More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged

[Ozarker]

All right let me rephrase it even though I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, what is 50mp needed for if not for print?

I see two caveats, enough to crop for aspect ratio changes and leveling horizons etc, and the focal length limited scenario where ‘pixels on duck’ does make a difference.

I didn’t say people didn’t need it, I asked what they think it is needed for. You know from my posting history I have repeatedly said people don’t need a reason to want or use something, just feeling good about something is plenty good enough justification were any needed. I’m just interested in why people think they need it. Personally I believe it is good marketing that has convinced the majority of buyers that ‘more is better’ and I haven’t seen much in the way of practical uses to change that thinking.

You’ve listed two reasons yourself as to why someone might need it. That ain’t good enough?

You mention screens that can’t resolve. Well, what a man has today isn’t, probably, what he’ll have in 10 years. In the mean time, those photos won’t look worse on what he has now, and they’ll look fantastic on what he’s got years from now. So I really do not understand your thinking. Most of us out here have to make choices on how we spend our money over time. We don’t go out and overhaul our whole home electronics kit all at once. So we look ahead towards what we might have 5, 10 years from now. What little video I’ve shot on my R looks great on my 1080p television. Should I have looked for a used 70D because my tv can’t resolve 4K? No! Because in the next year or two I will have a 4K tv. So, if I were in the market for a 50+ megapixel camera… should I base the decision to buy it or not on what I have now or on what I might have to watch video 10+ years from now when I want to reminisce? There.

 

[privatebydesign]

You’ve listed two reasons yourself as to why someone might need it. That ain’t good enough?

You mention screens that can’t resolve. Well, what a man has today isn’t, probably, what he’ll have in 10 years. In the mean time, those photos won’t look worse on what he has now, and they’ll look fantastic on what he’s got years from now. So I really do not understand your thinking. Most of us out here have to make choices on how we spend our money over time. We don’t go out and overhaul our whole home electronics kit all at once. So we look ahead towards what we might have 5, 10 years from now. What little video I’ve shot on my R looks great on my 1080p television. Should I have looked for a used 70D because my tv can’t resolve 4K? No! Because in the next year or two I will have a 4K tv. So, if I were in the market for a 50+ megapixel camera… should I base the decision to buy it or not on what I have now or on what I might have to watch video 10+ years from now when I want to reminisce? There.

No! Conversations involve questions, I am just asking questions nobody seems to want to answer. As far as I can see regular Joe camera buyer who isn’t genre specific focal length limited and doesn’t print large often has little reason to ‘need’ more than 30mp or so. I’m not saying they shouldn’t want it or buy it, I am simply asking why they want it.

I am a working pro with 20mp cameras, my images get used for everything from Facebook posts to billboards, rarely do I encounter issues with a lack of pixels and now there are so many tricks to intelligently increase resolution rarely has gone to never. That doesn’t mean because I don’t find myself needing more others shouldn't, it just means I am curious what everybody else is doing differently from me that they do feel the ‘need’ for more. I don’t understand why that is so antagonistic to you.

If you are buying a 4K tv in “a year or two” then you might be up to 8k in ten years. 8k is 33mp.

 

[Ozarker]

No! Conversations involve questions, I am just asking questions nobody seems to want to answer. As far as I can see regular Joe camera buyer who isn’t genre specific focal length limited and doesn’t print large often has little reason to ‘need’ more than 30mp or so. I’m not saying they shouldn’t want it or buy it, I am simply asking why they want it.

I am a working pro with 20mp cameras, my images get used for everything from Facebook posts to billboards, rarely do I encounter issues with a lack of pixels and now there are so many tricks to intelligently increase resolution rarely has gone to never. That doesn’t mean because I don’t find myself needing more others shouldn't, it just means I am curious what everybody else is doing differently from me that they do feel the ‘need’ for more. I don’t understand why that is so antagonistic to you.

If you are buying a 4K tv in “a year or two” then you might be up to 8k in ten years. 8k is 33mp.

Well, then. You asked me, specifically, why I need a 50+ mp camera if I am not printing. Never said I did. I simply stated that high mp cameras were not there just for printing. We've both covered at least three reasons somebody might want it if they are not printing. So, if you didn't mean me specifically, then why ask me with a quote of my post? You could have asked that as a stand alone post.

I was not being antagonistic at all, yet I feel you were. You implied that I said I needed it, and wanted to know why. Never said it. Then you "rephrased" and said you were not putting words in my mouth. Yes, you were. You are English, correct? Then you know that if you wanted to ask me why anybody or somebody else needed it (You already knew why somebody would think they did), you'd have phrased it differently to begin with. "Why would one, or somebody, or anybody need...". But no, you wanted to see whether or not I had an answer sufficient to justify myself to your imagined idea that I said I needed it. When you realized that I, in fact, didn't say it... you rephrased. Man up.

That's what's got me riled. You're being disingenuous.

