More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged

Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
If the sony A1 costs $6500 and does 30fps and 50mp, it would be crazy to buy the R3 at $6000 if it has less than 36mp. If canon is going to charge almost as much as the A1 it needs to directly compete with it. Anything less is subpar. The LCD screen difference is an insignificant difference, the IBIS in the R5 is plenty.

Again, you are assuming that MP is the only thing that matters. People have been talking for nigh on 10 years that how Sony has the technological advantage on Canon with MP and dynamic range and still Sony has barely more market share than when they ditched DSLR and went to mirrorless.
People still talk as though Cano's aim is to steal customers from Sony - it isn't. It is to maintain their position as global leader in camera sales: whether it is DSLR, MILCs or compacts. All they need to do is stay within touching distance in the technology stakes to maintain that position: yes, they took their time to enter the FF MILC market but (unlike Sony) they had to be sure they did it right first time. Since then the pace of Canon development has been highly impressive as witnessed by bring the first 8K video and the first FF bird-eye AF. Sony has historically advanced by throwing new technology with less efficient ergonomics - Canon know how highly professionals value ergonomics so technology could almost take a back seat. Sony is improving its ergonomics (and after sales care), Canon is improving its technology. The two companies are moving ever closer but that does not mean Canon need to match everything Sony does.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
64
80
Again, you are assuming that MP is the only thing that matters. People have been talking for nigh on 10 years that how Sony has the technological advantage on Canon with MP and dynamic range and still Sony has barely more market share than when they ditched DSLR and went to mirrorless.
People still talk as though Cano's aim is to steal customers from Sony - it isn't. It is to maintain their position as global leader in camera sales: whether it is DSLR, MILCs or compacts. All they need to do is stay within touching distance in the technology stakes to maintain that position: yes, they took their time to enter the FF MILC market but (unlike Sony) they had to be sure they did it right first time. Since then the pace of Canon development has been highly impressive as witnessed by bring the first 8K video and the first FF bird-eye AF. Sony has historically advanced by throwing new technology with less efficient ergonomics - Canon know how highly professionals value ergonomics so technology could almost take a back seat. Sony is improving its ergonomics (and after sales care), Canon is improving its technology. The two companies are moving ever closer but that does not mean Canon need to match everything Sony does.

But a majority of Canon's market dominance is in the entry level and APS-C sectors. In some markets Canon trails behind Sony in FF sales and in other markets they hold just a slight lead. With the advancement of cell phone cameras and the market shift in consumers not seeing a need or benefit in entry level cameras, Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline if they focus less on FF (especially mirrorless) and more on entry level to "maintain their position." Much of Canon's market dominance has come from brand loyalty and notoriety; both of those will continue to dwindle if the competition continues to put out products that are PERCEIVED to be better and at a lower price point. There will always be a portion of the market that will buy the 1DX's and R1's of the world no matter the specs or features, but that portion won't help Canon maintain their position. Prior to Sony and other brands putting pressure on Canon, they would have released the R6 with a single card slot and less features, because that's historically the type of moves they would make. We saw with the R5 and R6 that Canon is realizing they can't just give the market what they deem is enough and expect to maintain their market share. Megapixels aren't everything but there's enough serious competition now that Canon has to think a bit differently than they have in years past, and I personally think they're already doing so.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
But a majority of Canon's market dominance is in the entry level and APS-C sectors. In some markets Canon trails behind Sony in FF sales and in other markets they hold just a slight lead. With the advancement of cell phone cameras and the market shift in consumers not seeing a need or benefit in entry level cameras, Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline if they focus less on FF (especially mirrorless) and more on entry level to "maintain their position." Much of Canon's market dominance has come from brand loyalty and notoriety; both of those will continue to dwindle if the competition continues to put out products that are PERCEIVED to be better and at a lower price point. There will always be a portion of the market that will buy the 1DX's and R1's of the world no matter the specs or features, but that portion won't help Canon maintain their position. Prior to Sony and other brands putting pressure on Canon, they would have released the R6 with a single card slot and less features, because that's historically the type of moves they would make. We saw with the R5 and R6 that Canon is realizing they can't just give the market what they deem is enough and expect to maintain their market share. Megapixels aren't everything but there's enough serious competition now that Canon has to think a bit differently than they have in years past, and I personally think they're already doing so.
Entry level and brand loyalty are mutually exclusive yet you say Canon only maintains its position because of both of them!
 
