# Canon EOS R3 sensor resolution to be 45mp?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 17, 2021)

> Techradar is reporting that there are rumors of the Canon EOS R3 sporting a 45mp image sensor, just like the Canon EOS R5. I have reported that the EOS R3 will have a 30.1mp image sensor.
> From Techradar:
> Canon hasn’t yet officially confirmed the resolution of the Canon EOS R3, its equivalent mirrorless camera for pro sports photographers, but rumors have strongly suggested that it’ll also be a 45MP camera. We do already officially know that R3 will be able to shoot 30fps bursts and oversampled 4K video.
> I haven’t had a single person tell me that the
> ...


----------



## reef58 (Jul 17, 2021)

I tend to agree, if it were 45mp then why not 8k? I am not a tech guy, but would BSI have anything to do with lack of 8k? Doesn't seem so but I don't know.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Jul 17, 2021)

Canon took the time and energy to issue a statement that the sensor would be designed and manufactured by Canon. Why the secret about sensor resolution? Seems strange...


----------



## lexptr (Jul 17, 2021)

Please, Canon, no! Leave some advantages for R5! I want to be less tempted


----------



## KT (Jul 17, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I tend to agree, if it were 45mp then why not 8k? I am not a tech guy, but would BSI have anything to do with lack of 8k? Doesn't seem so but I don't know.


Both the Sony Alpha 1 and Nikon Z9 have BSI sensor and both are capable of 8K shooting.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 17, 2021)

Hey maybe I was right when I said we won’t know until we open the box


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 17, 2021)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> Canon took the time and energy to issue a statement that the sensor would be designed and manufactured by Canon. Why the secret about sensor resolution? Seems strange...


We keep talking about it........


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 17, 2021)

30 megapixels would already be a big step down from the 18 megapixels I currently have, but 45 megapixels would be very bad. If they do that, the have to cut the price by a lot.


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2021)

I do not care about 8K but I care about 45mp. If it were 45mp I would be angry because .... I would have to spend money to get it


----------



## jam05 (Jul 17, 2021)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> Canon took the time and energy to issue a statement that the sensor would be designed and manufactured by Canon. Why the secret about sensor resolution? Seems strange...


Because Canon controls the narative. CR was wrong about the R5 and most likely the same about the R3. The R5 surprised all the rumor sites.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 17, 2021)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> Canon took the time and energy to issue a statement that the sensor would be designed and manufactured by Canon. Why the secret about sensor resolution? Seems strange...


Canon took the time and energy because Sony fanboys were trying to negatively impact the R3 buzz. And the internet negative buzz was getting quite anoying. With the resolution held back until opening ceremonies. Unless photographers agreed to not disclose Exif data


----------



## snapshot (Jul 17, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Because Canon controls the narative. CR was wrong about the R5 and most likely the same about the R3. The R5 surprised all the rumor sites.


CR coverage of R5 seemed pretty good to me, and now that i have one it seems pretty good to me also...


----------



## jam05 (Jul 17, 2021)

July 23rd will be my bet that photographers using the R3 at the Olympics will make suttle mentions of the resolution via Exif data or other means.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 17, 2021)

jam05 said:


> July 23rd will be my bet that photographers using the R3 at the Olympics will make suttle mentions of the resolution via Exif data or other means.


I tried that with some images I was pretty sure were taken with the R3, UK Royal Family at the Euro Soccer Finals, but all the camera EXIF had been stripped.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 17, 2021)

I am sure the real reason why spectators are banned at the Olympics is the fear that information about the R3 could leak. Canon is a main sponsor


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I am sure the real reason why spectators are banned at the Olympics is the fear that information about the R3 could leak. Canon is a main sponsor


And Olympics are getting closer...


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 17, 2021)

I like this rumor better.
Must make it true, right?

45 MP is so nice for small birds.


----------



## Skux (Jul 17, 2021)

The people who wrote off the R3 because they 'need' 45mp are quaking right now


----------



## adventureous (Jul 17, 2021)

I am checking Jeff Cable's blog twice a day lol for Olympic information, right now the topic is getting 26 covid test before he can get in , and they are getting plenty of rain.


----------



## Chig (Jul 17, 2021)

Perhaps Canon don't want people obsessing about 8K like they did with the R5 and want to add extra shock and awe when they officially announce the R3 with 45mp and 8K.
I would have thought that such a professional sports orientated camera will have 20-30mp though.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2021)

While I would love for it to have 45 mp, I think I am more inclined to believe CR Guy than others.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 17, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I tend to agree, if it were 45mp then why not 8k? I am not a tech guy, but would BSI have anything to do with lack of 8k? Doesn't seem so but I don't know.


Canon announced that the R3 will shoot RAW video.
If the sensor is 45 MP then it has to shoot 8K unless the video is cropped.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 17, 2021)

Skux said:


> The people who wrote off the R3 because they 'need' 45mp are quaking right now


The Sony A1 has 50 MP so the R3 is completely worthless


----------



## dba101 (Jul 17, 2021)

Yeah unless you like colour rendition to work with, not be stuck with. Worthless or not. If it’s being announced in September. Any pointers on an estimate shipping date?


----------



## john1970 (Jul 17, 2021)

I might be of the odd opinion here, but I hope it is 30.1 MP and not 45 MP. For 45 MP I already have a R5. I personally would like to have fewer MP and superior high ISO noise so I am really hoping that the R3 fills this need. Moreover, with all the upsampling software I am starting to question why I even need 45 MP vs. 30 MP.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon announced that the R3 will shoot RAW video.
> If the sensor is 45 MP then it has to shoot 8K unless the video is cropped.


Yep several points raised. If I had to guess I would go with CR and 30.1


----------



## DBounce (Jul 18, 2021)

Well raw from a 30MP sensor would mean 6K… but Canon made no mention of 6K raw. So who’s to say it won’t be 45MP with 8K raw? One thing is certain, if it’s 4K raw you are looking at 12MP sensor max, since if oversampled it would not be raw. The only way to get raw with a sensor larger than 12MPs would be to crop in on the sensor, like Red do.


----------



## vignes (Jul 18, 2021)

the R3 sensor supposed to be stacked sensor NOT just BSI. there are mix messages.
Most FF camera sensors are BSI especially those which uses Sony Sensors i.e. Sony, Nikon. Panasonic FF cameras uses FSI. But only A9 and A1 has FF stacked sensors.
Canon says first BSI sensor for R3. what does it mean... is it Stacked BSI sensor or just BSI sensor?

Also, there are R3 being tested by Canon Pros... there must be info out there on sensor. I'm with CR, these would most likely be 30mpx. there are rumours that the next Sony A9 would have a 30Mpx Stacked sensor. Maybe, Canon has leapfrogged Sony to release the R3 with similar sensor spec.

About 45Mpx sensor, I don't think it'll hurt R5 sales if the R3 has 45Mpx sensor. the R3 price bracket would be higher. There are some (like me) whom prefer modular body i.e. battery grip as a seperate part plus using standard LPE6 batteries.


----------



## DBounce (Jul 18, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I might be of the odd opinion here, but I hope it is 30.1 MP and not 45 MP. For 45 MP I already have a R5. I personally would like to have fewer MP and superior high ISO noise so I am really hoping that the R3 fills this need. Moreover, with all the upsampling software I am starting to question why I even need 45 MP vs. 30 MP.


It’s going to have better noise performance than the R5 anyway. It’s a stacked sensor. And your same argument could be made for owners of the 30MP Eos R.


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 18, 2021)

Can't wait for the 85mp R1. *Anyone else waiting? *

If the R3 is 45mp it could be a good backup camera for your (2) two R1's in your kit.

If the R3 is 30mp, great for keeping napkins from blowing away


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2021)

vignes said:


> the R3 sensor supposed to be stacked sensor NOT just BSI. there are mix messages.


There are no mixed messages from Canon. It’s a stacked sensor.

“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.”





__





EOS R3 In Development


Canon Inc. has announced the EOS R3 is in development, expanding its commitment to sports, wildlife, and nature photographers.




www.canon.ca


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 18, 2021)

Well maybe they are holding certain features back. The over-hyping of 8K on the R5 bit them in the a$$. Maybe they wanted to be absolutely certain the R3 can record 8K all day without overheating, and if it can that would be a major feature to announce on the official reveal. A 45MP R3 is almost certainly and instant buy from me. A 30MP R3 is ok, but I wouldn't rush into it.

Do I believe it will be 45MP, at this stage no, but I'm am hoping it is.
The A1 has shown that 50MP is not an impediment to pro sales and the Z9 is basically confirmed at 45MP and this from a company that has also never offered more than 20MP in a pro camera before. The idea that Canon would be left behind with a deplorable 20MP sensor for effectively a 2022 camera doesn't make sense. The R1 can distinguish itself in many ways from the R3 not least of which is global shutter and QPAF. It is far harder to offer high res global shutter FF sensor so IMO it would make more sense for the R1 to be 30MP.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 18, 2021)

I have a real $100 wager on another professional discussion site that this would make me win. And I’d put it toward the purchase price because I’d like an R5 with a native grip and the latest tech.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 18, 2021)

DBounce said:


> It’s going to have better noise performance than the R5 anyway. It’s a stacked sensor. And your same argument could be made for owners of the 30MP Eos R.


The sensor is a BSI stacked sensor. I thought the BSI would improve the noise performance while being stacked would improve the readout speak for AF and removing rolling shutter? Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Can't wait for the 85mp R1. *Anyone else waiting? *


You’ll have to wait 8 months for that, with the 8 rotated 90°.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I tried that with some images I was pretty sure were taken with the R3, UK Royal Family at the Euro Soccer Finals, but all the camera EXIF had been stripped.


What was the resolution of those images... even with exif stripped, they may have been sloppy and didn't resize them.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 18, 2021)

They haven’t mentioned 8K because they got hot-roasted for yapping-up the 8K on the R5. Sure, the R3 is bigger, but it’s also probably running hotter, faster processors and is even more weather sealed. Canon probably just decided to take its 8K and go home.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> What was the resolution of those images... even with exif stripped, they may have been sloppy and didn't resize them.


They had!

I was looking at Richard ‘Dickie’ Pelham’s images at ‘The Sun’, and the agency Alamy.


----------



## macrunning (Jul 18, 2021)

Well I'm hoping for 45MP, but seriously if so why does Canon got to make my relationship with my wife so difficult! LOL


----------



## Dragon (Jul 18, 2021)

This is a Canon BSI stacked sensor, not a Sony, so we have no idea what features could emerge. Stacked sensors theoretically allow for an enormous amount of signal processing in the sensor. This leaves the opportunity open for on-sensor interpolation and therefore variable resolution without cropping. The R5 has low ISO noise reduction in the RAWs, so Canon has made it clear that they are not afraid of pre-processing. Once you open that door, the sensor could be 100 MP and spit out 30 or 45 MP images at high speed and higher res images at somewhat lower speed so as to not overload data cards. Not in any way suggesting that this is what has been done, but rather pointing out that any number of major surprises are quite possible. It is unlikely that Canon is fabbing the processor layer of the stacked sensor (equally unlikely that Sony does as well), so much depends on the geometry of that layer. If it is even as small as 14nm, the possibilities are pretty much endless. We are talking about an available area 35% larger than the biggest GPU chips. It clearly has to clock at much lower speeds, because 300W in the sensor is not practical and would be detrimental to the imaging section, but the amount of processing power would still be huge.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 18, 2021)

The 30MP resolution also supported by the fact that the R3 use many of the electronic communication as the R5, thus, if you increase your FPS from 20 to 30, you will need to reduce the number of pixels at the same rate, that is from 45MP to 30MP. All in all, having 30MP is far above most people needs from such a camera. Should one need something higher than 45MP, they can wait a bit for the R5s that will have over 75MP (rumored).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2021)

masterpix said:


> The 30MP resolution also supported by the fact that the R3 use many of the electronic communication as the R5,


Where did Canon state they were doing that? What is the source for this purported ‘fact’?


----------



## masterpix (Jul 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where did Canon state they were doing that? What is the source for this purported ‘fact’?


Those are not facts, but I don't think that they are developing new nemory transfer modules for the R3 and they are using the same memory cards with similar capabilities as the ones on the R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2021)

masterpix said:


> Those are not facts, but I don't think that they are developing new nemory transfer modules for the R3 and they are using the same memory cards with similar capabilities as the ones on the R5.


In Canon’s words the, “EOS R3 will deliver substantially faster read-out speeds,” but you’re suggesting they’ll use the same memory transfer module. Okay.

The idea behind deductive reasoning is that you start with facts and logically draw conclusions from them. If your conclusion is based on speculation, it’s just more speculation. There’s a reason houses shouldn’t be built on sand.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 18, 2021)

vignes said:


> the R3 sensor supposed to be stacked sensor NOT just BSI. there are mix messages.
> Most FF camera sensors are BSI especially those which uses Sony Sensors i.e. Sony, Nikon. Panasonic FF cameras uses FSI. But only A9 and A1 has FF stacked sensors.
> Canon says first BSI sensor for R3. what does it mean... is it Stacked BSI sensor or just BSI sensor?
> 
> ...


I'm having trouble following. How would Canon be leapfrogging Sony with a 30MP R3, if Sony's A1 has 50MP?
The testers are hand picked by Canon and sign Non Disclosure Agreements. Violating these agreements can have serious consequences so it is no surprise that we have not seen major leaks yet.