Again, you bring up screens. That might be somebody's reason. Will be mine in several years. I don't really care whether or not an 8k tv is 33mp. The fact remains that something shot in 4k today will look just wonderful a decade from now or 2 decades... 1080p by then? meh, compared to what is available screenwise by then. My dad has a bunch of 8mm film reels. Hard to watch. I can imagine that 1080p might look bad in 20 years compared to where screen are in decades on.

Nobody wants to answer your question? Hell, man! It's been answered on this forum by various individuals for years. Besides, you already knew the answer.

I am positive you are great at what you do.

 

[Michael Clark]

Don't forget the Ra!

I did.

Must be because I'm not into solar astronomy?

 

[Toglife_Anthony]

You say 'continue to decline', 'continue to dwindle' but they haven't declined, they've maintained their position if not slightly strengthened it relative to their competitors. Also are they focusing more on entry level? Nothing much new has been released for APS-C in a couple of years, it's all been about (FF) RF.

What I said was "Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline"; just as an FYI, one can still hold first position but their LEAD can decline, which Canon's is in the FF sector in many markets. You can't run a race at the same speed just because you're first. If the person behind you is getting closer and closer, stagnation will get you beat. Canon is seeing some good results with their RF line thanks to the R5 and R6, which IMO, was equivalent to them running a bit faster, but that won't be enough to keep them ahead long-term if they stick to their old strategies.

 

[Sporgon]

And not to mention sticking it in the sand too!

You'd be hoping it was securely propped up - I wouldn't fancy handing it back to Canon at the end of the week with sand inside

So not only is it weather proof, it’s sand proof to. Given the location and venue I wonder if it’s bullsh!t proof too ?

 

[scyrene]

What I said was "Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline"; just as an FYI, one can still hold first position but their LEAD can decline, which Canon's is in the FF sector in many markets. You can't run a race at the same speed just because you're first. If the person behind you is getting closer and closer, stagnation will get you beat. Canon is seeing some good results with their RF line thanks to the R5 and R6, which IMO, was equivalent to them running a bit faster, but that won't be enough to keep them ahead long-term if they stick to their old strategies.

But has their lead declined? Neuro knows much more about sales figures than me, but that's not the impression I get. In any case we've heard all this before, year after year. They innovate plenty, and seem to have strategies that work in the long run, whilst still being able to surprise us regularly (nobody had any idea this body was coming until very recently).

 

[Mikehit]

Actually 98% of my photos will never get printed at all and I think this is true for most photographers. So 1:1 on a monitor is the way I look at them. Of course I also zoom out to see the whole picture, but they should look good at 1:1. My displays still have HD resolution or even less. So defects on a pixel level are visible. I opted against a 4K or even higher resolution display, because I want to see pixel level defects at 1:1.

You keep referring to 'pixel level' sharpness (which doesn't actually exist because a pixel only contains data about the light).
Sharpness is what helps us define detail in an image. A properly focussed 45MP camera will always contain more detail than a properly focussed 8.2MP image - surely you agree with that.
This is the same fallacy surrounding 'diffraction limiting'. What diffraction does is it reduces the benefits of more pixels - doubling pixels from 40MP to 80MP is unlikely to give you twice the resolution because diffraction will affect it, but the 80MP image will still be higher than the resolution of the 40MP image.

I opted against a 4K or even higher resolution display, because I want to see pixel level defects at 1:1.

If you want to see pixel defects then surely 4k is what you want?
But I guess you mean you don't want to see them?
You have a real odd way of approaching photography?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If you want to see pixel defects then surely 4k is what you want?
But I guess you mean you don't want to see them?
You have a real odd way of approaching photography?

What I meant is that with just an HD display, each pixel is still visible. I would notice a hot pixel at 1:1 for example.

 

[Toglife_Anthony]

But has their lead declined? Neuro knows much more about sales figures than me, but that's not the impression I get. In any case we've heard all this before, year after year. They innovate plenty, and seem to have strategies that work in the long run, whilst still being able to surprise us regularly (nobody had any idea this body was coming until very recently).

In FF sales in some markets they absolutely were losing market share. The R5/R6 definitely bolstered their position, no doubt, but times are changing. That can't be denied. More people are relying on their phones versus buying entry-level cameras, where Canon has dominated for years. Yes, historically Canon has managed to make enough moves to stay in front, but IMHO I think times are historically different than many years past. I don't think Canon can stick to their same strategies and continue to see long-term success. In my eyes Canon is already doing things different; five years ago the R6 wouldn't have the same AF system and dual-card slots as the R5, we both know that! I don't think Canon will become a Sony-type company any time soon (e.g. releasing cameras on what feels like an annual cycle or taking feedback from us mere mortals and implementing features into new cameras) but I 100% believe Canon's strategies today are changing from what they've historically been.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I meant is that with just an HD display, each pixel is still visible. I would notice a hot pixel at 1:1 for example.

Huh? Or to be less polite, WTF are you talking about?