Upvote 0

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
64
80
Entry level and brand loyalty are mutually exclusive yet you say Canon only maintains its position because of both of them!
First off, where in my post did I use the word "only"?! Second off, the two are not mutually exclusive. Canon can sell a billion entry-level cameras that help them lead in market share and none of those folks could buy another Canon camera (which would be brand loyalty). A combination of people choosing Canon for their first camera and continuing to choose Canon cameras for their subsequent purchases has helped Canon maintain their position. Not sure where your disconnect is. Lastly, my post was my opinion, couldn't care less if you disagree. ;-)
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I just cannot see how this could possibly be a 20MP sensor. Does anyone have any actual reason why it wouldn't simply use the R5 sensor? What could another sensor do better than the R5 by being lower MP? Honest question, not rhetorical or loaded.
Er, it's Canon's first FF stacked back illuminated sensor....

Very different technology from the R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
I wonder why Canon can't just give us two or three sensor options? Maybe 20, 30 and 60 megapixels. Then everybody would be pleased. Would threy really have to change a lot of the internals ofd a camera, if the megapixel count changes? If the camera can process 60 megapixel images, it should also be able to handle 20 megapixel images. At the moment I am working on hundredsof old photos I took with an 8.2 megapixel APS-H camera and I love how crisp they look on a pixel level. With a high megapixel count diffraction sets in much sooner. Of course you can always downsample those photos, but then you would still have to handle those large RAW files.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,474
1,329
OK, but do you need faster readout than the R5? What far?

And my understanding is that the R5 is already in the top 8 or so sensors for DR (and most of the sensors beating it are quite exotic). Granted more DR is always good but doesn't cutting pixel count by half only give you one more stop of DR? How does it really differ to do that with fewer/bigger pixels compared to downsampling a higher pixel-count, which I think in theory could also give you that one more stop of DR?

Low-light, same questions: given high-ISO performance and IS, we can already hand-hold zooms in candlelight. Is another stop of low-light performance going to win more sales than a low MP drives away?
Things must improve every new camera even if slight. Each step forward!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I wonder why Canon can't just give us two or three sensor options? Maybe 20, 30 and 60 megapixels. Then everybody would be pleased. Would threy really have to change a lot of the internals ofd a camera, if the megapixel count changes? If the camera can process 60 megapixel images, it should also be able to handle 20 megapixel images. At the moment I am working on hundredsof old photos I took with an 8.2 megapixel APS-H camera and I love how crisp they look on a pixel level. With a high megapixel count diffraction sets in much sooner. Of course you can always downsample those photos, but then you would still have to handle those large RAW files.
No it doesn’t. Diffraction is a function of aperture and magnification only, not mp numbers. If you look at a high mp image at a higher magnification (which it seems most people do) then it appears that diffraction is more apparent, but that is simply because you are looking at it bigger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
No it doesn’t. Diffraction is a function of aperture and magnification only, not mp numbers. If you look at a high mp image at a higher magnification (which it seems most people do) then it appears that diffraction is more apparent, but that is simply because you are looking at it bigger.
I would not call it a "higher magnification", if I look at both images at 100%. Images have to look well on a pixel level. Otherwise the resolution does not mean anything and I could just upsample a 20 megapixel photo to get 60 megapixels. A 60 magapixel image should also be 60 megapixel sharp. That effects a lot of parameters. Noise for example. And also the maximum allowed camera shake. Depth of field will also be lower on a pixel level, if you increase the resolution. So in low light you need a lower ISO and a higher f stop at the same time, which will result in a much longer exposure. And at the same time you need less camera shake. That means you need a good IS just to compensate for the higher resolution. But at the same time that higher f stop will lead to more diffraction which is even more visible on a pixel level because of the higher resolution. So no matter what you try, your image will look worse on a pixel level in most situations. If diffraction on a pixel level is already visible at f/5.6, that is a big downside for me, as I shoot mostly in f/8 and f/11 to reach a high depth of field. I do not like bokeh at all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I would not call it a "higher magnification", if I look at both images at 100%. Images have to look well on a pixel level. Otherwise the resolution does not mean anything and I could just upsample a 20 megapixel photo to get 60 megapixels. A 60 magapixel image should also be 60 megapixel sharp. That effects a lot of parameters. Noise for example. And also the maximum allowed camera shake. Depth of field will also be lower on a pixel level, if you increase the resolution. So in low light you need a lower ISO and a higher f stop at the same time, which will result in a much longer exposure. And at the same time you need less camera shake. That means you need a good IS just to compensate for the higher resolution. But at the same time that higher f stop will lead to more diffraction which is even more visible on a pixel level because of the higher resolution. So no matter what you try, your image will look worse on a pixel level in most situations. If diffraction on a pixel level is already visible at f/5.6, that is a big downside for me, as I shoot mostly in f/8 and f/11 to reach a high depth of field. I do not like bokeh at all.
Well you might not, but you'd be 100% wrong. What else can I say in reply to a completely incorrect statement?

