Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

[dba101]

The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.

Depending on what it’s aimed at.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If you have two images of the same scene with differing resolutions and view them at the same physical size (so NOT 100 % magnification, for example), either

* they will look virtually identical
* or the higher resolution one will look more detailed, if the magnification is great enough to start showing the pixels of the lower resolution one

There is no scenario in which a lower resolution body produces more detailed images than a higher res one. If you personally can't tolerate any blur at 100 % magnification, meaning your definition of a sharp image is one that is sharp on the pixel level, that would of course result in a high res body being a disadvantage FOR YOU - but you could still just downscale the image and get what you would have if a lower resolution body was used. So still no IQ disadvantage, just wasted file space and digital processing time.

That's not my point. My point is that knowing that your images will not get any sharper than they are at 20 megapixels will relief you from the presserure of trying to achieve 50 megapixel sharpness. Think of the other extreme: Those 400 megapixel images with pixel shifting from a Hasselblad H6D that will always require a very steady tripod even in daylight. Of course you will also be able to take handheld photos with that camera that only look sharp if they are downsampled to 50 megapixels or less, but if you have that camera, you will always be trying to get the best sharpness and therefore carry your tripod with you while you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. That will spoil your Paris trip quite a lot.

You can compare it with running. Person A has the goal of running 2,000 metres a day and person B wants to run 5,000 metres a day. Person A might achieve their goal much more often then person B. So will over time person B may have run much more than person A, person A may be more satisfied because even on bad days they mostly achieve their goal of 2,000 metres.

 

[stevelee]

The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.

For that kind of money, I would not look at anybody’s FF camera. I am a bit tempted by the Fujifilm, but doubt that I would shoot enough landscapes when I wanted that sort of resolution to make it worth getting.

 

[Joules]

That's not my point. My point is that knowing that your images will not get any sharper than they are at 20 megapixels will relief you from the presserure of trying to achieve 50 megapixel sharpness. Think of the other extreme: Those 400 megapixel images with pixel shifting from a Hasselblad H6D that will always require a very steady tripod even in daylight. Of course you will also be able to take handheld photos with that camera that only look sharp if they are downsampled to 50 megapixels or less, but if you have that camera, you will always be trying to get the best sharpness and therefore carry your tripod with you while you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. That will spoil your Paris trip quite a lot.

You can compare it with running. Person A has the goal of running 2,000 metres a day and person B wants to run 5,000 metres a day. Person A might achieve their goal much more often then person B. So will over time person B may have run much more than person A, person A may be more satisfied because even on bad days they mostly achieve their goal of 2,000 metres.

I get your point, but it only seems to apply to you yourself. Certainly not to me. I'm aware of the trade offs between the settings and willing to compromise on one aspect of image quality in favor of another if necessary.

Even if you want to get each shot pixel level sharp, you would not have to carry a tripod around all the time. With enough light, you can just compensate with exposure time. If you get a sharp handheld image with 1/100 s at 20 MP, you should also get a sharp one at 1/200 s and 80 MP (twice the linear resolution). If losing that one stop of light is too much, it must be quite a dark subject. Especially with IBIS, the situations where the use of a tripod benefits the high res body would also benefit the lower resolution one.

 

[Joules]

Yeah, but what about when you spot a flying unicorn in the far, far distance and you only have your 50mm lens. I bet then you’ll be kicking yourself for buying a camera with a paltry 24 MP when if only Canon had provided 80 MP in the R3 you could have cropped away 98% of the image and still had a sharp, 16x20” print of a flying unicorn.

What a weird example. After all, the physical limits that prevent cameras from taking sharp images of cryptids and mythical beings would cause even the most appropriate tele equipment to yield a common, blurry UFO image

 

[AlanF]

I get your point, but it only seems to apply to you yourself. Certainly not to me. I'm aware of the trade offs between the settings and willing to compromise on one aspect of image quality in favor of another if necessary.

Even if you want to get each shot pixel level sharp, you would not have to carry a tripod around all the time. With enough light, you can just compensate with exposure time. If you get a sharp handheld image with 1/100 s at 20 MP, you should also get a sharp one at 1/200 s and 80 MP (twice the linear resolution). If losing that one stop of light is too much, it must be quite a dark subject. Especially with IBIS, the situations where the use of a tripod benefits the high res body would also benefit the lower resolution one.

Doesn't it get tedious and repetitive? The same old arguments that high resolution requires oh so specialised technique, tripods etc have been going on since Nikon introduced its 36 Mpx D800 series nearly over 9 years ago. Those of us using the 5DS and 5DSR have been shooting hand held with pixel level sharpness for over 5 years now.

 

[jam05]

Rumors are already starting to swirl around an a9 III.
I think Sony would wait to see how the R3 does in the market before they announce anything.
I can't see Nikon making any such announcements until long after the Z9 is well established.

The R3 is not an A9 level camera, so that speculation is far fetched

 

[jam05]

I think most of us are waiting for the R1 after the disappointing news of 24mpix.

