he says they repositioned the lights better for last season. I have not tried shooting under the new lights, and of course have not been in the arena for over a year. Supposedly we will be able to attend games this fall. I have already bought my tickets. If so, I may take my G5X II along some time and shoot some video just to see how the light shows up.



Old school basketball shooters have been putting strobes in the rafters for years. In the last 10-15-20 years the lighting technology used in larger arenas has really improved to the point it's not really necessary to use strobes to fill in gaps in the spectrum any more. Some still do it because they like to shape the light more so than because they need to fill in the spectral gaps and compensate for flicker.

What many consider to be the greatest sports photo of all time, Neil Leifer's iconic color photo of Muhammed Ali standing over Sonny Liston in a very dimly lit gym in Lewiston, Maine after knocking him out in the first round of a fight for the World Heavyweight Title, was only possible with the slow color Ektachrome film he used because Leifer had spent several hours before the fight mounting a strobe (with a three second recycle time) in the rafters.




That's Leifer's boss at Sports Illustrated at the time, Herb Scharfman, seen between Ali's legs helplessly looking on from The Champ's backside along with many of the other "top" sports photographers of the day. Herb had pulled rank on the young Leifer and chosen the seat behind the judges table leaving Neil on the "back" side of the ring.

As for your green tint goes, remember that the green ←→ magenta "tint" axis is more or less orthogonal to the amber ←→ blue color temperature axis. So if the camera is automatically setting CT, then the WB may still be off. I almost always compensate a bit towards the magenta axis under stadium lights, though there is one venue that I see about once every two years (home and away region opponent) which has significantly less green than magenta and needs to be strongly biased the other way.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I used to manually set WB and then batch correct in post. Then the AWB improved dramatically, especially AWBW, and people started asking for out of camera jpegs for social media at the events, so I shot RAW and jpeg with AWBW. It is very good and even when I use ColorChecker Passports to create lighting specific camera profiles the WB is normally within a hundred or so K and +/- single digit tint even when the profile colors need help.
> 
> AWB has improved so much over the years and the demands for instant delivery make it a very valuable tool.



Yep. And the Canon 1-Series and the Nikon D_n_ series seem to get it right better than even the Canon 5-series and Nikon D8_n_0 series bodies do, even though they all now have RGB+IR light meters to allow setting WB before the shot.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 17, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Stop being condescending. Most knowlegeable photographers and certainly Jeff Cable, know how to edit exif files if one has an NDA in place. And he clearly mentions it on his blog that he would NOT disclose any information that Canon has not already released. The JPEGS that admin downloaded and read the metadata from originated from Jeff Cable, a long time Canon ambassador and Team USA sports photographer. Canon loans him and attendies cameras for many of his workshops. So why would he risk disclosing information that Canon has chosen to release at a later date? Simple, he didnt.



It is entirely possible Canon gave him the okay to "leak" it the way he did.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Old school basketball shooters have been putting strobes in the rafters for years. In the last 10-15-20 years the lighting technology used in larger arenas has really improved to the point it's not really necessary to use strobes to fill in gaps in the spectrum any more. Some still do it because they like to shape the light more so than because they need to fill in the spectral gaps and compensate for flicker.


####


Michael Clark said:


> As for your green tint goes, remember that the green ←→ magenta "tint" axis is more or less orthogonal to the amber ←→ blue color temperature axis. So if the camera is automatically setting CT, then the WB may still be off. I almost always compensate a bit towards the magenta axis under stadium lights, though there is one venue that I see about once every two years (home and away region opponent) which has significantly less green than magenta and needs to be strongly biased the other way.


I don’t know whether he still uses the strobe with the new lights. They were installed 3 seasons ago, and at first got into fans’ eyes. People started wearing caps. He said they have been reaimed, and I think moved in the process. And of course last season I saw the games just on TV or devices.

As for the greenish tint. some of that was from the color of the lights, but also, the seats are red. When I was shooting video of pick-up games, most of the seats across from me were empty, so the camera was seeing a sea of red. One year I did try making a custom color balance, and that didn’t seem to help.

I could correct color a little in Final Cut Pro X, but not well enough to suit me. I concluded that the spectrum of the lights was spotty. Fortunately, my audience didn’t care.