Images do not have to look good at a pixel level unless you are displaying them at a pixel level, a very few people do, the vast majority do not.

As for the rest of your comment, it is just ridiculous nonsense repeated parrot fashion from reviewers and people who don't know better and who aren't interested in actual images just page clicks and 'likes'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
If diffraction on a pixel level is already visible at f/5.6, that is a big downside for me, as I shoot mostly in f/8 and f/11 to reach a high depth of field. I
The theoretical 'diffraction limit' is nothing for a practical photographer to be concerned about.

I believe that f/5.6 is theoretical aperture at which my 50mp 5DS begins to suffer from diffraction. Well I can tell that that even when you are resolution limited, in other words trying to record very fine small detail that is far way from the camera (unlike portraits for instance) the 5DS isn't suffering at f/8 and not anything to be concerned about at f/11. However at f/16 the 50mp camera loses it's advantage over a lower resolution sensor unless you are going to print the 50mp at it's maximum (or even larger) output size. If your output is going to be more 20 mp native size then it's no better than a 20 mp camera at f/16.

In 35mm format f/16 is a pretty extreme aperture, but I'm guessing that a 100 mp FF chip is going to exhibit around the same softening at f/11 as the 50mp one does at f/16. Now at f/11 you getting into more practical apertures, and for anyone who is into landscape photography I think this will be a disappointment for them. IMO 100mp is too much for a 35mm format sensor.

Another point to remember is that smaller pixels will never be as well defined as larger ones, but if you reduce the larger mp sensor down to the same size as the smaller one the difference between the two diminishes rapidly. Similar with noise; people say the 5DS doesn't have good high ISO performance. I got quite interested in a Sony A7SII for my low light work - until I found that up to my usual high ISO working level - ISO 6400, when I reduced the 5DS fils down to 12 mp they weren't much worse that the A7SII ! (Which is a 12 mp camera).
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
I hardly ever print a photo. If a photo looks noisy or blur on a pixel level, the resolution obviously is too high. Canon always had problems with noise. If you try to recover shadows even from a 1D X at ISO 100, it still looks noisy. So anything that increases noise on a pixel level even more, is bad news. So I would even pay more money for a lower resolution. The main advantage of a full frame sensor for me are the large pixels. If you increase the resolution at the same time, the advantage of the larger pixels is gone. I hate it if Canon makes a smaller resolution camera cheaper than the higher resolution camera. I do not want a cheap camera. Please make the 20 megapixel version the most expensive! $4000 for 60 megapixels and $5000 for 20 megapixels would be fair.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I hardly ever print a photo. If a photo looks noisy or blur on a pixel level, the resolution obviously is too high. Canon always had problems with noise. If you try to recover shadows even from a 1D X at ISO 100, it still looks noisy. So anything that increases noise on a pixel level even more, is bad news. So I would even pay more money for a lower resolution. The main advantage of a full frame sensor for me are the large pixels. If you increase the resolution at the same time, the advantage of the larger pixels is gone. I hate it if Canon makes a smaller resolution camera cheaper than the higher resolution camera. I do not want a cheap camera. Please make the 20 megapixel version the most expensive! $4000 for 60 megapixels and $5000 for 20 megapixels would be fair.
then why don't you just downsample your high-MP images for better noise performance, more headroom w.r.t. DLA and better looks on pixel-level if that's what you're after?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0