I would much prefer 45MP but the sources used seemed very questionable. For instance, the article mentioned 45MP and quad pixel AF when Canon has stated next generation dual pixel AF. The rumors for 30 MP seem more credible at this point, but I am holding onto a sliver of hope.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Jul 18, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Well raw from a 30MP sensor would mean 6K… but Canon made no mention of 6K raw. So who’s to say it won’t be 45MP with 8K raw? One thing is certain, if it’s 4K raw you are looking at 12MP sensor max, since if oversampled it would not be raw. The only way to get raw with a sensor larger than 12MPs would be to crop in on the sensor, like Red do.


Extremely good and valid points.

30.1MP = 6.7K I think, so that would be your only RAW option without cropping unless it's 8K Raw with a 45MP sensor.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 18, 2021)

For me a 45 MPix sensor would be great if I migrate to a professional camera because it allows for doing things in the high res department.

If there is a high quality on-sensor(chip) downsampled 15 MPix mode for high speed / reduced amount of data (sports for media e.g.) it would be great for action.

If it has great video modes incl. 8k for some special situations (at least for me only if I need to capture a wider field to crop later to e.g. 4k) why not?

I think this would be a very versatile "swiss knife" camera. At ~7 k€ / k$.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 18, 2021)

YES! This is the only way to go. You simply cannot launch a 6000 dollar pro camera (R3) with 30mpx when a year earlier you have released a 45mpx semi pro camera (R5). So 45 mpx is the norm now. Go Canon! Now make it 5000 euro’s max! and everybody is happy and we can finally all go mirrorless.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 18, 2021)

The only question that arises is: What is left for the R1 if the R3 already has a 45mpx camera... but that is pure marketing, so just give us this 45mpix cam and make it affordable!


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 18, 2021)

masterpix said:


> The 30MP resolution also supported by the fact that the R3 use many of the electronic communication as the R5, thus, if you increase your FPS from 20 to 30, you will need to reduce the number of pixels at the same rate, that is from 45MP to 30MP.[..]


We don't know if the FPS of the R5 is limited by the sensor, the DIGIC X or something else.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2021)

For an ultra fast, super low light sports and general purpose camera 30mpixels seem just right to tell the truth. It is a 5DIV and 1DxIII combined (well sort of).

The only thing that makes me want 45mpixels is birding.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 18, 2021)

Skux said:


> The people who wrote off the R3 because they 'need' 45mp are quaking right now


Oh YES! I was writing down the R3 because of the 30 mpix, and I am extremely happy it is going to be 45 mpix. Well done Canon.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 18, 2021)

BTW peeps, it is going to be 30mpix I am pretty sure. What sports photographer wants 45mpix, that will only take more time to process. 
But for me as an all-rounder 45mpix hi-speed pro body would be the best I could ever wish for. So I am keeping my fingers crossed...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> What was the resolution of those images... even with exif stripped, they may have been sloppy and didn't resize them.


We would have no way of knowing whether the images are in their native resolution, upscaled, or downscaled.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> BTW peeps, it is going to be 30mpix I am pretty sure. What sports photographer wants 45mpix, that will only take more time to process.
> But for me as an all-rounder 45mpix hi-speed pro body would be the best I could ever wish for. So I am keeping my fingers crossed...


The R1 is still coming.
That one could be the lower resolution one instead of the R3.
I still believe the R3 will be 30 MP because Canon did not mention 8K video.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

masterpix said:


> Those are not facts, but I don't think that they are developing new nemory transfer modules for the R3 and they are using the same memory cards with similar capabilities as the ones on the R5.


You must also be assuming that the bandwidth of the R5 is maxed out.
That need not be true.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In Canon’s words the, “EOS R3 will deliver substantially faster read-out speeds,” but you’re suggesting they’ll use the same memory transfer module. Okay.
> 
> The idea behind deductive reasoning is that you start with facts and logically draw conclusions from them. If your conclusion is based on speculation, it’s just more speculation. There’s a reason houses shouldn’t be built on sand.


Deductive reasoning off speculation is still deductive reasoning.
What you are referring to as speculation is merely an assumption.
It is not really fair to criticize someone for doing that on a rumor site.
We are all speculating to some degree.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I'm having trouble following. How would Canon be leapfrogging Sony with a 30MP R3, if Sony's A1 has 50MP?
> The testers are hand picked by Canon and sign Non Disclosure Agreements. Violating these agreements can have serious consequences so it is no surprise that we have not seen major leaks yet.
> 
> I would much prefer 45MP but the sources used seemed very questionable. For instance, the article mentioned 45MP and quad pixel AF when Canon has stated next generation dual pixel AF. The rumors for 30 MP seem more credible at this point, but I am holding onto a sliver of hope.


Just throwing this out there but it could be that the leaker has an R1 but doesn't know it.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> What is left for the R1 if the R3 already has a 45mpx camera.


60 MP


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 60 MP


I still believe the overall number of pixels is a bit misleading measure of resolution. 
Yup, I know the obvious thing that 45mpx looks much more impressive (and 60mpx does even more) than 30mpx, but it is still only about 1.2 (~1.4, respectively) more pixels in terms of resolution. 

The OEMs do they marketing-driven narration, but we don't have to follow, do we?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 18, 2021)

The stupidity of announcing a camera and dribbling out information creates negative as well as positive publicity. 
One of Canon most successful cameras was the Canon 5D MKII they released at Photokina that didnt have the nonsense we see today.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I still believe the overall number of pixels is a bit misleading measure of resolution.
> Yup, I know the obvious thing that 45mpx looks much more impressive (and 60mpx does even more) than 30mpx, but it is still only about 1.2 (~1.4, respectively) more pixels in terms of resolution.
> 
> The OEMs do they marketing-driven narration, but we don't have to follow, do we?


A factor of 1.2x in resolution is precisely what you get on going from 500mm to 600mm, and people will pay the extra for a 600mm f/4 over a 500mm f/4. And 1.4x is what you get with a 1.4x, which people will happily use.


----------



## DBounce (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The R1 is still coming.
> That one could be the lower resolution one instead of the R3.
> I still believe the R3 will be 30 MP because Canon did not mention 8K video.


Well Canon did not mention 6K either… so by this logic it’s a 12MP sensor max. Because any more than this would require cropping to still be raw in 4K.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Well Canon did not mention 6K either… so by this logic it’s a 12MP sensor max. Because any more than this would require cropping to still be raw in 4K.


6K is a nonstandard resolution.
There are no consumer 6K televisions that I am aware of so it would not be worth mentioning.
The R5 could shoot 6K if Canon wanted it to but there is not really demand for it.
Besides that 30.1 MP would be 6.7K in RAW.
It would just mean that there are no plans to downsample to 6K.
45 MP is exactly 8K.


----------



## sanj (Jul 18, 2021)

If this is true, I am happy beyond measure. 45 + 8k + eye focus = Pre order


----------



## sanj (Jul 18, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I like this rumor better.
> Must make it true, right?
> 
> 45 MP is so nice for small birds.


I like 45 mp for the richness of it. Not the crop factor.


----------



## DBounce (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 6K is a nonstandard resolution.
> There are no consumer 6K televisions that I am aware of so it would not be worth mentioning.
> The R5 could shoot 6K if Canon wanted it to but there is not really demand for it.
> Besides that 30.1 MP would be 6.7K in RAW.
> ...


Sure 6K is worth mentioning. Red even named their camera after it… the “Komodo 6K”, so it’s clearly worth mentioning. R5 could not shoot 6K raw. But that said, I’m not sure why Canon would make the R3 have the same resolution as the Eos R? I think the 45MP sensor makes more sense at this point.


----------



## djack41 (Jul 18, 2021)

Pray for 45mp! The R3 will be going head-to-head with the 50mp Sony A1. The R3 needs to have comparable resolution.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 18, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> The only question that arises is: What is left for the R1 if the R3 already has a 45mpx camera... but that is pure marketing, so just give us this 45mpix cam and make it affordable!


Wireless control over your implanted neuralink implant - just On/Off switch to be dust and water proof.


----------



## lethiferous (Jul 18, 2021)

Canon Rumors is the only canon rumor worth reading or discussing. 45mp on the r3 is a 0 chance item.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 18, 2021)

Canon's current sports camera is 20MP, so 30MP makes sense for the R3, particularly since it isn't the flagship.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 18, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Sure 6K is worth mentioning. Red even named their camera after it… the “Komodo 6K”, so it’s clearly worth mentioning. R5 could not shoot 6K raw. But that said, I’m not sure why Canon would make the R3 have the same resolution as the Eos R? I think the 45MP sensor makes more sense at this point.


1) Komodo, BMPCC 6K/K Pro, and C300 Mark III only shoot 6K in RAW.
2) It would shoot 6.7K


Surely you are not arguing that RED would sell fewer cameras if they were 6.7K


----------



## sanj (Jul 18, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Canon's current sports camera is 20MP, so 30MP makes sense for the R3, particularly since it isn't the flagship.


Canon Rumors will not post this unless they thought there was merit to this.


----------



## dcm (Jul 18, 2021)

Note that there is no [CR#] in the title. That doesn’t suggest there is any “merit”. It appears this is a just a repost for discussion since someone else would likely do it anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is not really fair to criticize someone for doing that on a rumor site.
> We are all speculating to some degree.


The criticism was for the reference to personal speculation as fact.


----------



## Atlasman (Jul 18, 2021)

dcm said:


> Note that there is no [CR#] in the title. That doesn’t suggest there is any “merit”. It appears this is a just a repost for discussion since someone else would likely do it anyway.


Resolution of the R3 is certainly a critical feature for success.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 18, 2021)

dcm said:


> Note that there is no [CR#] in the title. That doesn’t suggest there is any “merit”. It appears this is a just a repost for discussion since someone else would likely do it anyway.



I haven't read the post on Techradar about the R3. But I read another one about "R7", and it is really just a low quality summary of various rumours, guesses & wishes, with [must be author's own opinion about] what sounds creditable and what not so much. At least that is how it looks to me.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 18, 2021)

sanj said:


> Canon Rumors will not post this unless they thought there was merit to this.


"I haven’t had a single person tell me that the EOS R3 will be 45mp, I can’t say the same about the 30.1mp resolution that I have reported." - CanonRumors


----------



## David_D (Jul 18, 2021)

I wonder how many R3s are at the Silverstone Grand Prix today, to try out the car AF. Will anyone slip out some 45mp images, cropped to 30.1mp to keep us guessing?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> The stupidity of announcing a camera and dribbling out information creates negative as well as positive publicity.
> One of Canon most successful cameras was the Canon 5D MKII they released at Photokina that didnt have the nonsense we see today.


The internet wasn't what it is today.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I haven't read the post on Techradar about the R3. But I read another one about "R7", and it is really just a low quality summary of various rumours, guesses & wishes, with [must be author's own opinion about] what sounds creditable and what not so much. At least that is how it looks to me.


It's not a post about the R3, it's a regurgitation of a Nikon Rumors (which is at least as reliable as Canon Rumors) post about the Nikon Z9 possibly having a 45 mp sensor. Techradar then added their own unsubstantiated claim that there are rumors about the R3 having a 45 mp sensor. Pretty weak.


----------



## djack41 (Jul 18, 2021)

lethiferous said:


> Canon Rumors is the only canon rumor worth reading or discussing. 45mp on the r3 is a 0 chance item.


Guess you know why?


----------



## slclick (Jul 18, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> 30 megapixels would already be a big step down from the 18 megapixels I currently have, but 45 megapixels would be very bad. If they do that, the have to cut the price by a lot.


The T2i was so underrated


----------



## djack41 (Jul 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It's not a post about the R3, it's a regurgitation of a Nikon Rumors (which is at least as reliable as Canon Rumors) post about the Nikon Z9 possibly having a 45 mp sensor. Techradar then added their own unsubstantiated claim that there are rumors about the R3 having a 45 mp sensor. Pretty weak.


...... as is your conjecture. lol


----------



## slclick (Jul 18, 2021)

David_D said:


> I wonder how many R3s are at the Silverstone Grand Prix today, to try out the car AF. Will anyone slip out some 45mp images, cropped to 30.1mp to keep us guessing?


Or on the Champs-Élysées (a bit bigger of a sporting event)


----------



## David_D (Jul 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> Or on the Champs-Élysées (a bit bigger of a sporting event)


Yeah, but "Alongside the people and animal AF tracking modes (including birds) ... the EOS R3 also tracks racing cars and motorbikes"
Note no "(including pushbikes)"


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 18, 2021)

Maybe the secret feature will be an AF that focusses on other body parts than eyes. The would come handy for "glamour" photography.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 60 MP


To really move the needle, the R1 would have to have at least 80mp


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 18, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> We would have no way of knowing whether the images are in their native resolution, upscaled, or downscaled.


That is true, however it would have been unlikely that they would have been upscaled. It would be more realistic for them to be downscaled (for web viewing) which should be easy to see... or left at native. If it would have been exactly 30.1 or 45MP it may have been a tell. However PBD already answered the question and said they were rescaled so it's a moot point now.


----------



## lukiv3 (Jul 18, 2021)

There is one fact giving hint R3 is actually ~30mpix. Before release of A1 all Canon rumors was around ponential R1 camera but this changed after specs of A1 has been revealed. I think Canon had plan to release R1 with 30mpix but after they realized i won't compete on paper with 50mpix A1 they had to rename it to R3 and left room for future potential R1 flagship with matching or overleap A1 mpix count.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 18, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I might be of the odd opinion here, but I hope it is 30.1 MP and not 45 MP. For 45 MP I already have a R5. I personally would like to have fewer MP and superior high ISO noise so I am really hoping that the R3 fills this need. Moreover, with all the upsampling software I am starting to question why I even need 45 MP vs. 30 MP.