The games were after hours during basketball camp, when the boys mostly are having snacks and going to their dorms. The camp staff included current players and the incoming freshmen players as well as some alumni in from playing in Europe. A few older campers and some prospects might play. So hard-core fans enjoyed getting their first look at the new freshmen and at potential players on our court.

There was no telling who might show up, and that was part of the fun, too. We had a few players from the Charlotte Hornets a few years ago. Sometimes there are players from other colleges. Some years back, both Steph and Seth Curry came and played, while Seth was still at Duke.

I used to use the project to learn whatever new camera equipment I had, S120, iPhone 6S, 6D2, and I think G7X II. I didn’t get to try the G5X II, but I did shoot some football with that before I left for Italy that fall. I was in Denmark in 2019 the last time they had the pick-up games. They did have a camp this year, but just a day camp.

I think it was with one of the S cameras that I had accidentally put it in a mode that substituted magenta for grays. I didn’t even know it could do that until I was ready to edit. I was able to desaturate the magentas in FCP X, so no one noticed, and I learned how to turn off that mode.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 17, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> WORD. Honestly I'm not happy with the design details of the RF lenses as far as this goes. I never remember turning the wrong thing on EF. I also would prefer the aperture be stated along with focal length, and in white not grey/silv





entoman said:


> Yes control ring design etc is very important. My EF 24-105mm was recently stolen so I've just replaced it with the RF 24-105mm F4. In some ways it's a much better lens - sharper, smaller, MUCH faster AF. But in other ways it's inferior to the old EF model - e.g. the zoom ring is much stiffer, and the close spacing and identical rubbers of the zoom and focus rings mean that I often grab the focus ring when I want the zoom ring, and vice versa. Hopefully the muscle memory will adapt soon...


A typical case of design over function...


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> *rummages through desk looking for can of troll spray*


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> ####
> 
> I don’t know whether he still uses the strobe with the new lights. They were installed 3 seasons ago, and at first got into fans’ eyes. People started wearing caps. He said they have been reaimed, and I think moved in the process. And of course last season I saw the games just on TV or devices.
> 
> ...



Auto WB tends to operate under the assumption that the average color in a scene is neutral in the same way that light meters operate under the assumption that the average brightness in a scene is halfway between black and white. If the red seats were dominating the scene, then the camera is probably trying to make them closer to neutral, thus boosting green while reducing red.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Super easy.
> 
> No one pays cash online. You pay with a card or through a third party like Pay Pal. Therefore, there is a record of all your online purchases and it's easy to see which ones collected sales taxes and which ones didn't.



You can use cash to purchase single use debit/gift cards, spend them via paypal, and no one knows who bought the item. It's the cash equivalent of a burner phone.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> So yeah, I get that 30 FPS almost always means less mp, even though it doesn't have to as a rule....and to be honest, 18mp is enough, and so is 24. AND if I had to I would use the 14mp 5D Classic, but still.....still....
> 
> *I would rather it be 25 FPS and 30mp, not 30 FPS and 24mp. Save the 24/30FPS for the R1.*
> 
> 24mp for what is definitely going to be a $4899 to $5899 camera? Just to get 30 frames per second? With a BSI sensor, I expected much better. I am not crushed, or angry, but I am bummed about the preorder I had planned. Welp, maybe they will finally eventually release a R5Sr 100mp monster (that does 5 FPS and has 800 usable ISO tops, but hey, 100mp and no low-pass.) Come on 2022.



It's looking more and more like the R1 is going to be the high megapixel pro body (ala the 1Ds series) and the R3 is the faster but lower resolution sports body (ala the 1D series). If that's the case, then the sports body needs fps more than resolution, while the studio/fashion/landscape body needs max resolution more than high fps.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I am not going to actuate the R5 continuously to see how many I can get!



Aww, come on, man! It's for _science_!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2021)

degos said:


> I know several people, myself included, who decided not to upgrade to the 1DX3 because it didn't offer a resolution bump.
> 
> So there's a selection bias in that statement. Customers might have been happy with 20MP but other potential customers were lost.



The vast majority of those yelling for 40+ MP were also yelling for IBIS in a mirrorless body.

They only had to wait four months after the 1D X Mark III was released in March, 2020 until the R5 (45 MP, perhaps the best implementation of IBIS by anyone to date) was released in July, 2020.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Auto WB tends to operate under the assumption that the average color in a scene is neutral in the same way that light meters operate under the assumption that the average brightness in a scene is halfway between black and white. If the red seats were dominating the scene, then the camera is probably trying to make them closer to neutral, thus boosting green while reducing red.