Looking at an image displayed 1:1 means that one pixel in the image is represented by one pixel on the monitor. Doesn't matter if that's a 4 MP image on an 8K display or a 45 MP image on an HD display. One image pixel = one display pixel. One to one. 1:1. Get it?

Sure, when you look at the 4 MP image on the 8K display the full picture will only take up about 12% of the screen, and when you look at the 45 MP image on the HD display you can only see about about 5% of the whole picture at a time, but 1:1 is just that. A higher resolution display just gives you the ability to see more of the 1:1 image at a time.

Edit: maybe you mean that if you got a 4K or higher display, you'd set the monitor to use a lower resolution, because the UI would be too small, etc. That means you either need a bigger display so each pixel is bigger, or you need glasses to correct your eyesight.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Huh? Or to be less polite, WTF are you talking about?

Looking at an image displayed 1:1 means that one pixel in the image is represented by one pixel on the monitor. Doesn't matter if that's a 4 MP image on an 8K display or a 45 MP image on an HD display. One image pixel = one display pixel. One to one. 1:1. Get it?

Sure, when you look at the 4 MP image on the 8K display the full picture will only take up about 12% of the screen, and when you look at the 45 MP image on the HD display you can only see about about 5% of the whole picture at a time, but 1:1 is just that. A higher resolution display just gives you the ability to see more of the 1:1 image at a time.

Edit: maybe you mean that if you got a 4K or higher display, you'd set the monitor to use a lower resolution, because the UI would be too small, etc. That means you either need a bigger display so each pixel is bigger, or you need glasses to correct your eyesight.

If the resolution is too high, you might not be able to see a single pixel. Apple calls that "Retina Display" and they say that the resolution is so high that you can't see the single pixels. That is what I want to avoid. Of course you can always watch an images at 200%, but some programs will just interpolate 75% of all the pixels then. It only works if 200% means that every pixel is shown four times like Photoshop for example does it. An 8K display has even tinier pixels than a 4K display. Of course you can see more of the photo at 1:1 then, but you will not notice a single "wrong" pixel because it is just too small.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If the resolution is too high, you might not be able to see a single pixel. Apple calls that "Retina Display" and they say that the resolution is so high that you can't see the single pixels. That is what I want to avoid. Of course you can always watch an images at 200%, but some programs will just interpolate 75% of all the pixels then. It only works if 200% means that every pixel is shown four times like Photoshop for example does it. An 8K display has even tinier pixels than a 4K display. Of course you can see more of the photo at 1:1 then, but you will not notice a single "wrong" pixel because it is just too small.

Apple’s retina displays use logical pixels comprising four real pixels. A 1:1 photo viewed on a Retina display is one image pixel rendered as one logical pixel. It’s still 1:1.

Try this: check your screen resolution in System Preferences (default on my 16” MBPs is 1792x1120), then open any large image Photoshop and crop it to the screen resolution dimensions, open the resulting image in Preview, hit command-zero for 1:1 and go full screen; your 1:1 image now fills the screen. Take a screenshot and you’ll get a resulting png file doubled in horizontal and vertical resolution, e.g. that 1792x1120 image yields a 3584x2240 screenshot). At 1:1, Apple is just spreading one image pixel over 4 screen pixels in the GPU that are rendered back down to one pixel. All that is behind the scenes in the GPU. Note that Apppe does that on external displays up to 4K as well, so when you connect your HD monitor to a Retina Mac, everything you see on your display was rendered at 4K in the GPU then downsampled. With display resolutions >4K (at least on my 16”), that doesn’t happen – when the resolution on my 5K:2K ultrawide is set to 4K wide, I get a screenshot that’s 8K wide; when I set the resolution to 5K wide, I get a 5K wide screenshot because the GPU cannot render at 10K.

The bottom line is 1:1 is always 1:1, and your reasons for preferring lower resolution monitors are totally specious (as are your reasons for preferring lower resolution sensors).

 

[scyrene]

In FF sales in some markets they absolutely were losing market share. The R5/R6 definitely bolstered their position, no doubt, but times are changing. That can't be denied. More people are relying on their phones versus buying entry-level cameras, where Canon has dominated for years. Yes, historically Canon has managed to make enough moves to stay in front, but IMHO I think times are historically different than many years past. I don't think Canon can stick to their same strategies and continue to see long-term success. In my eyes Canon is already doing things different; five years ago the R6 wouldn't have the same AF system and dual-card slots as the R5, we both know that! I don't think Canon will become a Sony-type company any time soon (e.g. releasing cameras on what feels like an annual cycle or taking feedback from us mere mortals and implementing features into new cameras) but I 100% believe Canon's strategies today are changing from what they've historically been.

I agree it feels like Canon's made a few changes to their approach, and time will tell how much that helps or hinders them. I don't think "times are changing" though - or rather, they always have been, it's not that right now is a special moment. Naysayers have been telling us that on the forum for as long as I've been here, and I always ask - why? Why is now special? Usually it boils down to, they want something in particular and are impatient for Canon to provide it.