Maybe it's just me--but I doubt it--but I'm thoroughly unimpressed with upsampling software. I've tried Adobe's, and I've tried Topaz, and neither are an adequate substitute for additional pixels.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It's not a post about the R3, it's a regurgitation of a Nikon Rumors (which is at least as reliable as Canon Rumors) post about the Nikon Z9 possibly having a 45 mp sensor. Techradar then added their own unsubstantiated claim that there are rumors about the R3 having a 45 mp sensor. Pretty weak.


The Techradar "source" is a Canon Watch article that claims 45MP and quad pixel autofocus. Canon says the R3 will have next generation dual pixel AF so we already have reason to believe that at least half of the Canon Watch information is wrong. This calls into question thr reliability of the 45MP claim from the same source.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 18, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Maybe it's just me--but I doubt it--but I'm thoroughly unimpressed with upsampling software. I've tried Adobe's, and I've tried Topaz, and neither are an adequate substitute for additional pixels.


If software like that works, it could also be applied to a high megapixel image of course. So the difference in resolution will stay.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 18, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> The stupidity of announcing a camera and dribbling out information creates negative as well as positive publicity.
> One of Canon most successful cameras was the Canon 5D MKII they released at Photokina that didnt have the nonsense we see today.


So bitter. Must be one of the whiny oldtographers. "BACK IN MA DAY...."


----------



## reef58 (Jul 18, 2021)

pic said:


> If canon wants me to switch from EF to RF they'll have to up the 30 MP to 45 MP, or I'll wait and stick with my 5DmkIV.
> 
> And if I get tired of waiting I might have a look at what other brands are doing, so they'd better not drag their feet for too long either.
> 
> If they make me loose all video modes in exchange: I'll gladly do so.


What is wrong with the R5? It may be the best camera on the market today.


----------



## Caseydull (Jul 18, 2021)

Doesn't it make sense that the R3 is 30.1 megapixel so Canon continues to cater to the sports shooter and then Come out with a 45 or more megapixel R1 as a flagship alternative to Sony's A1 and Nikon's Z9? Canon has impressed me with their lack of the cripple hammer but they always like to tier their cameras to justify the prices. I feel like the R3 is to beat out the Sony A9 II. More megapixel and faster frame rate. Canon is trying to position itself as the best mirrorless system in all categories. I just wish they could get lenses out. I ordered my Canon RF 100-500 March 13th and still nothing from Adorama.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 18, 2021)

I'd be fairly sure the R3 will be 30MP because if its 45MP a future R1 would be a hard sell.
Canon though not confirming the sensor size when they announced everything else I think was a mistake.
Maybe it was an advertising guru's idea of keeping peope talking about it but I think it takes away from the R3 30 MP sensor now that 45MP has come up.
Canon would know for a long time what they planned to put in the camera. They should have just announced it all and be done with it.
I still think in time to come the R1 will be hard to wow us. 
What will make it significantly better than the R3?


----------



## Caseydull (Jul 18, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd be fairly sure the R3 will be 30MP because if its 45MP a future R1 would be a hard sell.
> Canon though not confirming the sensor size when they announced everything else I think was a mistake.
> Maybe it was an advertising guru's idea of keeping peope talking about it but I think it takes away from the R3 30 MP sensor now that 45MP has come up.
> Canon would know for a long time what they planned to put in the camera. They should have just announced it all and be done with it.
> ...


The only thing I can think of is the Quad pixel autofocus if the R3 sticks with dual pixel autofocus. Or the holy grail of the global shutter that everyone talks about. I don't know if anyone really wants the 100 MP sensor. Too much storage and too much demand on the computers for processing.


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 18, 2021)

I'm sorry, but if you think (or insist) this camera must be 45mp or higher to succeed, this obviously isn't the camera for you. Canon knows what it's doing in this space, that's why they have dominated it for years. They built this for people who shoot fast action, not people who shoot photos of perched birds. While I do fall in this latter category, I have an R5 for those shoots. When things start flying or running 45mp is a problem. I have to almost double the shutter speed I used to use for my 1DX II for the same subjects to compensate for motion blur between pixels, which leads to higher ISOs. Higher ISO gives less detail and I may as well have 20mp. Before anyone starts blathering about downsampling, professional sports photogs don't have time to fuss with that nonsense. They need to shoot and upload. No post processing nonsense. Would I buy it at 45mp? Yes. Would I prefer my action camera to be 30? Absolutely. There's a reason the 1DX series never reached above 20mp, and it's not because pros were begging for more or that they couldn't manage the throughput. After all, the R5 sports the same processor as the 1DX III.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The Techradar "source" is a Canon Watch article that claims 45MP and quad pixel autofocus. Canon says the R3 will have next generation dual pixel AF so we already have reason to believe that at least half of the Canon Watch information is wrong. This calls into question the reliability of the 45MP claim from the same source.


Thanks. I was unaware of the Canon Watch story. I never go to that site, as they seem to mostly recycle @Canon Rumors Guy and other sites and publish anything regardless of whether or not it is credible. 

After reading your response, I went to their site and they are now using the Techradar story to substantiate their story -- basically a closed loop. "We publish a rumor, someone else picks it up and then we use their repost of our story to substantiate our story."


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2021)

I must admit that when it comes to these types of discussions, I heed Einstein's "I never think of the future – it comes soon enough."


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 18, 2021)

I only know the one "Predictions are wrong most of the time. Especially the ones about the future."


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> Or on the Champs-Élysées (a bit bigger of a sporting event)


Do you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?


----------



## Joules (Jul 18, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Do you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?


There is already face and head AF that is aware of helmets, isn't there? Seems irrelevant if the human is on a bike at that point - unless it is the bike and not its rider you want to focus on.


----------



## TedYork (Jul 18, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I tend to agree, if it were 45mp then why not 8k? I am not a tech guy, but would BSI have anything to do with lack of 8k? Doesn't seem so but I don't know.


First of all be it known that I have no idea what Canon is going to do, but so of the reasoning I've been hearing for not having 45mp is driving me crazy. First of all the sports camera thing. Why not? Sony's A1 is billed as a sports camera and I believe it is 50mp. Along with that is that Canon has to compete with Sony. Putting a 45mp sensor would help to do that. At 30mp's we'll have to listen to the whiners. Besides, who says it doesn't have 8k....Guess we'll see someday!


----------



## definedphotography (Jul 18, 2021)

pic said:


> If canon wants me to switch from EF to RF they'll have to up the 30 MP to 45 MP, or I'll wait and stick with my 5DmkIV.



Not sure if you've paid attention to the releases in the past year, but the R5 is exactly what you're looking for 
I've replaced one of my 5D IVs with an R5 and its just leaps & bounds better than the 5D. I doubt any other manufacturer is offering significantly better features.

The R3 is more a 1DX replacement than a 5D replacement.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 18, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> I'm sorry, but if you think (or insist) this camera must be 45mp or higher to succeed, this obviously isn't the camera for you. Canon knows what it's doing in this space, that's why they have dominated it for years. They built this for people who shoot fast action, not people who shoot photos of perched birds. While I do fall in this latter category, I have an R5 for those shoots. When things start flying or running 45mp is a problem. I have to almost double the shutter speed I used to use for my 1DX II for the same subjects to compensate for motion blur between pixels, which leads to higher ISOs. Higher ISO gives less detail and I may as well have 20mp. Before anyone starts blathering about downsampling, professional sports photogs don't have time to fuss with that nonsense. They need to shoot and upload. No post processing nonsense. Would I buy it at 45mp? Yes. Would I prefer my action camera to be 30? Absolutely. There's a reason the 1DX series never reached above 20mp, and it's not because pros were begging for more or that they couldn't manage the throughput. After all, the R5 sports the same processor as the 1DX III.


Seems like an irrational argument. Yes, if you are looking at pixel level, there will be more blur in action shots at the same settings with more MP, but if you use the same framing, then there will be essentially no difference in the overall image and the parts of the image that are correctly tracked, will be sharper with the higher MP body. All you have to do is downsample your R5 to 20 MP, and the shots will appear just as sharp as the ones from the IDX2, but of course, you will only have a 20 MP image. I fail to see how that makes 45MP "a problem".


----------



## Dragon (Jul 18, 2021)

Probably the most convincing argument for 45MP is "once you go to 8k, you don't go back". Clearly not a requirement for entry level cameras or M series, but any body at or above the price of the R5 will likely have 8k going forward (including the R1). There is, however a good chance the camera will include in camera downsampling and be able to produce lower resolution pseudo raw files that don't take up as much storage and transmission bandwidth to accommodate the sports crowd. Canon did say this is a "sports and wildlife" camera. Sports shooters don't want big files, but wildlife shooters typically want all the pixels they can get. It will be interesting to see how that dichotomy has been mitigated.


----------



## slclick (Jul 18, 2021)

Isn't it ironic that the video sensor math assists those in concluding rumor specs in a stills body?


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 18, 2021)

lukiv3 said:


> There is one fact giving hint R3 is actually ~30mpix. Before release of A1 all Canon rumors was around ponential R1 camera but this changed after specs of A1 has been revealed. I think Canon had plan to release R1 with 30mpix but after they realized i won't compete on paper with 50mpix A1 they had to rename it to R3 and left room for future potential R1 flagship with matching or overleap A1 mpix count.


Pretty plausible analysis...


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 18, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Seems like an irrational argument. Yes, if you are looking at pixel level, there will be more blur in action shots at the same settings with more MP, but if you use the same framing, then there will be essentially no difference in the overall image and the parts of the image that are correctly tracked, will be sharper with the higher MP body. All you have to do is downsample your R5 to 20 MP, and the shots will appear just as sharp as the ones from the IDX2, but of course, you will only have a 20 MP image. I fail to see how that makes 45MP "a problem".


Because they look noticeably softer. The target audience for this camera doesn’t have the time for down sizing. It would be ok with me, but I’m not a sports pro.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 18, 2021)

pic said:


> R5 just isn't enough of a step to switch to RF given the investment I have in EF bodies and lenses (yes there's that converter - but it'll remain a handicap to use it). The eye controlled AF point selection is what triggered my interest big time as I still haven't gotten over my old-timer focus and reframe shooting style from the old days - it's high time I relearn that but it's hard and I was hoping the eye control would give me enough of a tool to make the jump and finally stop doing what I learned as a kid using my dad's gear that had just one AF point.
> 
> As to the R5 itself: I'll lose the internal (and highly reliable) GPS functionality of the 5DmkIV and 7DmkII a feature I use a LOT. Not sure if the R3 will have it back or if it's going to be that kludge where you need the GP-E2 nonsense or an unreliable Bluetooth link to a phone.


I came from the 5d4 myself along with the original 1dx. The R5 is a pretty seamless transition. Of course I don't really care about gps in my cameras.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2021)

Dragon said:


> ...Canon did say this is a "sports and wildlife" camera. Sports shooters don't want big files, but wildlife shooters typically want all the pixels they can get. It will be interesting to see how that dichotomy has been mitigated.



My thinking is this is a sports camera that will work well for wildlife. I think Canon considers the R5 to be their main birds and wildlife camera.


----------



## addola (Jul 19, 2021)

Given that the Nikon Z9 & Sony A1 both have +45 MP sensor & 8K video, we should expect that Canon will match that in either the R3, or a future R1. I don't think the R5 is on the same level as the Z9 & A1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

pic said:


> yes there's that converter - but it'll remain a handicap to use it


Depends on your perspective. Personally, I find the ability to use only rear gelatin filters with my 11-24, or the fact that I need to carry filters the size of salad plates for my TS-E 17, a handicap. The ability to use an adapter with drop-in filters is an advantage in those cases.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 19, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Sure 6K is worth mentioning. Red even named their camera after it… the “Komodo 6K”, so it’s clearly worth mentioning. R5 could not shoot 6K raw. But that said, I’m not sure why Canon would make the R3 have the same resolution as the Eos R? I think the 45MP sensor makes more sense at this point.


The R5 could shoot 6K raw but it would be crop... realistically 8k raw is better for downsampling (perfect 8k->4k) ratio with the only downside being the bit rate over 6k


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 19, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Do you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?


Well, bicycle tracking is the standard AF test for DPreview


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> Isn't it ironic that the video sensor math assists those in concluding rumor specs in a stills body?


We need to understand that AF tracking is all about video processing from the sensor and display in the EVF/rear screen. We cannot separate the two for mirrorless or live view on DLSRs. Canon chose 45mp to be the first with 8k recording in that camera body envelope. The ratios are just too perfect to pretend otherwise. They had the great leap forward with the 5Dii and then the R5.

Given that the battery capacity between the A1 and R5 is within 7%, the massive CIPA difference is the efficiency of the processing and perhaps the CFe B card slot. Sony have been doing video processing for years of experience with PSx boxes. It would make sense that they have leveraged this capability for their camera processors as well


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 19, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> You must also be assuming that the bandwidth of the R5 is maxed out.
> That need not be true.


Correct. The CFe B card slot is definitely not maxed out for write speed. The write speed of the USH-II SD slot could be maxed out though with 45mp raw/20fps. Given that the R3 will have mixed slots again, then it makes some sense for 30mp raw/30fps to enable dual card recording of stills which would be mandatory for this level of camera.


----------



## Atlasman (Jul 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends on your perspective. Personally, I find the ability to use only rear gelatin filters with my 11-24, or the fact that I need to carry filters the size of salad plates for my TS-E 17, a handicap. The ability to use an adapter with drop-in filters is an advantage in those cases.


This is why I mostly use EF glass on my R5—the drop-in filters.