Yes, that is what I figured (and why I mentioned it). I am not that skilled in color grading in FCP X. I probably would do better with Premiere, since color controls may be more like what I am used to in Photoshop. But otherwise I am much more practiced in using FCP X, and therefore tend to use it. Between the lights, the sea of red seats, and an audience more interested in quick than good, I probably shouldn’t have worried about it as much as I did.

For stills, I almost always shoot Raw, so I am spoiled by the after-the-fact color control I have with ACR. I did one half-hearted attempt at a custom color balance from shooting a white sheet of paper under the lights. Results didn’t seem any better than what I got from auto. Maybe a gray card would work better. 

I don’t shoot video enough to get a system with more bit depth. And while I dealt with that lighting situation for 8 summers, those lights are gone, I think, unless they are still up there and they use them for practice and pick-up games and save the TV lights. Maybe I will see next summer. Maybe next summer my new toy to try out will be a Fujifilm medium format that has more video options. My current temptation is to buy the new model with the money I haven’t spent on foreign travel last year and this one.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The vast majority of those yelling for 40+ MP were also yelling for IBIS in a mirrorless body.
> 
> They only had to wait four months after the 1D X Mark III was released in March, 2000 until the R5 (45 MP, perhaps the best implementation of IBIS by anyone to date) was released in July, 2000.


Wow! I knew that Covid was messing with my sense of time but... Has it really been 21 years since the R5 came out? Feels like just yesterday... 

I think a lot of people ready to give mirrorless a shot were really pleased with the release of the R5. Possibly some people who had just purchased the 1DXiii were a little less enthusiastic.

I know Canon doesn't do this but it would be so nice if they shared more information about upcoming gear with customers so we can plan ahead and get the gear that is the best fit for our individual styles.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> [..]
> For stills, I almost always shoot Raw, so I am spoiled by the after-the-fact color control I have with ACR. I did one half-hearted attempt at a custom color balance from shooting a white sheet of paper under the lights. Results didn’t seem any better than what I got from auto. Maybe a gray card would work better.
> [..]


If you have a ColourChecker type of chart, you could film a short bit with that in frame. I haven't tried that myself, though


----------



## st jack photography (Aug 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It's looking more and more like the R1 is going to be the high megapixel pro body (ala the 1Ds series) and the R3 is the faster but lower resolution sports body (ala the 1D series). If that's the case, then the sports body needs fps more than resolution, while the studio/fashion/landscape body needs max resolution more than high fps.


Your reply is what I was not seeing all along, that Canon would move the 1D "sports" concept to R3 and then make an R1 that is the equivalent of a 5DSr merged with a mirrorless 1D concept. I can say I loved my 5DSr IN THE STUDIO, but I hated it on the street, so maybe this time around it have better ISO. I am not sure I would buy a megapixel monster again as my sole camera, but it makes sense for Canon to do what you describe. The 5DSr should have been in a bigger body, not shoe-horned into a 5D body (IMO). So I like your reasoning. I bought an r5 a few months back after waiting (what felt like forever) on the supposed mirrorless 5DSr. I may go with the r3 instead of a high megapixel camera, but I wish Canon would share more info, so I could plan better. Money is tight for me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You can use cash to purchase single use debit/gift cards, spend them via paypal, and no one knows who bought the item. It's the cash equivalent of a burner phone.


The question wasn't "How can I cheat on my taxes?"

The question was "How do you document your online purchases so you can prove you paid sales taxes on them?"

If people want to go to that extent to launder their purchases, they are probably doing a lot of other illegal things as well. Of course, it might raise some eyebrows if you waltzed into the the local Walgreens with $5,000 in cash and started buying debit cards.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 18, 2021)

Doesn’t the seller give you a receipt in email or something that itemizes tax and shipping charges?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Doesn’t the seller give you a receipt in email or something that itemizes tax and shipping charges?


Of course.

But, the original discussion involved demonstrating that you did *not* make any purchases where sales taxes were *not* collected.

Receipts would show that sales taxes were collected on an individual purchase, but they don't provide a comprehensive record of *all* your online purchases for the year. 

