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

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
To answer those criticisms about the R5 not being able to operate at 20 fps f/22 and on low battery charge, I did a quick burst this morning of some dogs running around as I was out walking looking for birds with the R5+100-500mm at 500mm. Here is a gif of 53 shots in 2.71sec = 19.6 shots/sec, at f/22, 1/1000s and 26% battery charge using electronic shutter. The white dog was tracked and in sharp focus throughout.
Does the R5 keep the lens stopped down during the burst? Many lenses can't open/close the aperture fast enough to f/22 for 8-10 fps much less 20. I'm wondering if Canon has improved aperture diaphragm performance or if they just keep the lens stopped down when light is sufficient for DPAF to work.
 
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
Show me what you're referring to.
You can try this comparison with any number of cameras made over the past 10 years. If both the format and the view size are the same and the tech level is comparable, then higher pixel density does not result in visibly worse noise except at the most extreme (and unusable) ISOs. This is actually what you would expect given gapless microlenses and the relative strengths of shot noise and e-noise in a modern sensor.

Screen-Shot-2021-07-28-at-12.26.05-PM.jpg
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
Does the R5 keep the lens stopped down during the burst? Many lenses can't open/close the aperture fast enough to f/22 for 8-10 fps much less 20. I'm wondering if Canon has improved aperture diaphragm performance or if they just keep the lens stopped down when light is sufficient for DPAF to work.
I might be wrong, but I think in general MILCs keep their lenses stopped down for AF, unlike DSLRs, which require wide aperture for their phase detect to work. From what I recall from earlier discussions, for example, the Sony A7RIII and IV switch from initial phase detect followed by contrast detection at wide apertures to just contrast detect at narrower apertures, so they aren't opening and closing at f/8 and narrower. The R5 phase detect focusses well at narrow apertures so doesn't have to open up to focus. Somebody please correct me if I have got it wrong.
Edit - see my later post. At dtaylor’s suggestion, I checked that the initial AF is done wide open but then at 20 fps the lens remains stopped down between shots.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
The screenshot I took best illustrates this.
You're magnifying the higher resolution images more. If you normalize the size, in either direction up or down, then the higher resolution sensors are actually a bit cleaner in the comparison you chose.

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

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

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

Screen-Shot-2021-07-28-at-12.35.12-PM.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
You can try this comparison with any number of cameras made over the past 10 years. If both the format and the view size are the same and the tech level is comparable, then higher pixel density does not result in visibly worse noise except at the most extreme (and unusable) ISOs. This is actually what you would expect given gapless microlenses and the relative strengths of shot noise and e-noise in a modern sensor.

View attachment 199255
If you do that comparison, you will not see a lot of difference between a new camera and a ten year old one. You will see a big difference if you download the RAWs and then overexpose them by five stops. Then the bottles look very different. Even at ISO 100 you will see a lot of noise on ten year old cameras. That will be the first test I will do once the R3 RAWs are available.
 
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
I might be wrong, but I think in general MILCs keep their lenses stopped down for AF, unlike DSLRs, which require wide aperture for their phase detect to work. From what I recall from earlier discussions, for example, the Sony A7RIII and IV switch from initial phase detect followed by contrast detection at wide apertures to just contrast detect at narrower apertures, so they aren't opening and closing at f/8 and narrower. The R5 phase detect focusses well at narrow apertures so doesn't have to open up to focus. Somebody please correct me if I have got it wrong.

For some reason I was under the impression that Canon RF bodies (or at least the R) viewed at open aperture. They could be shooting continuously stopped down though. You could find out just by staring down the front of one of your lenses while playing with the AF and shutter buttons.
 
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
If you do that comparison, you will not see a lot of difference between a new camera and a ten year old one. You will see a big difference if you download the RAWs and then overexpose them by five stops. Then the bottles look very different.
Agreed, but I'm talking about high ISO performance, not base ISO dynamic range. Since you bring it up though, DR is another area where people assume pixel size matters and it hasn't for quite some time. The highest scoring 35mm sensors on DR right now are also the highest density sensors.

Edit: Also, I didn't mean to imply that a current camera would show no high ISO advantage against one from 10 years ago. That's why 'comparable tech' level was one of the stated conditions. I meant to say that pixel density has not mattered much for at least the past decade. If you go further back, before gapless microlenses, then pixel density did have a significant impact on high ISO noise at the same view size. High pixel densities meant more chip space spent on circuitry and without gapless microlenses, lost photons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
If you do that comparison, you will not see a lot of difference between a new camera and a ten year old one. You will see a big difference if you download the RAWs and then overexpose them by five stops. Then the bottles look very different. Even at ISO 100 you will see a lot of noise on ten year old cameras. That will be the first test I will do once the R3 RAWs are available.
That's the big difference for me. Shooting the 5DSR and even the 5DIV, I was careful to get the exposure right. My rule of thumb for BIF, for example, was to use automatic iso but overexpose by 1.7ev. However, when I got a Nikon D850 and D500 to go with the 500PF, I found with their excellent sensors I could push through few ev with just as good results without the overexposure. Now, with the R5 I have given up auto iso and use full manual and guess the exposure from the evf, underexposing not to clip highlights knowing I can push through 3 ev with no problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
You're magnifying the higher resolution images more. If you normalize the size, in either direction up or down, then the higher resolution sensors are actually a bit cleaner in the comparison you chose.
And this explains your disagreement with Mike. He's looking at individual pixels, you are looking at on a per-area basis.