----------



## maulanawale (Jul 19, 2021)

From the article "But now the pretty reliable Nikon Rumors has said that "the Z9 will have a 45MP sensor that will allow up to 30fps" burst shooting. This is significant for a couple of reasons: firstly, it's a step above previous rumors, which suggested that 20fps would be the continuous shooting limit, but it'd also mean the Z9 would likely match the Canon EOS R3 for both resolution and speed

Canon hasn't yet officially confirmed the resolution of the Canon EOS R3, its equivalent mirrorless camera for pro sports photographers, but rumors have strongly suggested that it'll also be a 45MP camera. We do already officially know that R3 will be able to shoot 30fps bursts and oversampled 4K video."

Is it me (English is not my first language) or is this article a strange feedback loop?
The Z9 will match the R3 Res (as if the R3's is confirmed) but the R3 hasn't been confirmed. . . So rumours confirming rumours.

Seem like someone had some spare time and thought "meh, might as well p00p out an article to get some clicks. . . ."


----------



## Chig (Jul 19, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> So bitter. Must be one of the whiny oldtographers. "BACK IN MA DAY...."


No trade shows like Photokina at the moment either


----------



## deleteme (Jul 19, 2021)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> Canon took the time and energy to issue a statement that the sensor would be designed and manufactured by Canon. Why the secret about sensor resolution? Seems strange...


Silence on rea makes sense because everyone is watching. Exactly what they want. 
The other reason is that if it is 30MP a lot of people will lose interest and it will land with a thud.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 19, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> From the article "But now the pretty reliable Nikon Rumors has said that "the Z9 will have a 45MP sensor that will allow up to 30fps" burst shooting. This is significant for a couple of reasons: firstly, it's a step above previous rumors, which suggested that 20fps would be the continuous shooting limit, but it'd also mean the Z9 would likely match the Canon EOS R3 for both resolution and speed
> 
> Canon hasn't yet officially confirmed the resolution of the Canon EOS R3, its equivalent mirrorless camera for pro sports photographers, but rumors have strongly suggested that it'll also be a 45MP camera. We do already officially know that R3 will be able to shoot 30fps bursts and oversampled 4K video."
> 
> ...


So Canon is supplying Nikon?


----------



## David_D (Jul 19, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Probably the most convincing argument for 45MP is "once you go to 8k, you don't go back". Clearly not a requirement for entry level cameras or M series, but any body at or above the price of the R5 will likely have 8k going forward (including the R1). There is, however a good chance the camera will include in camera downsampling and be able to produce lower resolution pseudo raw files that don't take up as much storage and transmission bandwidth to accommodate the sports crowd. Canon did say this is a "sports and wildlife" camera. Sports shooters don't want big files, but wildlife shooters typically want all the pixels they can get. It will be interesting to see how that dichotomy has been mitigated.



Agree 100%, as I pondered a few weeks ago...



David_D said:


> Only a semi-serious question, as I am probably reading to much into this, but ... I had an email from Canon selling the R3:


(The missing quote that does not appear here is: *EOS R3 SPECS REVEALED: *The EOS R3 is our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera perfect for pro sports and wildlife photography and filmmaking – discover what it has to offer.


David_D said:


> Would < 8K (i.e. 30mp) be "*perfect for *pro sports and wildlife photography and *filmmaking*"? I can see the arguments for pro sport, wildlife would prefer higher mp but could compromise for other improved features, but would it be perfect for filmmaking? (Certainly not for 8K!)



There may be clues, as was said when the original development announcement was made:



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The image sensor is all-new from Canon, as we know it’s a stacked backside-illuminated image sensor. Beyond what Canon has told us, I have been told that *this camera will have a “resolution trick”*.



and as you pointed out earlier:



Dragon said:


> Stacked sensors theoretically allow for an enormous amount of signal processing in the sensor. This leaves the opportunity open for on-sensor interpolation and therefore variable resolution without cropping.



That is my guess (wish?) too! Native 45mp capable of 8k video, but with _on sensor_ down-sampling to 20mp and/or 30mp. Best for all scenarios, small, fast files for the sports pro, but large images for wildlife and 8k for video.

Of course, if my wish comes true I will be sad, as I won't be able to afford one for a while until the price drops.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 19, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> professional sports photogs don't have time to fuss with that nonsense. They need to shoot and upload. No post processing nonsense.


That applies to some or most, but not all professional sports photographers. The ones I follow on IG (MotoGP photographers) do post processing - not a lot, but they do it.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Someone please explain to me like a child.
> 
> Lots of people are shooting with the R3 right now, right? Do we know who they are or can we at least guess?
> 
> ...


I am sure they are not allowed to release a full resolution version. They may already have started doing reviews of the camera, which they can publish on Youtube, if it is officially released. 

I wonder though how many people at Canon know how large the resolution ist. Apple has a hard time keeping all the specs secret each year. Japanese people have another mentality though. If their employer tells them to keep a secret, they will do that. 

I would not even be surprised if Canon offered that R3 with two different sensor options.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Apple has a hard time keeping all the specs secret each year.



Back before the the MFi Hearing Aids came out, every single employee in the company that got into contact about what we were developing for Apple had to sign a personal NDA directly to Apple. One poor guy had to keep track of all of us. If I recall correctly, it was eventually more than 100 people we had to keep track of.

I got to sign the NDA even though I wasn't working on the project, but happened to learn about it through my other duties and past involvement in the wireless development.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 19, 2021)

Of course they have to sign DNAs, but leaks would still get out, if an employee thinks that the leak can not get tracked back to him. Of couse leaking documents can be dangerous, as Apple might give every employee a slightly different document to keep track of the leaks. They just have to change a single word or a single space between letters, words or lines.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 19, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> Because they look noticeably softer. The target audience for this camera doesn’t have the time for down sizing. It would be ok with me, but I’m not a sports pro.


why would higher resolution photos - all else being equal - look softer?


----------



## Bonich (Jul 19, 2021)

****** the megapixels!

We do need GPS back in the body!


----------



## sanj (Jul 19, 2021)

yeahright said:


> why would higher resolution photos - all else being equal - look softer


No, they will not be softer.


----------



## Bonich (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I am sure the real reason why spectators are banned at the Olympics is the fear that information about the R3 could leak. Canon is a main sponsor


No better place to hide a camera than the Olympic games!


----------



## lukiv3 (Jul 19, 2021)

Bonich said:


> ****** the megapixels!
> 
> We do need GPS back in the body!


Just why? It's waste of space and weight when You can simply connect to your phone and get same result.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 19, 2021)

I would never use the GPS coordinates of a camera, because they show the location of the photographer, which does not really matter. If I geotag a photo manually, it gets the coordinates of the subject. Imagine you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. Than it should have the coordinates of the Eiffel Tower, even if you took the photo from a kilometre away. Otherwise people who search by location will not find your photo.

PS: By the way, a really smart camera could even do that. It would know its location and it knows the distance from the subject you focus on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Imagine you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. Than it should have the coordinates of the Eiffel Tower, even if you took the photo from a kilometre away.


Simple - just stand right under it.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends on your perspective. Personally, I find the ability to use only rear gelatin filters with my 11-24, or the fact that I need to carry filters the size of salad plates for my TS-E 17, a handicap. The ability to use an adapter with drop-in filters is an advantage in those cases.


Also, one of the adapters adds the Control Ring functionality to all EF lenses. I don't see how adding a function is a handicap. I love it.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 19, 2021)

lukiv3 said:


> Just why? It's waste of space and weight when You can simply connect to your phone and get same result.


Ehm, no. The Canon Connect app isn't very reliable, it will happily keep sending the coordinates of the starting point instead of updating them to the actual position.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> … I would not even be surprised if Canon offered that R3 with two different sensor options.


That happened in the past with other prototypes during some phases of developing and testing.

But knowing that the announcement is near, the decission is surely settled.
I don‘t think that some testers now have „wrong“ sensors just to confuse us.


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Also, one of the adapters adds the Control Ring functionality to all EF lenses. I don't see how adding a function is a handicap. I love it.


I think Neuro said that the current situation (EF only) with having to use huge filters in front of 11-24 (or using gelatin filters) is a handicap. In EF mode! (DSLR/EF lens).

But when using the TS-E with a mirrorless camera he can choose the canon EF-R adapter that gives the possibility to add filters between the EF lens and Canon mirrorless camera so giving the capability to get rid of the giant front filters. So a TS-E lens with a Canon EOS R camera becomes a more interesting and versatile combination.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2021)

tron said:


> I think Neuro said that the current situation (EF only) with having to use huge filters in front of 11-24 (or using gelatin filters) is a handicap. In EF mode! (DSLR/EF lens).
> 
> But when using the TS-E with a mirrorless camera he can choose the canon EF-R adapter that gives the possibility to add filters between the EF lens and Canon mirrorless camera so giving the capability to get rid of the giant front filters. So a TS-E lens with a Canon EOS R camera becomes a more interesting and versatile combination.


I’ve been saying for a long time one of the real benefits of the R bodies for my personal use is the ability to use the filter adapter with my EF 11-24, 15mm, and TS-E 17. I only need a CPL and occasionally ND filters so the ability to use one adapter and two small filters is a massive bonus for me.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 19, 2021)

Maybe this is not to forewarn Sony and Nikon to put their design teams on overtime? Reading the rumor of 45mp has already got my credit card whimpering and it's harder to pull it out of my wallet. Would I ditch my year old R5 to gain look at something focus and the new sensor? Maybe? At least I won't have to buy all new lenses.


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’ve been saying for a long time one of the real benefits of the R bodies for my personal use is the ability to use the filter adapter with my EF 11-24, 15mm, and TS-E 17. I only need a CPL and occasionally ND filters so the ability to use one adapter and two small filters is a massive bonus for me.


I would like to take the opportunity and ask for your experience: Is a polarizer a safe choice when using UWA lenses? I mean I read that some part of the sky will be polarized and some less or not at all. This would create a not so appealing photo.


----------



## eosbob (Jul 19, 2021)

I think 45MP would be wrong for this camera. 30 MP would be the perfect amount for everyone already on the 1D-X's. The majority of us Sports shooters don't care about the video aspect, and if your shooting video, you're most likely using the R6, R5, C70, C700 or something else. We don't need 8K! 4K is plenty. How many people have 8K TV's? Hell, 2K still looks great on your TV, Phone and computers
. 
I really hope this is no more than 30MP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2021)

tron said:


> I would like to take the opportunity and ask for your experience: Is a polarizer a safe choice when using UWA lenses? I mean I read that some part of the sky will be polarized and some less or not at all. This would create a not so appealing photo.


Generally not in a single shot scenario, but I use them in interior design shots to control reflections off shiny surfaces like counter tops etc, my second most common use is reflections off water in swimming pools. So I am probably an atypical user.

I do understand what people are saying about patchy sky’s when they use a CPL, but I rarely create a standout image from a single shot. So, for instance, I might take shots with and without a CPL then use the foliage from the CPL shot and use the sky from the shot without the CPL.


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2021)

Many Thanks privatebydesign for sharing your experience.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 19, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> BTW peeps, it is going to be 30mpix I am pretty sure. What sports photographer wants 45mpix, that will only take more time to process.
> But for me as an all-rounder 45mpix hi-speed pro body would be the best I could ever wish for. So I am keeping my fingers crossed...



Well, just thinking on a different level.

As camera tech has increased....so has computing power of the photographer. Storage is quite cheap these days, and computers now come stock with really good CPUs and GPU's, and can be upgraded for not that much more $$ if you want.

I would posit that larger files no longer necessarily have penalties for taking up too much room or taking "more time to process" than their older smaller file cameras with older slower computers available.

I would say with more powerful computers with cheaper storage being available that pro level cameras would be configured so as to take advantage of the new norms of the day...?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe the secret feature will be an AF that focusses on other body parts than eyes. The would come handy for "glamour" photography.


Well, this R3 was rumored earlier to have tracking based on the eye movement of the photographer.

So, whatever the photographers eye was looking at, would be the focus point.

Hence....what you said would be a definite possibility.

Ugh, I'm guessing many a shot with this thing, will have most of the womens' eyes out of focus....

<BAEG>


----------



## TiMLud (Jul 19, 2021)

I wrote a while back that I believed Canon would make this camera higher than the R5. I still believe that is something possible. If it isn't and it turns out that it's only 45 megs I'm good with this. The big talking point I see so many people writing about is the video. I personally would be ok with only 4k. 

I don't see why one camera has to have everything that you want in it. I know many people who shot with the EOS 5S and 5SR. Those cameras didn't do 4k and they were 50 meg cameras. 

If I were the one making this camera for Canon it would be 50-60 megs 30 fps Dual CFexpress card slots and 4K video. More than enough to do what I would want for some time to come. 

Let me know what you think.


----------



## sanj (Jul 19, 2021)

eosbob said:


> I think 45MP would be wrong for this camera. 30 MP would be the perfect amount for everyone already on the 1D-X's. The majority of us Sports shooters don't care about the video aspect, and if your shooting video, you're most likely using the R6, R5, C70, C700 or something else. We don't need 8K! 4K is plenty. How many people have 8K TV's? Hell, 2K still looks great on your TV, Phone and computers
> .
> I really hope this is no more than 30MP.


I want 8k. Sir.


----------



## sanj (Jul 19, 2021)

eosbob said:


> I think 45MP would be wrong for this camera. 30 MP would be the perfect amount for everyone already on the 1D-X's. The majority of us Sports shooters don't care about the video aspect, and if your shooting video, you're most likely using the R6, R5, C70, C700 or something else. We don't need 8K! 4K is plenty. How many people have 8K TV's? Hell, 2K still looks great on your TV, Phone and computers
> .
> I really hope this is no more than 30MP.