_*"If,"*_ and granted it is a big *"if,*" but _*"if"*_ you were unlucky and got pulled for a random audit by your state and you needed to show that you had *not* made any purchases where sales taxes were *not* collected, your state can look at your credit card and debit card records which list every purchase you make on the cards for the year and it would be easy to show that every one of the vendors you purchased from collected sales taxes. A few years back this was a bigger issue than today. These days, virtually all U.S. based online sellers collect sales taxes (even eBay collects taxes). The main exception that I am aware of for photo equipment is if people buy from vendors who are based outside the U.S. 

Now sure, if you were a crook and you laundered purchases as @Michael Clark suggested, you might get away with avoiding sales taxes. But, the point was never to show how to be a tax cheat. My point was proving you were honest, not showing how to be a crook.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 19, 2021)

You could provide your credit card statements and suggest they find some other purchases, I guess.

But we are talking about state governments. They are unlikely to have resources to chase down every rabbit, especially if they have no evidence.

In NC you can report just the untaxed purchases of over $1,000 each and then take a tiny set amount to cover the rest. I used to pay that formula amount, but now that everybody I deal with charges the tax, I don’t even pay that.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 19, 2021)

A look at the R3's shell courtesy of Canon USA on Instagram:


----------



## emailfortom (Aug 20, 2021)

Dang... I would love to put that on a tee shirt!


----------



## tapanit (Aug 21, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> A look at the R3's shell courtesy of Canon USA on Instagram:
> 
> View attachment 199668


That's cool. Unfortunately I can't count the pixels in R3's sensor from that image. Especially since the sensor isn't in the picture.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 22, 2021)

tapanit said:


> That's cool. Unfortunately I can't count the pixels in R3's sensor from that image. Especially since the sensor isn't in the picture.


That reminds me of how my dad used to sarcastically rave about how awesome the TVs in the ads looked--displayed on the TV they were supposedly better than.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 24, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The question wasn't "How can I cheat on my taxes?"
> 
> The question was "How do you document your online purchases so you can prove you paid sales taxes on them?"
> 
> If people want to go to that extent to launder their purchases, they are probably doing a lot of other illegal things as well. Of course, it might raise some eyebrows if you waltzed into the the local Walgreens with $5,000 in cash and started buying debit cards.



My apologies, I thought you were more addressing "How do the feds and state tax collectors know I bought this online and didn't pay sales tax?"


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 24, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Wow! I knew that Covid was messing with my sense of time but... Has it really been 21 years since the R5 came out? Feels like just yesterday...
> 
> I think a lot of people ready to give mirrorless a shot were really pleased with the release of the R5. Possibly some people who had just purchased the 1DXiii were a little less enthusiastic.
> 
> I know Canon doesn't do this but it would be so nice if they shared more information about upcoming gear with customers so we can plan ahead and get the gear that is the best fit for our individual styles.



Thanks for catching that. I've since edited it.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> My apologies, I thought you were more addressing "How do the feds and state tax collectors know I bought this online and didn't pay sales tax?"


My apologies if I was too harsh. Sometimes we get involved in internet debates and it's too easy to come off as harsh. 

No, I was just responding to someone who seemed to think it would be burdensome to demonstrate that you had paid taxes. Of course, this is all pretty much moot these days since almost all online sellers are collecting sales taxes anyway.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2021)

tapanit said:


> Without any inside information on Canon's logistics, I tend to believe it's already too late to make even firmware changes, if they're going to announce it in September and have it actually available soon after that. An updated firmware could be published and made downloadable at the same time, but by now there must already be cameras in boxes waiting to be shipped and their firmware obviously cannot be changed any more.
> 
> I also agree that the camera in the hands of testers now must have essentially final firmware. I can just barely imagine Canon doing a custom tester firmware with no other changes than fake exif data for the resolution, but even that is really stretching it.
> 
> ...



Unless it has recently changed, Canon doesn't ship anything from Japan in retail boxes. That's done at the regional level where locally sourced boxes, printed materials, etc. are combined with other products coming from other sources (camera straps, batteries, chargers, etc., which, even if made in Japan, are from different plants and shipped to the regionals separately). They're shipped in bulk packaging from the camera or lens factories to the regionals throughout the world.