He's right when talking per pixel, you're right when talking about the overall picture. Thus you'll never convince him he's wrong (and vice versa), until and unless you both get on the same page.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
And this explains your disagreement with Mike. He's looking at individual pixels, you are looking at on a per-area basis.

He's right when talking per pixel, you're right when talking about the overall picture. Thus you'll never convince him he's wrong (and vice versa), until and unless you both get on the same page.
There's no reason to look at individual pixels unless the argument is that the AI AF looks at pixels in a way that makes per pixel noise matter. I don't see how/why that would be the case. Even the general assertion that image noise would present a difficulty to an AI is up for debate. I would think AI-based systems would be quite good at ignoring regular image noise so long as that was part of the initial training.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
There's no reason to look at individual pixels unless the argument is that the AI AF looks at pixels in a way that makes per pixel noise matter. I don't see how/why that would be the case. Even the general assertion that image noise would present a difficulty to an AI is up for debate. I would think AI-based systems would be quite good at ignoring regular image noise so long as that was part of the initial training.

I tend to agree, but a lot of people don't, they pixel-peep and that colors their evaluation of everything. I get to watch this particular wrangle here again and again, each side talking past the other because they don't realize the other person is/is not pixel peeping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
For some reason I was under the impression that Canon RF bodies (or at least the R) viewed at open aperture. They could be shooting continuously stopped down though. You could find out just by staring down the front of one of your lenses while playing with the AF and shutter buttons.
I have done the experiment for you, using the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM + adapter (and learned a few things). In initlal focussing, it focusses wide open, and you can use the depth of field preview button to see the dof stopped down. And, presumably this is how it works for single shot. I then took a series of selfies at 20 fps and could see the lens remained stopped down during shooting. Interestingly, the lens stopped itself down when I was pointing it at a bright light at f/1.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%. The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.
It depends on the point you are making.
Some people use the US to UK price difference to 'prove' that Canon are fleecing UK customers (which is the most common use of this argument). In that argument, the advertised price (and the tax inherent to it) is relevant because Canon has no control over the tax applied by the local market.
If you are asking 'I would not pay 6,000USD for the camera' then tax is irrelevant because the price is what it is.
 
Upvote 0
The build quality, superior sealing, etc.. is important and on the list of reasons I want an R3. The biggest reason for me is AF acquisition. The R5 just isn't there with my 600 F4 II. I had the same problem with the 7D II. I suspect it's the lower voltage battery. There will be those who claim that's not true, but I can only say that every LP-E6 body I've used was slow and every 1 Series body I've had was quick. There are also smaller features that don't get much mention but make a big difference like metering tied to the AF point. I'll still keep my R5 (assuming the R3 is lower mp) for when I need extra cropping, but when things start to move I want faster AF. I haven't really had much issue with rolling shutter and viewfinder lag.. but it will be nice not to worry about that as well. If it turns out this thread is wrong and the R3 is 45+ I may sell the R5 and buy two R3s.

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

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

To me, the biggest surprise would be if the R3 was a crop camera. That would be priceless :).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
It depends on the point you are making.
Some people use the US to UK price difference to 'prove' that Canon are fleecing UK customers (which is the most common use of this argument). In that argument, the advertised price (and the tax inherent to it) is relevant because Canon has no control over the tax applied by the local market.
If you are asking 'I would not pay 6,000USD for the camera' then tax is irrelevant because the price is what it is.
This all arose from a point that I was making that UK customers are already paying $5900 for the R5, which was similar to a complained-about price of $6000 for the R3 in the USA. And my point was then distorted into something else, which was not relevant. As you have raised the matter that I wasn't talking about, I'll answer that. The price differences are there from Canon before taxes are applied. B&H sell the R5 for $3,899, including any state taxes. The UK price is £4,299. Strip out the 20% tax and that translates into $4,900 without tax, $1000 more than the US price. This is not just due to better consumer protection in the UK. I complained to Canon that we are being charged about 10-15% more in the UK than in the rest of Europe, which has the same consumer protection. The Canon customer service apologised that the prices were actually set by Canon Europe. There is definitely differential pricing imposed by Canon since whereas B&H will ship most of their stock to the UK, they state on their site that the R5 is not allowed to be shipped.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0