I really hope it is more. Hell.


----------



## csibra (Jul 19, 2021)

lexptr said:


> Please, Canon, no! Leave some advantages for R5! I want to be less tempted


8k+overheating is not enough for you?


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 19, 2021)

By "rumors have strongly suggested" TechRadar means "something that somebody made up". They don't even mention that name of a rumor site that suggested that.

Since the 1DX is 20MP, it makes sense for the R3 to be 30MP. This is an R3, not an R1.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 19, 2021)

yeahright said:


> why would higher resolution photos - all else being equal - look softer?


Because he insists on looking at pixel level.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> By "rumors have strongly suggested" TechRadar means "something that somebody made up". They don't even mention that name of a rumor site that suggested that.


Reminds me of an academic publication ‘translator’.

“It is believed that…” = “I think…”
“It is widely believed that…” = “Me and one of my colleagues think…”
“A representative example is shown.” = “The best example is shown.”
Etc…



John Wilde said:


> Since the 1DX is 20MP, it makes sense for the R3 to be 30MP. This is an R3, not an R1.


It makes sense for the R1 to be ~30 MP. If you’re a 1-series user, is the R3 your update?

Plus, the EOS 3 had the same resolution as the EOS 1, so there’s that.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I would never use the GPS coordinates of a camera, because they show the location of the photographer, which does not really matter. If I geotag a photo manually, it gets the coordinates of the subject. Imagine you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. Than it should have the coordinates of the Eiffel Tower, even if you took the photo from a kilometre away. Otherwise people who search by location will not find your photo.
> 
> PS: By the way, a really smart camera could even do that. It would know its location and it knows the distance from the subject you focus on.


Only if it also contains a compass. Your location and range aren't enough, you need direction too.

EDIT: Unless, of course you're looking straight up, as Neuroanatomist pointed out!


----------



## David_D (Jul 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plus, the EOS 3 had the same resolution as the EOS 1, so there’s that.


Nah. Users of the EOS 3 could only afford Ektachrome, whereas EOS 1 users could afford Kodachrome.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It makes sense for the R1 to be ~30 MP. If you’re a 1-series user, is the R3 your update?
> 
> Plus, the EOS 3 had the same resolution as the EOS 1, so there’s that.


From a marketing standpoint, Canon wouldn't want the R3 to have the same MP as the R6.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 19, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> From a marketing standpoint, Canon wouldn't want the R3 to have the same MP as the R6.


Well, the two are not targeting the same market. Consider the R6 and 1DX Mark III. There is far more than megapixels to market.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Only if it also contains a compass. Your location and range aren't enough, you need direction too.
> 
> EDIT: Unless, of course you're looking straight up, as Neuroanatomist pointed out!


I remember for the 1D X Canon offered an external GPS receive "GP-E1" for around $300 that you could attach to the camera. That one included a compass. So I thought that the built-in versions are at least as advanced as that one. There was an even larger one, the "GP-E2" for the flash hot shoe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> From a marketing standpoint, Canon wouldn't want the R3 to have the same MP as the R6.


But same MP as EOS R is ok?


----------



## BuffaloBird (Jul 19, 2021)

If it isn't 45+ MP, I'm not interested. That simple. 

They could simply have wised up and, after Overheatgate of 2020, decided not to headline that feature... FINGERS CROSSED


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

BuffaloBird said:


> If it isn't 45+ MP, I'm not interested. That simple.
> 
> They could simply have wised up and, after Overheatgate of 2020, decided not to headline that feature... FINGERS CROSSED



If so, they could have bragged about the resolution and said nothing about 8K.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 20, 2021)

tron said:


> I would like to take the opportunity and ask for your experience: Is a polarizer a safe choice when using UWA lenses? I mean I read that some part of the sky will be polarized and some less or not at all. This would create a not so appealing photo.


Besides PBD's usage, I use wide angle CPLs to reduce reflections for waterfalls. Taking shots with and without but generally using the shot with CPL as looking through the water in pool of the waterfall (flat water not turbulent) is better than reflections. Reflections on wet rocks within the waterfall show up as harsh lighting.

Seascapes on rock shelves is another example. Use no CPL for cloud reflections on puddles on the rocks or ocean pools or CPL when you want to show what is in the rock pools. If it is overcast then there are no blue sky issues to use CPL for wide angle shots. If the skies are clear, there is no point to shoot a sunrise from my perspective


----------



## GoldWing (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Simple - just stand right under it.
> 
> View attachment 199015


Beautiful work


----------



## slclick (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> But same MP as EOS R is ok?


Many paid pro's would not blink an eye at a 20 mp R3. Just us wanking on rumor sites.The R6 alone teaches us a body is much more than sensor rez count. The R6 noise control is phenomenal.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> But same MP as EOS R is ok?


For me, 30mp hits the sweet spot. Hoping for an R Mark II.


----------



## eosbob (Jul 20, 2021)

sanj said:


> I want 8k. Sir.


There is the R5, and a lot of videographers are using it and loving it.


----------



## R1-7D (Jul 20, 2021)

Can someone who can understand what he's saying tell us if anything new is being said?


----------



## maulanawale (Jul 20, 2021)

R1-7D said:


> Can someone who can understand what he's saying tell us if anything new is being said?


Disclaimer: I'm not Italian but Spanish, so although it's pretty much the same thing , I might have missed something.

He's just praising the ergonomics, how it feels when held vertical and horizontally and the AF on button. A brief mention of the materials and how nice they are to the touch. Reassuring that it is a real camera and not just a dummy but he's not allowed to turn it on nor mount a lens and that the viewfinder is huge. 

It is the second video in Italian I see with someone actually holding it, and the main takeaway is that, to my eye, it seems to be very lightweight and it looks like an ergonomic wet dream


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 20, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I remember for the 1D X Canon offered an external GPS receive "GP-E1" for around $300 that you could attach to the camera. That one included a compass. So I thought that the built-in versions are at least as advanced as that one. There was an even larger one, the "GP-E2" for the flash hot shoe.


The GP-E2 has an electronic compass inside, sadly Canon decided to stop reading that sensor with the R series. My EOS-M will log the direction, my R5 won't.

I'm keeping my eye on GP-E2 clones, there are a few very advanced ones, including ones that log to SD cards.


----------



## David_D (Jul 20, 2021)

pic said:


> On a 5DmkIV or 7DmkII: it's a -lot- easier or much less error-prone: turn it on, it remains on, and when you want to it to stop (at the end of the day): pull the battery out of the body - no way to forget to turn it on the next morning: you insert the battery and it's on and ready by the time you need it.


Exactly what I do with my 7D MkII when on a trip, with one extra step ... when you want to it to stop (at the end of the day): pull the battery out of the body *and charge if necessary*


----------



## sanj (Jul 20, 2021)

eosbob said:


> There is the R5, and a lot of videographers are using it and loving it.


True. And?


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 20, 2021)

I like using Occam's razor i.e. the most likely explanation is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. I'd guess that Techradar's source of information is merely likely to be the old rumours that it would be a 45mp sensor, and they simply haven't kept up with the latest rumours. They did after all state "but rumors have strongly suggested that it’ll also be a 45MP camera", clearly stating that they were citing open rumours and not that they had any sort of special inside information.


----------



## WildlifeCan-on (Jul 20, 2021)

Being a retired sportphotographer having covered 6 Olympic Games, I still have a number of friends working at the Tokyo Olympics. I asked one of them who is a dedicated Canon user, to try finding out regarding the R3 sensor from those down there that might know...
When my friend visited Canons pro service desk to have his gear cleaned today, he simply asked the service technician and got a straight simple answer back;
”The R3 have 45MP”

This of course can be false... but if a Canon Pro photographer asks another Canon Pro staff, wouldn’t it be more fair to simply say ”I can’t tell”, rather then giving professional a lie or a wild guess without saying so...?


----------



## steen-ag (Jul 20, 2021)

R1-7D said:


> Can someone who can understand what he's saying tell us if anything new is being said?


It will come tomorrow


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2021)

WildlifeCan-on said:


> Being a retired sportphotographer having covered 6 Olympic Games, I still have a number of friends working at the Tokyo Olympics. I asked one of them who is a dedicated Canon user, to try finding out regarding the R3 sensor from those down there that might know...
> When my friend visited Canons pro service desk to have his gear cleaned today, he simply asked the service technician and got a straight simple answer back;
> ”The R3 have 45MP”
> 
> This of course can be false... but if a Canon Pro photographer asks another Canon Pro staff, wouldn’t it be more fair to simply say ”I can’t tell”, rather then giving professional a lie or a wild guess without saying so...?


It's more fair to not ask and put pressure on people who "can't tell" to begin with. Unethical to pressure people to be unethical. Dang, couldn't your "pro" friend just pick up the cam and see for himself? Aren't they getting R3 loaners? Oh yeah, NDA.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2021)

WildlifeCan-on said:


> Being a retired sportphotographer having covered 6 Olympic Games, I still have a number of friends working at the Tokyo Olympics. I asked one of them who is a dedicated Canon user, to try finding out regarding the R3 sensor from those down there that might know...
> When my friend visited Canons pro service desk to have his gear cleaned today, he simply asked the service technician and got a straight simple answer back;
> ”The R3 have 45MP”
> 
> This of course can be false... but if a Canon Pro photographer asks another Canon Pro staff, wouldn’t it be more fair to simply say ”I can’t tell”, rather then giving professional a lie or a wild guess without saying so...?


Or the person thought he said R5.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 20, 2021)

Could Canon have intentionally leaked wrong information? It would be a smart strategy to damage the reputation of rumor sites.


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2021)

lukiv3 said:


> Just why? It's waste of space and weight when You can simply connect to your phone and get same result.


Not that practical. I do use my phone to connect but disconnections happen. Embedded GPS just like 5DMkIV and 7DMkII is an excellent solution that works always. Space and weight waste is practical zero.


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Besides PBD's usage, I use wide angle CPLs to reduce reflections for waterfalls. Taking shots with and without but generally using the shot with CPL as looking through the water in pool of the waterfall (flat water not turbulent) is better than reflections. Reflections on wet rocks within the waterfall show up as harsh lighting.
> 
> Seascapes on rock shelves is another example. Use no CPL for cloud reflections on puddles on the rocks or ocean pools or CPL when you want to show what is in the rock pools. If it is overcast then there are no blue sky issues to use CPL for wide angle shots. If the skies are clear, there is no point to shoot a sunrise from my perspective


Thanks for answering. So many talks about polarizing filters brought to mind something different:

That I hadn't thought of bringing a polarizing filter for shooting some small amphibians! In the best case the water was so swallow that it practically didn't matter but that was stupid of me. I am not going there again most probably. I have a normal - not 4x4 - car and I drove about 18 kilometers (and then back) of a bumpy rocky road. So it could be a disaster (Initially I was thinking that word for the shooting but it can easily apply to driving too  )

Interesting thing I have a polarizer (77mm ... I think!) but I do not bring it with me the last few years. That should change. It is small and light and can fit easily to the bag (...probably with a step ring too).


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Could Canon have intentionally leaked wrong information? It would be a smart strategy to damage the reputation of rumor sites.


What possible benefit would there be for Canon to damage the reputation of rumor sites? These sites give them millions of dollars worth of free publicity every year. They aren't going to start feeding information to the sites, but they are happy to just ignore them and reap the benefits from the buzz these sites generate for the company.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 20, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What possible benefit would there be for Canon to damage the reputation of rumor sites? These sites give them millions of dollars worth of free publicity every year. They aren't going to start feeding information to the sites, but they are happy to just ignore them and reap the benefits from the buzz these sites generate for the company.


No company wants sites that leak information far ahead of an official announcement. They have a reason not to publish certain information, because their competitors could react and get an advantage. Imagine the R3 really has 45 megapixels, but Canon leaks information making Nikon believe that it only has 30 megapixels, but then in September the R3 is officially announced with 45 megapixels two months ahead of the Z9. As some people (not me) prefer 45 megapixels, that would be quite a coup for Canon. If Nikon had that information earlier, they might have announced the Z9 much sooner to compete with the R3.

The Pentagon uses that strategy quite a lot. They do everything to make it look like their really are aliens on Area 51. They even stop former employees from talking about anything they saw there. All just to make conspiracy theorists jump on that wagon and publish all that nonsense. If that same people really have something valid to report, nobody will trust them after all the reports about aliens.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 20, 2021)

Let's take a big(ish) data approach to this. When we start seeing the Olympics photos come in, let's compare the R3 shooters' images to those of the AP (who all will be shooting the hi rez Sony sensors). Do the AP images crop in more frequently than those of the others? There will be examples where photographer placement limitations will make this very desirable. Presumably they will be - on average - using the same focal lengths. If we see Sony images cropping in to 2/3 the linear side relative to the Canon, or a weird absence of equivalent shots with the Canon shooters when it would appear to be useful, then we could get some clues. At least some arguments.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 20, 2021)

If it is 45 mp, I would likely think it would eat into the R5 sales for stills shooters. I would think 30 mp would be the sweet spot.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> No company wants sites that leak information far ahead of an official announcement. They have a reason not to publish certain information, because their competitors could react and get an advantage. Imagine the R3 really has 45 megapixels, but Canon leaks information making Nikon believe that it only has 30 megapixels, but then in September the R3 is officially announced with 45 megapixels two months ahead of the Z9. As some people (not me) prefer 45 megapixels, that would be quite a coup for Canon. If Nikon had that information earlier, they might have announced the Z9 much sooner to compete with the R3.
> 
> The Pentagon uses that strategy quite a lot. They do everything to make it look like their really are aliens on Area 51. They even stop former employees from talking about anything they saw there. All just to make conspiracy theorists jump on that wagon and publish all that nonsense. If that same people really have something valid to report, nobody will trust them after all the reports about aliens.


