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

[privatebydesign]

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

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

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

Methinks things do not quite add up....

 

[Jack Douglas]

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

Jack

 

[dilbert]

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

Methinks things do not quite add up....

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

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

 

[tarjei99]

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

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

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

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

 

[privatebydesign]

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

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

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

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

 

[dtaylor]

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

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

 

[dilbert]

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

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

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

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

 

[Bahrd]

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

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

 

[Cyborx]

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

 

[Bahrd]

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

Stopping down can help DP AF twofold:

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

 

[Ian K]

Just like the colonists who rebelled against a tea tax…

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

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

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

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

 

[Joules]

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

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

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

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

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

Yes it is an annoying discussion.

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

 

[Ian K]

Craw has the same bitdepth as regular cr3.

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

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

 

[Ian K]

Ebay charges sales tax these days.

Not on private sellers.

 

[Joules]

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

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

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

 

[Hector1970]

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

 

[Del Paso]

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

 

[InchMetric]

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

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

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

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

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

I pity you for that.

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

Not on private sellers.

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

Paying tax on eBay purchases

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

www.ebay.com

 

[Joules]

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

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

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