In the past, firmware has been known to have been updated by staff at the regionals prior to placing camera bodies in retail packaging.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> The resolution doesn't change if you're shooting JPEGs. Source: I've shot JPEGs all my life. The R5's JPEGs still show up as 45 MP, and the R6's still show up as 20 MP.



Surely you don't think every 45MP image is also a 45 MB JPEG file? Or that every 20 MP image is also a 20 MB JPEG file?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2021)

degos said:


> Once the 1D4 was removed from supported status, what other options did pro users have except the 1DX? The 5D2 wasn't in the same class in terms of ruggedness and performance.
> 
> I'd say the 1DX series succeeded despite its specs, not because of. Simply because there was no other in-system alternative.



The 5D Mark III, which improved in a lot of ways compared to the 5D Mark II as a camera usable by imaging professionals, especially in terms of AF and handling speed, released the same year as the 1D X: 2012.

The choice in 2012 was not between the 1D X or the 2008 vintage 5D Mark II, it was between the 2012 1D X and the 2012 5D Mark III. There were a lot of pro shooters (wedding, event, studio, etc.) who did transition from the 1Ds Mark III to the 5D Mark III instead of the 1D X.

I'm not sure what you think the problem was going from the 16 MP 1D Mark IV to the 18 MP 1D X was. The 1D X was an improvement over the APS-H 1D Mark IV in pretty much every metric that matters to sports/action/reportage shooters. It was faster, higher resolution, and Full Frame.

The 1Ds series had always been the slower, higher resolution FF model compared to the faster, APS-H 1D series.

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it critically that the 5D Mark III was in many ways the successor to the 1Ds Mark III at the same time the 1D X was the successor to the 1D Mark IV.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Surely you don't think every 45MP image is also a 45 MB JPEG file? Or that every 20 MP image is also a 20 MB JPEG file?


Surely not, since nothing about @Marximusprime’s post suggested that thought.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Unless it has recently changed, Canon doesn't ship anything from Japan in retail boxes. That's done at the regional level where locally sourced boxes, printed materials, etc. are combined with other products coming from other sources (camera straps, batteries, chargers, etc., which, even if made in Japan, are from different plants and shipped to the regionals separately). They're shipped in bulk packaging from the camera or lens factories to the regionals throughout the world.
> 
> In the past, firmware has been known to have been updated by staff at the regionals prior to placing camera bodies in retail packaging.


I'd like to know your source for this. The instruction manual packaged with my R5 was printed in China and the instruction manual that came with my 1Dx III was printed in Japan, so your claim of "locally sourced" printed materials is obviously wrong. The box my R5 came in is printed in seven languages, clearly designed to be used in multiple countries. The box my 100-500 came in is printed in 10 languages. The warning on the inside wrapping that says don't stick your kid's head in it is printed in eight languages. Obviously, all these packaging materials are printed at one location and used worldwide. 

It would be ridiculously inefficient to package cameras in temporary shipping boxes, send them halfway across the world to the U.S. only to have that camera unpackaged and re-boxed in the U.S. where labor costs are much higher. It's even more implausible that Canon would unbox thousands of cameras once shipped and manually update firmware. 

Unless you can cite a reliable source I call B.S. on this.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'd like to know your source for this. The instruction manual packaged with my R5 was printed in China and the instruction manual that came with my 1Dx III was printed in Japan, so your claim of "locally sourced" printed materials is obviously wrong. The box my R5 came in is printed in seven languages, clearly designed to be used in multiple countries. The box my 100-500 came in is printed in 10 languages. The warning on the inside wrapping that says don't stick your kid's head in it is printed in eight languages. Obviously, all these packaging materials are printed at one location and used worldwide.
> 
> It would be ridiculously inefficient to package cameras in temporary shipping boxes, send them halfway across the world to the U.S. only to have that camera unpackaged and re-boxed in the U.S. where labor costs are much higher. It's even more implausible that Canon would unbox thousands of cameras once shipped and manually update firmware.
> 
> Unless you can cite a reliable source I call B.S. on this.



It has been more than a few years, which is why I qualified my comment with "Unless it has changed." At the time in the late 2000s, someone I met at a trade show through a friend said he was doing firmware updates at a warehouse on Long Island used by Canon USA. It was near JFK. At the time Canon USA was still headquartered near JFK at Lake Success, before they opened the new HQ further east in Melville. He said they came in with multiple bodies packed in custom shipping cases. The empty cases would be shipped back to Japan for reuse. What he described was similar to the way many electrical automotive components are shipped (which I dealt with extensively in the logistics field back in the 1990s). Those look like really big Pelican type cases with custom foam interiors.