Yeah, changing mfg procedures, processes, QC, packaging, literature, parts, etc... it ain't like asking Burger King to hold the mayo or add pickles. And yes, some companies use the press from rumor sites to leak info. Yup, they want it.


----------



## David_D (Jul 20, 2021)

neurorx said:


> If it is 45 mp, I would likely think it would eat into the R5 sales for stills shooters. I would think 30 mp would be the sweet spot.


Would they mind? "Drn, we lost a $4000 R5 sale, but hay we sold a $6000 R3 instead!" With 30mp it is more likely they will loose the $6000 sale to people wanting higher MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

neurorx said:


> If it is 45 mp, I would likely think it would eat into the R5 sales for stills shooters. I would think 30 mp would be the sweet spot.


Either way, Canon is selling a camera. To the extent that one model has a higher profit margin than the other, that matters but really not much.


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 20, 2021)

David_D said:


> Would they mind? "Drn, we lost a $4000 R5 sale, but hay we sold a $6000 R3 instead!" With 30mp it is more likely they will loose the $6000 sale to people wanting higher MP.


I think it more likely they think that people like me will buy the 30mp R3 for action and the 45mp R5 for the stuff that needs Hi-Res. We should know soon. Of course, if the R3 is 45, I may just sell my R5 and buy 2 R3s. I'm kind of hoping for 30 myself, but 45 will work too.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2021)

Is this a "revelation"? Have the facts now changed? Can we take this as fact based on what Canon has not said? Pedantic is, as pedantic does.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 21, 2021)

tron said:


> Thanks for answering. So many talks about polarizing filters brought to mind something different:
> 
> That I hadn't thought of bringing a polarizing filter for shooting some small amphibians! In the best case the water was so swallow that it practically didn't matter but that was stupid of me. I am not going there again most probably. I have a normal - not 4x4 - car and I drove about 18 kilometers (and then back) of a bumpy rocky road. So it could be a disaster (Initially I was thinking that word for the shooting but it can easily apply to driving too  )
> 
> Interesting thing I have a polarizer (77mm ... I think!) but I do not bring it with me the last few years. That should change. It is small and light and can fit easily to the bag (...probably with a step ring too).


There are shooting strategies (luminosity blending, multi-shot average blending etc) to simulate ND/grad ND filters but you can't replicate CPL in post. In essence, a CPL should be everyone's first filter but understanding when to use it takes time


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

pic said:


> Canon could also easily have been A-B testing it with both 30 and 45 MP bodies in the hands of those having signed NDAs and collecting feedback from them before they decide which of the 2 to they'll put into production. Maybe even along with test runs of the sensors to see what yield they get out of the fab.


Are you suggesting they designed and built a processing pipeline, buffer, etc., capable of handling 45 MP at 30 fps, while planning to decide later whether to use 45 MP or 30 MP? Seems unlikely.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting they designed and built a processing pipeline, buffer, etc., capable of handling 45 MP at 30 fps, while planning to decide later whether to use 45 MP or 30 MP? Seems unlikely.


I agree and in all honesty whether the camera is 30 MP or 45 MP makes little difference to me. For me the specs that are more important are:

electronic shutter with adjustable fps not just 30 fps
buffer depth when shooting
spot metering link to AF point
AF acquisition speed
 highISO noise and base ISO dynamic range


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

pic said:


> They could engineer it all and not put it in production ever - happens all the time in any R&D lab (I've worked in few myself - good stuff that never makes it into or as a product is more common than actual products in my experience).
> Or they could keep it for another product down the line when / where it becomes more needed form either a marketing point of view, or more feasible from a production yield point of view, or even down to mere product manager whims. Also some things like processors etc might suffer more from problems like heat generated or reliability issues in the field if they need to run at high clocks etc.
> 
> In the end it's always a compromise no matter what product you make, design and/or release. And often there's more than one compromise possible and even desirable. It's just which will the customers like best, which function best (hence the testing from a technical point of view), and which make economical and marketing sense.


That might make sense if the R3 was a planned 2022 release.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 21, 2021)

Side note, I've seen well over a dozen posts by photographers I know that are using the R3 at the Olympics. 

The resolution has to leak sometime soon, right? I mean they are handing out probably hundreds of R3s to all kinds of news organizations at the moment. All it should really take is one of them to accidentally say the resolution or upload some images.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 21, 2021)

Another day, another snippet about the Canon R3. This time about the viewfinder. Can anyone recall a Canon camera so openly shown by Canon officials, and yet not formally announced with full spec sheet?









Speed is the Main Feature of the Canon EOS R3, Says Product Business Developer at Canon Italia - YMCinema - News & Insights on Digital Cinema


Speed is the main feature of the forthcoming Canon EOS R3. That tip was stated by Alessandro Ravazzani which is a Product Business Developer at Canon Italia. The interview was held by Canon Academy Italy at the Cortona Festival. Furthermore, according to Ravazzani, the EOS R3’s viewfinder will...




ymcinema.com


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 21, 2021)

If speed is the main feature of the R3 then surely it will be 30mp, not 45. Anything a 45mp camera can do a 30mp can do quicker ?


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 21, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> If speed is the main feature of the R3 then surely it will be 30mp, not 45. Anything a 45mp camera can do a 30mp can do quicker ?


They also say that they will "outperform" the competition, and with 30MP they don't come close to the A1.
Sounds like a lot of marketing fluff.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 22, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> If speed is the main feature of the R3 then surely it will be 30mp, not 45. Anything a 45mp camera can do a 30mp can do quicker ?


The speed seems to all be related to the sensor readout so difficult to infer the MP count. We continue to wait. To answer a question above: I do not recall a Canon camera being shown so much by Canon officials prior to official announcement. Maybe a new marketing strategy?


----------



## slclick (Jul 22, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> They also say that they will "outperform" the competition, and with 30MP they don't come close to the A1.
> Sounds like a lot of marketing fluff.


Go on.... I want to hear how rez alone will lead to a body outperforming. 
Keep this in mind, my experience with this sitch is based upon going from a 22mp to a 20 and having the latter outperform the higher mp count body in spades. Canon to Canon though.


----------



## dpockett (Jul 22, 2021)

I heard from a photographer using one that it is 24mp, but I think they have all been asked to keep it secret so I don't really believe that.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 22, 2021)

As a long term 5DS user I'd say that there is naff all difference in actual practical resolution between 30mp and 45. 

At maximum output size IQ- yes, but how often does that happen ?
For heavy cropping IQ- yes, and that can be useful. 
For me it would depend on how much that extra 15mp has reduced the cameras capability in other areas. If it doesn't compromise anything else then Canon might as well bring 45mp on.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2021)

I heavy crop when I shoot birds. For everything else I find 30Mp enough. But if R3 is performance oriented as Canon mentioned it is most probable that it will be around 30Mp and not 45Mp.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 22, 2021)

It appears that Canon is now allowing photographers to post photos from the R3 without violating their NDAs. 

Jeff Cable posting of R3 photos

He does mention "I can not tell you details about the focus system of the camera but it is so good!"

Just FYI now when I click on the link the blog no longer mentions the above comment and references to the R3 have been removed. I am glad I viewed the blog when I did to get a bit more perspective on the R3.


----------



## David_D (Jul 22, 2021)

john1970 said:


> It appears that Canon is now allowing photographers to post photos from the R3 without violating their NDAs.
> 
> Jeff Cable posting of R3 photos
> 
> ...


It was more interesting when it had the R3 bits in. I hope he does not get into too much trouble and have it taken away from him


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 22, 2021)

Better than the one of the R5?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 22, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> They also say that they will "outperform" the competition, and with 30MP they don't come close to the A1.
> Sounds like a lot of marketing fluff.


Sony A-1 = Flagship. R3 does not = flagship

Compare apples to apples. Besides that, I am sure the R3 will outperform the A1 in some respects. It ain't all about megapixels.


----------



## rick1 (Jul 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sony A-1 = Flagship. R3 does not = flagship
> 
> Compare apples to apples. Besides that, I am sure the R3 will outperform the A1 in some respects. It ain't all about megapixels.


Yeah but if the R3 comes in at $6k, that is flagship pricing. You'll probably be able to get an A1 for that by the time this is released. If the R3 costs as much as the A1 but doesn't directly compete with the A1, it will lose


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 22, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Yeah but if the R3 comes in at $6k, that is flagship pricing. You'll probably be able to get an A1 for that by the time this is released. If the R3 costs as much as the A1 but doesn't directly compete with the A1, it will lose


What ifs ain't worth wasting sleep over. The fact remains that people are going to buy, most likely, within the system they are in. Since we don't know the price, I'm going to say that if the R3 is priced like a Leica, but doesn't compete with the Leica, it's going to lose. See, worthless (un)logic. Just forum fluff.


----------



## slclick (Jul 22, 2021)

rick1 said:


> Yeah but if the R3 comes in at $6k, that is flagship pricing. You'll probably be able to get an A1 for that by the time this is released. If the R3 costs as much as the A1 but doesn't directly compete with the A1, it will lose


New tech raised that roof. You just can't keep clinging to yesterdays price ceilings and imaging business models. They'll charge whatever people whom are still alive are willing to pay.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 22, 2021)

slclick said:


> New tech raised that roof. You just can't keep clinging to yesterdays price ceilings and imaging business models. They'll charge whatever people whom are still alive are willing to pay.


Just like I can't get hamburger for 65 cents a pound anymore.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 22, 2021)

pic said:


> True: but I'm not in the RF system (yet), and if I need to use my EF glass with an adapter, then the world of other manufacturers is just as open as a new canon body.
> 
> FWIW: Don't price a set of RF lenses - it's ridiculously costly.


Ok. Replace the EF glass with something else. That'll save you some $. /S Surely a Canon lens adapted to a foreign body is just as good.

I've owned the RF 28-70L, RF 24-105L, RF 50 L, and the RF 85 L. Fully aware of the costs.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 22, 2021)

john1970 said:


> It appears that Canon is now allowing photographers to post photos from the R3 without violating their NDAs.
> 
> Jeff Cable posting of R3 photos
> 
> ...



If you open up the images, they're still tagged as "EOS R3" in the file names, though


----------



## rick1 (Jul 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What ifs ain't worth wasting sleep over. The fact remains that people are going to buy, most likely, within the system they are in. Since we don't know the price, I'm going to say that if the R3 is priced like a Leica, but doesn't compete with the Leica, it's going to lose. See, worthless (un)logic. Just forum fluff.


People will still buy it, I will still buy it. But in no way could I say the R3 outperforms it's sony counterpart if it comes in at 30mp for $6k. The only reason I am buying it over the sony is because canon's raw compression is superior to sony's. The file sizes of my R5 raw files are smaller than my a9ii. If it weren't for that I would be buying the sony instead.


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ok. Replace the EF glass with something else. That'll save you some $. /S Surely a Canon lens adapted to a foreign body is just as good.
> 
> I've owned the RF 28-70L, RF 24-105L, RF 50 L, and the RF 85 L. Fully aware of the costs.


It's actually not. Briefly while waiting for months for my pre-ordered R5, I considered dumping everything and moving to Sony. Thing is, I have a bunch of EF glass (specifically a 600 f4 II that I couldn't come close to selling for the cost of a Sony 600 F4). I researched the different Canon adapters for Sony and could not find one person who said the performance was anything but lackluster at best. Most said it was downright horrible. EF glass adapted to an R Mount body is seamless and actually performs better in most cases than on an EF DSLR. This is likely because Canon doesn't share its communication protocols and has hard wired EF protocols into the software on the R cameras.


----------



## slclick (Jul 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just like I can't get hamburger for 65 cents a pound anymore.


Every time I say how I remember 25 cent movies, there's 7 guys telling me they remember a nickel. Well, I'll have the last laugh when they die off. Then the .50 crew will carry on...


----------



## slclick (Jul 22, 2021)

pic said:


> True: but I'm not in the RF system (yet), and if I need to use my EF glass with an adapter, then the world of other manufacturers is just as open as a new canon body.
> 
> FWIW: Don't price a set of RF lenses - it's ridiculously costly.


I was an RF holdout with my dialed in set of 8 L lenses and a 40. Then I got the RF 35 and slightly caught the bug. I will be picky and choosy (I also don't follow the camp of replacing your favorites- my favorites are fine thank you Mr. Control Ring) ....would love another pancake.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 22, 2021)

bernie_king said:


> It's actually not. Briefly while waiting for months for my pre-ordered R5, I considered dumping everything and moving to Sony. Thing is, I have a bunch of EF glass (specifically a 600 f4 II that I couldn't come close to selling for the cost of a Sony 600 F4). I researched the different Canon adapters for Sony and could not find one person who said the performance was anything but lackluster at best. Most said it was downright horrible. EF glass adapted to an R Mount body is seamless and actually performs better in most cases than on an EF DSLR. This is likely because Canon doesn't share its communication protocols and has hard wired EF protocols into the software on the R cameras.


Yeah, I know it isn't. Sarcasm


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 23, 2021)

images from tokyo olympics are leaking … 

is there any mpx update

45 mpx , I’d say TechRadar has gone ADHD


----------



## john1970 (Jul 23, 2021)

All pictures that I have seen have been resized for posting on the internet and based on those sizes one cannot infer sensor resolution. September is only six weeks away!