I've dug out some of my boxes and looked at the documentation. It's interesting that most of it has been printed in Japan, but some has also been printed in the U.S. It's not in any kind of time sequence, either. My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II stuff was all printed in Japan. I bought it in August, 2010 only a few months after it was introduced early that same year. An EF 17-40mm f/4 L that I got in late 2012 had a fold-out instruction sheet in multiple languages printed in the USA. So did an EF 100mm f/2 bought in 2016. The documentation with an EF 135mm f/2 L bought in 2017 was printed in Japan. The date code on the 17-40 (UA0416) indicates it was made at Utsunomiya in April, 2012, and is part of the 16th revision of that lens since it was introduced in 2003. The date code of the 135 indicates it was made at Utsunomiya in September, 2016. My EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, bought in 2012 (right after the replacement was announced for $1K more) was made in January, 2012 so was apparently one of the last ones made. The documentation with it, still sealed in the plastic bag, has printed in Japan on the back page that is visible. The box appears to have been made in China (PRC).

All of the manuals I have were printed in Japan, but a few of the advertisements/promotions that came sealed in the same plastic bag with the manuals and software CDs were printed in the USA.

Believe whatever you want.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Surely not, since nothing about @Marximusprime’s post suggested that thought.



Considering the comment to which he was directly replying, which discussed file sizes in MB, it can be fairly reasonably inferred.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Agreed.
> I think Canon mentioned 'a' Digic X processor in the R3, so I'm assuming one?
> 
> A two year cycle is around average for new Canon processors at the moment, no doubt we'll see a Digic 11 (XI) in the R1 next year, even multi XI processors.



Someone from Canon said in an interview a while back that DiG!C X is not so much a specific processing chip as it is an architecture. So all DiG!C X systems are not necessarily equal in much the same way that, say, all AMD Ryzen processors or Intel i7 processors are not equal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Considering the comment to which he was directly replying, which discussed file sizes in MB, it can be fairly reasonably inferred.


Only by someone who failed to read the posts with reasonable comprehension. The point of both posts was resolution (MP). File size (MB) was only mentioned (and _not_ in the post you quoted) as a confirmation of the fact that JPG files were being discussed, not RAW files.

Your complete misinterpretation of @Marximusprime’s post doesn’t mean that post was correct. The comment to which he was replying correctly suggested that, because the files on which the 24 MP resolution suggested for the R3 is based are JPGs, they could be lower resolution (MP) than the sensor (whereas RAW files must be the resolution of the sensor, in terms of effective pixels). @Marximusprime may never have used downsampled (e.g., camera-produced M or S JPG files), but he in no way implied that a 45 MP JPG file must be 45 MB.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Just curious, what are people's thoughts on why Canon has stayed quiet on the sensor resolution? For those thinking Canon strategically chose 24MP, why not disclose that with the rest of the marketing? Do you think there's a reason they've kept this bit of information elusive?



Canon has never included sensor resolution in a development announcement. Not one single time. Why are so many folks surprised they didn't do it with the R3?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

tapanit said:


> I will be surprised if they come up with high megapixel R1.
> 
> I will be even more surprised if they don't come up with any high mp body. I just expect it will be called something like R5s or R3s or possibly R2. If history is anything to go by, R1 will be first and foremost reliable and fast, the thing to have in big sports events, and high resolution is hard to combine with that.
> 
> ...



The R3 is the 1D type sports body you're expecting the R1 to be. The R1 will be a higher resolution studio/fashion/portrait camera like the 1Ds was.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If the 5DV doesn’t have an articulating screen, I would still wind up using my 6D2 a lot of the time anyway. So they need to figure out how to do that and retain the same level of weatherproofing, or they clearly don’t want my business.
> 
> (That’s the closest I can come to fitting in the current discussion.)



The 5D Mark V? It ain't happening, dude. Ever.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If you have twice as many noise pixels but they are half the size each the result is the same amount of noise. It will be just as visible as less’ larger‘ noise.



Nah. Small drops of dark paint spread out over a large area of a brightly painted wall are far less noticeable than a few large blots of dark paint.

For human vision at normal display and viewing distances, the circle of confusion is about seven pixels wide for a camera with 4 µm sensels. If the noise stays below the CoC, then it's not noticeable at all at normal display size and distances.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5D Mark V? It ain't happening, dude. Ever.


That’s another reason for me not to buy one.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5D Mark V? It ain't happening, dude. Ever.


According to PetaPixel, Canon just raised the price on the Mark IV by $200, so I’m even less likely to buy one. If I really had wanted one, I should have bought it when it was selling for $1,900.

I keep coming back to the question of what equipment would improve my photography in real life. And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” The closest I come is to imagine scenarios where I might take more landscapes if I had a medium format camera, and I haven’t convinced myself it is true, or even that in real life for me it would make that much of a difference. I did see that a tilt-shift lens is planned for the Fujifilm G series. Maybe that will change my mind if it comes out and the 100S becomes readily available. By then I probably will be concentrating on replacing my old Mac with a tricked out future model and forget photo equipment fantasies for a while.

I readily admit that there are better cameras than my 6D2, and I don’t begrudge those who use them or want them or even need them. And if the cameras had no interest to me at all, I wouldn’t be following these threads.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 4, 2021)

stevelee said:


> [..] And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” [..]


I had that discussing during a workshop last week, about the progression of shots when encountering rare species. Get a shot first to have something to show, then try to get closer and get progressively better photos. The instructor mentioned "going through the aperture steps" and we wondered why there's no aperture bracketing function, like AEB.
WIth electronic shutter you can take a series of pictures, automatically stopping further down after each one, in a fraction of a second.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Sep 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has never included sensor resolution in a development announcement. Not one single time. Why are so many folks surprised they didn't do it with the R3?


I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.


Back in the day when the XXD (and later the 7D) were the top selling enthusiast cameras and Canon was upping the sensor resolution with each successive generation, they did market the resolution. People on this forum used to complain that Canon sensors had too high of resolution and had too much noise as a result. A common meme was to compare Canon's higher resolution sensors unfavorably to Nikon's lower resolution sensors BTW.

These days, I don't think Canon really feels that sensor resolution is a big selling point unless it's unusually high. The R5 set a new standard for resolution in a Canon camera (not a record, but a standard) so Canon was more inclined to market the number. What benefit would there be for Canon to market a 24mp sensor, especially when there are so many other new and more impressive features to talk about in the R3? 

As far as "confirming" the resolution, they have essentially done that. By giving a camera to Jeff Cable and encouraging him to post and blog about the camera, Canon knew the resolution would leak out. This has allowed the resolution to be a non-issue by the time the camera is actually announced.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Sep 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Back in the day when the XXD (and later the 7D) were the top selling enthusiast cameras and Canon was upping the sensor resolution with each successive generation, they did market the resolution. People on this forum used to complain that Canon sensors had too high of resolution and had too much noise as a result. A common meme was to compare Canon's higher resolution sensors unfavorably to Nikon's lower resolution sensors BTW.
> 
> These days, I don't think Canon really feels that sensor resolution is a big selling point unless it's unusually high. The R5 set a new standard for resolution in a Canon camera (not a record, but a standard) so Canon was more inclined to market the number. What benefit would there be for Canon to market a 24mp sensor, especially when there are so many other new and more impressive features to talk about in the R3?
> 
> As far as "confirming" the resolution, they have essentially done that. By giving a camera to Jeff Cable and encouraging him to post and blog about the camera, Canon knew the resolution would leak out. This has allowed the resolution to be a non-issue by the time the camera is actually announced.


I would argue nothing is "confirmed" until an official announcement is made, but I get what you're saying. BTW I'm not saying they should market the resolution, I'm saying they could "officially" confirm it, the way they did - for example - confirming that 8K on the R5 would be without a crop. I'm not so sure the resolution is a non-issue amongst many; I've seen a lot of posts on forums and photog FB groups where folks are holding out hope that it will be more. I don't have that hope, but it seems many people are still waiting for the official announcement to put the sensor resolution to rest. We shall see soon.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> I would argue nothing is "confirmed" until an official announcement is made, but I get what you're saying. BTW I'm not saying they should market the resolution, I'm saying they could "officially" confirm it, the way they did - for example - confirming that 8K on the R5 would be without a crop. I'm not so sure the resolution is a non-issue amongst many; I've seen a lot of posts on forums and photog FB groups where folks are holding out hope that it will be more. I don't have that hope, but it seems many people are still waiting for the official announcement to put the sensor resolution to rest. We shall see soon.