----------



## slclick (Jul 23, 2021)

Do we know the mp count yet?


lol, jk......yet some people keep asking. smh


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 23, 2021)

slclick said:


> Do we know the mp count yet?
> 
> 
> lol, jk......yet some people keep asking. smh


The count woulda been the headline.


----------



## slclick (Jul 23, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The count woulda been the headline.


because reading


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

AEWest said:


> To really move the needle, the R1 would have to have at least 80mp


I have not ruled out the 80/20 MP rumor with QPAF


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The Techradar "source" is a Canon Watch article that claims 45MP and quad pixel autofocus. Canon says the R3 will have next generation dual pixel AF so we already have reason to believe that at least half of the Canon Watch information is wrong. This calls into question thr reliability of the 45MP claim from the same source.


It was the reverse.
The Canon Watch article quoted the Tech Radar one.
Tech Radar did not name their source.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

pic said:


> R5 just isn't enough of a step to switch to RF given the investment I have in EF bodies and lenses


RF can't ever replace EF.
One of the reasons EF and PL are so popular is their long flange distances.
It makes it easy to add their mounts and adapt their lenses to almost any camera.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

Atlasman said:


> This is why I mostly use EF glass on my R5—the drop-in filters.


You can use a drop-in adapter and have filters for any EF lens


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> But knowing that the announcement is near


There seems to be more than enough evidence to support that but as the saying goes but there is no date for an announcement of any kind.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

TedYork said:


> Sony's A1 is billed as a sports camera


No, it is not.
Sony bills it as an all-in-one camera.
A9 is still their sports line.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Japanese people have another mentality though. If their employer tells them to keep a secret, they will do that.


Nokishita has more leaks than practically any other industry.
I can't say that the sources are employees but they do seem to be mostly Japanese.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

eosbob said:


> There is the R5, and a lot of videographers are using it and loving it.


There are still rumors of an R5c


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

R1-7D said:


> Can someone who can understand what he's saying tell us if anything new is being said?


There is closed-caption and the auto-translate worked pretty well for me.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting they designed and built a processing pipeline, buffer, etc., capable of handling 45 MP at 30 fps, while planning to decide later whether to use 45 MP or 30 MP? Seems unlikely.


That is pretty typical.
If the 45MP version does not work out then they could fall back to the 30MP version.
It is called contingency.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That is pretty typical.
> If the 45MP version does not work out then they could fall back to the 30MP version.
> It is called contingency.


At the prototyping stage, yes. At the gearing up for production stage? No, too late.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> At the prototyping stage, yes. At the gearing up for production stage? No, too late.


As much as I agree with that, we have no idea at what stage the rumors emerged.
*They could still all be wrong


----------



## emailfortom (Jul 24, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I agree and in all honesty whether the camera is 30 MP or 45 MP makes little difference to me. For me the specs that are more important are:
> 
> electronic shutter with adjustable fps not just 30 fps
> buffer depth when shooting
> ...


I would prefer 45mp but totally agree with you that the other issues are paramount. I'm getting spoiled with the R5's high res... but lets remember the 30mp is still 50% higher than the 1dxlll & idxll. Your last point vis-a-vis high ISO is spot on!


----------



## 810k (Jul 24, 2021)

dpockett said:


> I heard from a photographer using one that it is 24mp, but I think they have all been asked to keep it secret so I don't really believe that.


From what I hear from a photographer in Tokyo this is correct!

The Canon R3 has a 24 mp sensor - resolution 6000x4000 px

The info is from a reliable source that I trust!
I have been following all the development news and forum talk, but this is the first time that I can contribute with something relevant (so I registered)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 24, 2021)

810k said:


> From what I hear from a photographer in Tokyo this is correct!
> 
> The Canon R3 has a 24 mp sensor - resolution 6000x4000 px
> 
> ...


24 MP in 3:2 would be exactly 6K


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 24, 2021)

24 mpx sounds great.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 24, 2021)

Had we ever seen a camera out in commercial use but kept so secret before ? Seems odd; I can see the hype attraction in getting the forums to discuss it and create interest, but I wonder if there’s another strategy here ? Perhaps Canon want the internet buzzing with how capable this camera is, and publishing the shots to back this up before they let on it’s ‘only’ 24 mp. My understanding is that the fast shooting commercial world don’t want lumbering with really high mp and Canon will no doubt respect this but don’t want it trashed in the forums for being ‘behind’ the 50mp cameras before it’s even launched.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> There seems to be more than enough evidence to support that but as the saying goes but there is no date for an announcement of any kind.


Sure! You are right! And this camera will be announced after the next Winter Olympics at earliest.
For sure that over all teasing Canon PR machine running for several weeks now will tell us that we will have to wait much, much longer  /sarc mode


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> As much as I agree with that, we have no idea at what stage the rumors emerged.
> *They could still all be wrong


And you are right here, too. 
Canon PR machine running for several weeks now will tell us that they will have to redo all the R&D and we will have to wait much, much longer  /sarc mode


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 24 MP in 3:2 would be exactly 6K


Canon normally work to DCI standards, so it would be 6,144 x 4,096, or 25.2mp.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Had we ever seen a camera out in commercial use but kept so secret before ? Seems odd; I can see the hype attraction in getting the forums to discuss it and create interest, but I wonder if there’s another strategy here ? Perhaps Canon want the internet buzzing with how capable this camera is, and publishing the shots to back this up before they let on it’s ‘only’ 24 mp. My understanding is that the fast shooting commercial world don’t want lumbering with really high mp and Canon will no doubt respect this but don’t want it trashed in the forums for being ‘behind’ the 50mp cameras before it’s even launched.


I don't think the use 'in the wild' is especially unusual, I think the built up expectation and interest is different. I don't remember hype like this since the awesome 5D II days, I think I got banned three times back then


----------



## john1970 (Jul 24, 2021)

25 MP still works well for me in my workflows. Would definitely prefer 30 MP, but at this stage I am sure the resolution is set in stone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2021)

john1970 said:


> 25 MP still works well for me in my workflows. Would definitely prefer 30 MP, but at this stage I am sure the resolution is set in stone.


It is, but we don’t know the size of that stone.


----------



## dpockett (Jul 25, 2021)

810k said:


> From what I hear from a photographer in Tokyo this is correct!
> 
> The Canon R3 has a 24 mp sensor - resolution 6000x4000 px
> 
> ...



I was told 6000x4000 also, it sounds like the same source to me. But I am still not sure, as they have all been asked to keep it secret.

I will be disappointed if it is 24mp, for what I shoot (long lens sport) I have really been enjoying the ability on the R5 to crop in when the action gets further away (much like wildlife photographers) so if I am to make the R5 body #2 and R3 #1, I for one would miss the extra 21mp. Unfortunately with the rolling shutter, I can't see the R5 being my main body for long - I'd like to be able to use the 20fps but can't trust it.


----------



## slclick (Jul 25, 2021)

I would be so happy if it were 24. It would go to show this is a photography body first and foremost and a workhorse at that. Keep churning out the primarily stills bodies, let all the rest wrestle for hybrid market share.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 25, 2021)

If the R3 is 24 Mpx, I'm a bit relieved, because that limits the price somewhat.

I would not be surprised if the price is at the R5 level because of the more professional features. e.g. better battery, superior AF, high frame rate, etc.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 25, 2021)

tarjei99 said:


> If the R3 is 24 Mpx, I'm a bit relieved, because that limits the price somewhat.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the price is at the R5 level because of the more professional features. e.g. better battery, superior AF, high frame rate, etc.


My guess $4,500-5,000 US


----------



## john1970 (Jul 25, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> My guess $4,500-5,000 US


Maybe?? The Sony A9II still sells for $4500 without a vertical grip and the vertical grips add another $350 so the total is $4850.


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 25, 2021)

If 24 - 25 mpx gives better DR than 30mpx , then I am all in.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 25, 2021)

30 mp is enough of a jump from my 1DX mark II that I would definitely pre-order the camera day one. 24 mp just doesn't feel particularly as future proof to me, so then it would turn back into a decision for me between the R3 or just getting a second R5 with a battery grip while I wait for the R1. 

24 mp also makes me feel like they could pull off way more than 30 fps.. The 1DX mark III was doing 5.5K raw at friggin' 60 frames per second. Why not do 50-60 FPS raw photos?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 25, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> If 24 - 25 mpx gives better DR than 30mpx , then I am all in.


No reason why it should, and even if it did it would be a nominal difference.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> 30 mp is enough of a jump from my 1DX mark II that I would definitely pre-order the camera day one. 24 mp just doesn't feel particularly as future proof to me, so then it would turn back into a decision for me between the R3 or just getting a second R5 with a battery grip while I wait for the R1.
> 
> 24 mp also makes me feel like they could pull off way more than 30 fps.. The 1DX mark III was doing 5.5K raw at friggin' 60 frames per second. Why not do 50-60 FPS raw photos?


Unless Canon updated the firmware, the 1DX III loses a lot of functionality at 60 FPS unless cropped.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 25, 2021)

Al Bello, one of Getty's staff photographers, uploaded a bunch of photos from swimming today where a large chunk of the photos are *exactly* 24 megapixels, with some being slight crops around 23 megapixels. There's other ones taken with the exact resolution of the 1DX mark III, so these aren't upsized 1DX images, and there were some R5 images that were used as a remote which are kept around full 45 resolution. I doubt it's a coincidence that there's dozens of exactly 24 megapixel images in the set. Even cropping you wouldn't get that perfect.

Getty has a contract with Canon to only use Canon gear, so these also aren't A9II images or anything like that.





__





Pictures and Photos - Getty Images


View and license pictures & news photos from Getty Images.



www.gettyimages.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Al Bello, one of Getty's staff photographers, uploaded a bunch of photos from swimming today where a large chunk of the photos are *exactly* 24 megapixels, with some being slight crops around 23 megapixels. There's other ones taken with the exact resolution of the 1DX mark III, so these aren't upsized 1DX images, and there were some R5 images that were used as a remote which are kept around full 45 resolution. I doubt it's a coincidence that there's dozens of exactly 24 megapixel images in the set. Even cropping you wouldn't get that perfect.
> 
> Getty has a contract with Canon to only use Canon gear, so these also aren't A9II images or anything like that.
> 
> ...


Do you know how much time you are saving me with this detective work?


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Al Bello, one of Getty's staff photographers, uploaded a bunch of photos from swimming today where a large chunk of the photos are *exactly* 24 megapixels, with some being slight crops around 23 megapixels. There's other ones taken with the exact resolution of the 1DX mark III, so these aren't upsized 1DX images, and there were some R5 images that were used as a remote which are kept around full 45 resolution. I doubt it's a coincidence that there's dozens of exactly 24 megapixel images in the set. Even cropping you wouldn't get that perfect.
> 
> Getty has a contract with Canon to only use Canon gear, so these also aren't A9II images or anything like that.
> 
> ...


Thank you for sharing the link. 

It's possible that part of the agreement photographers have with Canon is that they will not post R3 images with resolution greater than 24MP. Or, this is the highest resolution the R3 offers. 

We don't know for sure that some of these are not upsized 1DX images. Some images from that body could have been upsized and others not. These can also be crops from higher MP cameras. 

Lots of images taken by other photographers on Getty Images are also 24MP, even if they are not taken by Canon shooters. Could be a storage space thing or something since they have so many images coming in at the same time.








An underwater view shows USA's Kathleen Ledecky a heat for the...


An underwater view shows USA's Kathleen Ledecky a heat for the women's 400m freestyle swimming event during the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games at the Tokyo Aquatics Centre in Tokyo on July 25, 2021.



www.gettyimages.com





While this is all very interesting, and suggests a certain narrative, it is not definitive.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 25, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Thank you for sharing the link.
> 
> It's possible that part of the agreement photographers have with Canon is that they will not post R3 images with resolution greater than 24MP. Or, this is the highest resolution the R3 offers.
> 
> ...


I'm about 90% sure that the R3 is 24 megapixels at this point looking through everything. 

The "upsized to 24 mp" argument holds little water with the 23.5/23.2 megapixel crops in there(how much time are you wasting by exporting, cropping, and then exporting if that's the case?), and exact 1dx3 resolution images/even lower res crops showing that the workflow for this specific event isn't resizing. The ones I looked at were all from the same swimming event in the same timeframe, which wouldn't be filled with different workflows from one photographer. It's just not a storage space thing to be upsizing 20 mp images to a higher resolution or downsizing higher MP to "save storage" either. Other Getty Images photogs are using R5s at full resolution and uploading those files live during the games. 

No one out there is cropping dozens of images to exactly 24 megapixels, either. If you look at the bigger picture of all of their images, the crops are always random numbers of megapixels because their workflow probably includes PhotoMechanic's crop tool, which is drawing the rectangle you want on the screen, and normally gives a non-specific amount of MP leftover.


----------



## Jethro (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I'm about 90% sure that the R3 is 24 megapixels at this point looking through everything.
> 
> The "upsized to 24 mp" argument holds little water with the 23.5/23.2 megapixel crops in there(how much time are you wasting by exporting, cropping, and then exporting if that's the case?), and exact 1dx3 resolution images/even lower res crops showing that the workflow for this specific event isn't resizing. The ones I looked at were all from the same swimming event in the same timeframe, which wouldn't be filled with different workflows from one photographer. It's just not a storage space thing to be upsizing 20 mp images to a higher resolution or downsizing higher MP to "save storage" either. Other Getty Images photogs are using R5s at full resolution and uploading those files live during the games.
> 
> No one out there is cropping dozens of images to exactly 24 megapixels, either. If you look at the bigger picture of all of their images, the crops are always random numbers of megapixels because their workflow probably includes PhotoMechanic's crop tool, which is drawing the rectangle you want on the screen, and normally gives a non-specific amount of MP leftover.


But could they be downsizing because they've signed an agreement not to post any images larger than 24MP? I admit 24MP is looking more and more likely.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 26, 2021)

Jethro said:


> But could they be downsizing because they've signed an agreement not to post any images larger than 24MP? I admit 24MP is looking more and more likely.


This is the possibility that I was pointing out. It can't be ruled out, based on the information that we have. It's a more appealing narrative to me as someone interested in small wildlife than the alternative, a camera maxed out at 24MP. I know that won't make it true, but I am still hoping for the best. 
I think the evidence is compelling, but I'm not quite ready to give up the 45MP or 30MP dream yet.

Also, what is the likelihood that the R3 is exactly 24MP? Certainly possible (R5 is 45MP), but less common (5DS R is 50.6, 90D is 32.5, 5D m4 is 30.4, 1 DX iii and R6 are 20.1, R is 30.3, RP is 26.2, etc.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

How many Getty photographers shoot RAW? How many sports photographers shoot RAW? Even if there are some with R3 who do, they’d be limited to some unreleased version of DPP for them, that Canon would have needed to provide.

Far more likely they’re all shooting JPG, and quite probable that the cameras Canon puts in their hands can only output JPG files. Thus, Canon could simply set the firmware in those cameras to output only 24 MP files.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

I commented earlier that Canon normally work to DCI standards for video resolution, 6,000 pixels doesn't downscale to 4k logically or easily, 6,144 does. But that puts it at 25.1mp.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many Getty photographers shoot RAW? How many sports photographers shoot RAW? Even if there are some with R3 who do, they’d be limited to some unreleased version of DPP for them, that Canon would have needed to provide.
> 
> Far more likely they’re all shooting JPG, and quite probable that the cameras Canon puts in their hands can only output JPG files. Thus, Canon could simply set the firmware in those cameras to output only 24 MP files.



Although with other images at native, I would think the 24mp is the most likely. However @neuroanatomist made a good point. An R5 is 44.8 @ L and 22.5 @ M jpeg settings. There is nothing stating they were not limited to using M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Although with other images at native, I would think the 24mp is the most likely. However @neuroanatomist made a good point. An R5 is 44.8 @ L and 22.5 @ M jpeg settings. There is nothing stating they were not limited to using M.


It doesn’t even need to be M jpg size. Would be simple for Canon to code a fixed jpg output of 6000x4000 pixels regardless of the sensor MP count.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I'm about 90% sure that the R3 is 24 megapixels at this point looking through everything.



What are you looking at? I see that Getty offers rights to use images in three sizes – small, medium and large. Are you referring to the sizes quoted there? If so, that means nothing. 

Every time I shoot any sports event, after I'm done processing the files I send the final files through the Photoshop script that resizes them and converts them to jpgs (From PSDs) I have one setting for photos that will end up on the web and another larger size in case the photos are needed later for print. It takes hardly any time at all. 

These photographer are not posting or processing anything themselves. Their files are transferred to editors who select the best frames and to techs who process those frames. No doubt, Getty has custom scripts that resize the processed file so they can offer them in three sizes for anyone to purchase the usage rights. 

I apologize if you are looking at something else, but if you are looking at the sizes Getty is offering the images in, that means zero, zip, nada.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It doesn’t even need to be M jpg size. Would be simple for Canon to code a fixed jpg output of 6000x4000 pixels regardless of the sensor MP count.


True, but that was just an example. However, from a programmer perspective... it would be far easier to use/remove a setting that already exists.


----------



## HotPixels (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Al Bello, one of Getty's staff photographers, uploaded a bunch of photos from swimming today where a large chunk of the photos are *exactly* 24 megapixels, with some being slight crops around 23 megapixels. There's other ones taken with the exact resolution of the 1DX mark III, so these aren't upsized 1DX images, and there were some R5 images that were used as a remote which are kept around full 45 resolution. I doubt it's a coincidence that there's dozens of exactly 24 megapixel images in the set. Even cropping you wouldn't get that perfect.
> 
> Getty has a contract with Canon to only use Canon gear, so these also aren't A9II images or anything like that.
> 
> ...



I don't think the assumption that all photographers shooting for Getty are automatically using Canon holds true.

I just checked their site for Olympic photos...there are several by one photographer, François-Xavier Marit, of AF-P. He is a Nikon shooter. He tags a lot of his IG photos with #nikon and #nikonfr. 

Nikon featured him a while back in an article on their global NPS website: 
https://nps.nikonimaging.com/interview/marit/

And indeed, many of his images are exactly 24MP. 

So I think that while those directly employed by Getty may only use Canon, perhaps they also contract out to others for some of their work. 

But regardless, the assumption that all photos of the Olympics offered by Getty Images are taken with Canon is incorrect.


----------



## HotPixels (Jul 26, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> I don't think the assumption that all photographers shooting for Getty are automatically using Canon holds true.
> 
> I just checked their site for Olympic photos...there are several by one photographer, François-Xavier Marit, of AF-P. He is a Nikon shooter. He tags a lot of his IG photos with #nikon and #nikonfr.
> 
> ...


I'm going to reply issue a correction to myself. I now get what the point that the original post was making. Al Bello is indeed a staff photog at Getty and does indeed use Canon gear. So the collection of photos that he has uploaded is of unique interest.

So while not all Getty photos are taken with Canon gear, all photos by that one photographer, Al Bello are taken with Canon gear. And that means something. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 26, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> I'm going to reply issue a correction to myself. I now get what the point that the original post was making. Al Bello is indeed a staff photog at Getty and does indeed use Canon gear. So the collection of photos that he has uploaded is of unique interest.
> 
> So while not all Getty photos are taken with Canon gear, all photos by that one photographer, Al Bello are taken with Canon gear. *And that means something. * Sorry for the confusion.


Or, also possible, it doesn't mean anything. 

As you pointed out, lots of the images on Getty have the same max size, regardless of the body used.


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No reason why it should, and even if it did it would be a nominal difference.


Less mpx data to dig out would mean more DR data to dig out of sensor. Processor is limited. I still hope for more DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Less mpx data to dig out would mean more DR data to dig out of sensor. Processor is limited. I still hope for more DR.


Same generation sensors seem to be pixel density agnostic when normalized.


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Same generation sensors seem to be pixel density agnostic when normalized.


It is new generation , Canon’s first BSI sensor.

And still I believe DR depends on processor(s), and not so much about sensor ( less mpx the better of cause ).

Each processor generation has added some 0.3 stops of DR to the same generation sensor. Check dxomark 18 mpx apsc for example.

Hopefully dual digic 10 this time.


----------



## dpockett (Jul 26, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> I don't think the assumption that all photographers shooting for Getty are automatically using Canon holds true.
> 
> I just checked their site for Olympic photos...there are several by one photographer, François-Xavier Marit, of AF-P. He is a Nikon shooter. He tags a lot of his IG photos with #nikon and #nikonfr.
> 
> ...



I am a stringer for Getty and to my knowledge, they don't have a contract with Canon. I know a few staffers who shoot on Nikon, one I can think of on Panasonic (ambassador). Haven't met any on Sony, majority shoot Canon, but there is no contract. Canon and Nikon send teams to major events to support photographers with service and gear to borrow, that's where the R3's would be coming from.



unfocused said:


> What are you looking at? I see that Getty offers rights to use images in three sizes – small, medium and large. Are you referring to the sizes quoted there? If so, that means nothing.
> 
> Every time I shoot any sports event, after I'm done processing the files I send the final files through the Photoshop script that resizes them and converts them to jpgs (From PSDs) I have one setting for photos that will end up on the web and another larger size in case the photos are needed later for print. It takes hardly any time at all.
> 
> ...



If you look in the information below the photos you can see the resolution of the full-size image. This is the res it is uploaded as, not the small/medium/large.

Traditionally, photographers for Getty/AFP/Reuters edit their own photos live, but when there are major international (and some domestic) events, editors are on shift to handle the editing. So yeah, there is a massive team of editors for Getty currently editing the Olympics. Photographers sending remotely to editors all over the planet to edit. Usually the files won't be resized, but they are often cropped and output at whatever size cropped to.


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> 30 mp is enough of a jump from my 1DX mark II that I would definitely pre-order the camera day one. 24 mp just doesn't feel particularly as future proof to me, so then it would turn back into a decision for me between the R3 or just getting a second R5 with a battery grip while I wait for the R1.
> 
> 24 mp also makes me feel like they could pull off way more than 30 fps.. The 1DX mark III was doing 5.5K raw at friggin' 60 frames per second. Why not do 50-60 FPS raw photos?


The only thing I could think why one would need more mpx is to be able to crop in , as if 24 mpx isn’t enough and 800 mm f11 too expensive.


----------



## David_D (Jul 26, 2021)

I think it might be time for some deductive speculation... I have been thinking about what we know and what we would like to know. One thing Canon have told us is that the R3 can focus in low light, down to EV -7. I believe the figure for the R5 is -6.5, i.e. a half stop improvement. Larger photo-sites, i.e. lower resolution would improve the low light figure, suggesting 30mp or even 24mp could be right. However my understanding is that the BSI sensor should also improve low light ability. Would a 24mp or 30mp BSI sensor have only half a stop improvement over the R5? Could the BSI sensor alone give that improvement, i.e. the resolution is unchanged? Could anyone who actually understands these things comment?


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 26, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> The only thing I could think why one would need more mpx is to be able to crop in , as if 24 mpx isn’t enough and 800 mm f11 too expensive.


There are lots of reasons why the 800mm F11 won't work for many shooting situations that have nothing to do with price. If shooting small animals in a forested area, for instance, F11 may not gather enough light. There can also be issues with not enough subject separation (busy backgrounds) and a really large minimum focusing distance. Furthermore the lens is not weather sealed like an L lens and thus more vulnerable to getting fogged up or damaged in humid and rainy weather typical of the tropics.
The lens does a lot of things really well for the price, but it's not a universal solution for all reach limited situations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> It is new generation , Canon’s first BSI sensor.
> 
> And still I believe DR depends on processor(s), and not so much about sensor ( less mpx the better of cause ).
> 
> ...


I know it’s a new generation, my point is this new generation will have the same dynamic range if it is 24 or 30mp, or 45, or 60. Pixel density does not seem to be a big factor in dynamic range capability when the sensors are the same generation and the output is normalized.

Look at examples from the 1DX III and R5.


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I know it’s a new generation, my point is this new generation will have the same dynamic range if it is 24 or 30mp, or 45, or 60. Pixel density does not seem to be a big factor in dynamic range capability when the sensors are the same generation and the output is normalized.
> 
> Look at examples from the 1DX III and R5.
> 
> View attachment 199222


 You probably also mean same generation processor. It is possible indeed. We have no idea if Canon has thoughtfully configured ( cripled / down shifted ) to make no difference.

however in the past the same old sensor ( 18 mpx for example ) has a litle performance increase, if loaded with newer generation processor. Processor / motherboard are the botle necks in my opinion.

R3 processor has AI side tasks, so the main accomplishment may not be bigger DR diging at all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> You probably also mean same generation processor. It is possible indeed. We have no idea if Canon has thoughtfully configured ( cripled / down shifted ) to make no difference.
> 
> however in the past the same old sensor ( 18 mpx for example ) has a litle performance increase, if loaded with newer generation processor. Processor / motherboard are the botle necks in my opinion.
> 
> R3 processor has AI side tasks, so the main accomplishment may not be bigger DR diging at all.


No, I said what I meant. I also showed data to support that position.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Aug 2, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Because Canon controls the narative. CR was wrong about the R5 and most likely the same about the R3. The R5 surprised all the rumor sites.


Well now it's confirmed at 24mpx. Pretty underwhelming...


----------



## cyberbo60 (Sep 1, 2021)

I was all in on buying an R3 but after hearing the MP I will wait on the R1.


----------



## Cyborx (Sep 2, 2021)

cyberbo60 said:


> I was all in on buying an R3 but after hearing the MP I will wait on the R1.


You are not alone my friend, and with us many many others…
More waiting… ‍Canon is challenging it’s users on a scale beyond belief.


----------



## Cyborx (Sep 2, 2021)

Imagine Canon is now building the R1.. and you bet they are. The R1 will be at least 45 mpix. And at least 30fps. Less would be unacceptable with the R5 having a 45 mpix sensor.

Imagine the R1 hitting the market next year. What would the R3 still be worth?
Exactly.. not much. So I ain’t buying it.

All together this is a sad period in Canon’s product development history. The R3 will be considered outdated the minute it is launched I’m afraid.

Just crossing my fingers Canon is able to launch the R1 asap before Sony does an A1 mark II with 60mpix and 50fps or whatever epic specs..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Imagine Canon is now building the R1.. and you bet they are. The R1 will be at least 45 mpix. And at least 30fps. Less would be unacceptable with the R5 having a 45 mpix sensor.


Imagine if Canon released a 50 MP 5-series camera, then released a new 5-series camera with only 30 MP, then a 1-series camera with only 20 MP. Would that be unacceptable?


----------



## GoldWing (Sep 12, 2021)

45MP R3..... when pigs fly.

The Z9 is the only reality.

The R1 if 80+MP will be the best selling camera in photographic history for professionals


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> The R1 if 80+MP will be the best selling camera in photographic history


Except for every Canon, Nikon and Sony entry level camera ever launched. And almost every P&S camera ever launched. Lol, you sound more foolish and asinine with every post.


----------