Nonissue might have been a poor choice of words. What I meant is that by allowing the resolution to leak early, it won't be the focus of the post announcement buzz because it's not really news anymore. Yeah, it will be mentioned in the reviews and commentary, but it won't dominate the coverage.


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 7, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Considering the comment to which he was directly replying, which discussed file sizes in MB, it can be fairly reasonably inferred.



Yeah...I've never thought that MB equal MP. I constantly review file sizes and they're never the same "size" as the amount of megapixels.


----------



## Eersel (Sep 8, 2021)

My great hope was for a 30 MP sensor again. Very nice middle ground in terms of resolution and Signal/noise…


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 10, 2021)

The new Nokishita leak talks about 24.1MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 15, 2021)

stevelee said:


> According to PetaPixel, Canon just raised the price on the Mark IV by $200, so I’m even less likely to buy one. If I really had wanted one, I should have bought it when it was selling for $1,900.
> 
> I keep coming back to the question of what equipment would improve my photography in real life. And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” The closest I come is to imagine scenarios where I might take more landscapes if I had a medium format camera, and I haven’t convinced myself it is true, or even that in real life for me it would make that much of a difference. I did see that a tilt-shift lens is planned for the Fujifilm G series. Maybe that will change my mind if it comes out and the 100S becomes readily available. By then I probably will be concentrating on replacing my old Mac with a tricked out future model and forget photo equipment fantasies for a while.
> 
> I readily admit that there are better cameras than my 6D2, and I don’t begrudge those who use them or want them or even need them. And if the cameras had no interest to me at all, I wouldn’t be following these threads.



For me the biggest difference between the 5D Mark III and IV is flicker reduction. I still shoot under a lot of flickering lights in stadiums and gyms, though that is slowly beginning to change. It makes a huge difference in workflow. Without flicker reduction 6-7 of every 10 shots are unusable simply due to color shift from one side of the frame to the other unless you want to spend hours in post for a handful of images. With it greater than 9/10 are the exact same color and brightness and can be batch processed.

Just this year two of the high school stadiums I visit every other year with my local high school football team installed steady state LED lighting in their football stadiums. One is frustratingly dim, but the output is constant, full spectrum, and fairly easy to color balance. The other is brighter, but I haven't post-processed anything from it yet (just shot there this weekend). But they do like to strobe them on-off-on-off every time they score a touchdown. (At least until some kid on a visiting team goes into an epileptic seizure and sues the snot out of them.) As in totally off when any are off (every.single.light.at.the.same.time.) Not like colleges that have a pattern where there are always a few on while the others are off.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I had that discussing during a workshop last week, about the progression of shots when encountering rare species. Get a shot first to have something to show, then try to get closer and get progressively better photos. The instructor mentioned "going through the aperture steps" and we wondered why there's no aperture bracketing function, like AEB.
> WIth electronic shutter you can take a series of pictures, automatically stopping further down after each one, in a fraction of a second.



You can do it with most cameras that have AEB. Shoot either in Tv mode with manually set ISO and the only variable the camera can alter is Av. Another way to do it is program shift in P exposure mode.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 15, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.



For Canon, marketing doesn't begin until after the official announcement. Everything before that are development announcements.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You can do it with most cameras that have AEB. Shoot either in Tv mode with manually set ISO and the only variable the camera can alter is Av. Another way to do it is program shift in P exposure mode.


That is so obvious it hadn't occurred to me, thanks!


----------



## john1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

Eersel said:


> My great hope was for a 30 MP sensor again. Very nice middle ground in terms of resolution and Signal/noise…


My hope was for a slightly greater number of MP as well although Canon claims that the R3 24.1 MP sensor out resolves the Canon 5D Mk4 30.4 MP sensor.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Sep 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> For Canon, marketing doesn't begin until after the official announcement. Everything before that are development announcements.


This has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. You clearly don't understand what marketing is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> This has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. You clearly don't understand what marketing is.


Lol, yeah. Because making promotional videos and sharing the camera for reviewers to share select information about it ahead of the announcement aren't marketing.


----------