Not really. Most of us cant afford an R1 and dont really want one. There are far more 5D owners on the planet than 1DX3s. You only speak for yourself. I wouldnt speculate based on editable EXIF data. Most likely Jeff Cable, the Canon ambassador changed that EXIF data. Thats where CR got its info from that Jeff refused to confirm. So its actually a BS rumor

 

[Cyborx]

YEEEY!
The R6 with inbuilt battery grip is almost ready!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Not really. Most of us cant afford an R1 and dont really want one. There are far more 5D owners on the planet than 1DX3s. You only speak for yourself. I wouldnt speculate based on editable EXIF data. Most likely Jeff Cable, the Canon ambassador changed that EXIF data. Thats where CR got its info from that Jeff refused to confirm. So its actually a BS rumor

I think a lot of us can't afford an R3 either...or and R5. Post Covid, the pro photographic industry is in tatters.
There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market. I really can't believe the vast price price difference between the ef and rf lens range has anything to do with R&D / manufacturing costs. Canon have openly admitted that the most expensive overhead of a DSLR is actually the combined pentaprism, separate metering and AF module / engineering costs. Negate those from your build and pass that over to a Software based system that works off sensor. Canon hasn't passed on those cost savings to the consumer...instead they have jacked up their prices to offset the declining market size.

 

[unfocused]

I think a lot of us can't afford an R3 either...or and R5. Post Covid, the pro photographic industry is in tatters.
There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market. I really can't believe the vast price price difference between the ef and rf lens range has anything to do with R&D / manufacturing costs. Canon have openly admitted that the most expensive overhead of a DSLR is actually the combined pentaprism, separate metering and AF module / engineering costs. Negate those from your build and pass that over to a Software based system that works off sensor. Canon hasn't passed on those cost savings to the consumer...instead they have jacked up their prices to offset the declining market size.

It seems to be working for them.

 

[Ozarker]

Wait, wait...I thought Canon hasn't announced the MP of the R3 because they were just waiting to read the responses on CanonRumors before making a final decision. I expect they're waiting until that thread hits 1000 posts, then they'll just count up the votes in there and decide what sensor to use. That's an easy change, so they can just pop the chosen sensor into the cameras as they're produced and I anticipate one will be in my hands by late September. Who knows, maybe they'll decide not to decide and they'll just offer a choice so when people order they just tick a box to choose 24, 30, 45 or 80 MP. Go Canon!

Canon is genius. The sensors mount with a Lego backing. Velcro is a $500 option.

 

[Czardoom]

That's not my point. My point is that knowing that your images will not get any sharper than they are at 20 megapixels will relief you from the presserure of trying to achieve 50 megapixel sharpness. Think of the other extreme: Those 400 megapixel images with pixel shifting from a Hasselblad H6D that will always require a very steady tripod even in daylight. Of course you will also be able to take handheld photos with that camera that only look sharp if they are downsampled to 50 megapixels or less, but if you have that camera, you will always be trying to get the best sharpness and therefore carry your tripod with you while you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. That will spoil your Paris trip quite a lot.

You can compare it with running. Person A has the goal of running 2,000 metres a day and person B wants to run 5,000 metres a day. Person A might achieve their goal much more often then person B. So will over time person B may have run much more than person A, person A may be more satisfied because even on bad days they mostly achieve their goal of 2,000 metres.

I feel very sorry for you if when you take a photo that your goal is maximum sharpness - or that sharpness can create some sort of stress and pressure. I can safely say that in 40 years of taking photos, I have never once thought about sharpness as I am taking a photo or about to take a photo. Only if I am taking photos of birds or wildlife knowing that I will need to crop severely, will I examine my photos on the computer for sharpness. But the idea that one will feel pressure to achieve some sort of sharpness with a 50 MP camera compared to a 24 MP camera is very odd, in my opinion.

I just bought a 45 MP Nikon Z7 and did some comparison shooting with my 24 MP Z5. First of all, shooting hand held reveals very little difference in sharpness (resolution really) - so the idea that I should feel pressure shooting with the 45 MP camera just doesn't materialize. The camera will give me whatever sharpness/resolution advantage without my worrying about it. For subjects around 50 feet away, I couldn't see any difference in resolution at 100% crop on the Z7 & 137% crop for the Z5 (to get the same size image) shooting with a 300mm lens. For subjects about 100 feet away, there was a minor difference or advantage to the Z7. Only at more distant subjects was the Z7's advantage more noticeable at 100%/137% crops. Obviously, my results may not be everyone else's results. Lenses matter, atmospheric conditions matter, the cameras AA filter matters. Using a tripod would probably create more of an advantage for the Z7, but I doubt it would be that much of a factor as a tripod helps regardless of the cameras MPs. I might carry a tripod less since the camera's additional MPs will give me at least a little bit if an advantage ov er the Z5. But considering that the resolution differences in my real world shooting between 24 MP and 45 MP were minor, it is not the increased MPs that are the reason I'm getting the Z7 - it's the quicker focusing and better focusing in low light that is the major factor. The differences in MP would not be a deciding factor if choosing between the two cameras for what I shoot (mostly landscapes and flowers - not a lot of wildlife.)

That's just my opinion of course.

 

[sanj]

YEEEY!
The R6 with inbuilt battery grip is almost ready!

I do not agree with you, but the way you put it made me laugh.

 

[Del Paso]

It is a huge limitation, as all the limits of physics are. But not as big as having a lower MP camera in the first place.

For example, the 45 MP R5 has 1.5 times as much linear resolution ("reach" for birders) as the 20 MP 1DX III. If at f/11 diffraction begins to diminish the actual resolution of the images coming out of the R5, that means its relative advantage over the 1DX III shrinks. But it does not immediately vanish, it gradually decreases as apertures becomes more narrow.

What's worse? Using a high resolution body and requiring the right conditions (shutter speed, aperture, light) to capture high detail images? Or using a low resolution body and being limited by the camera even if the other conditions are perfect?

If you don't need the high detail / reach, you of course don't benefit from a higher resolution. But there simply is no IQ penalty for using modern high resolution bodies. They are not more limited than lower resolution ones.

My only reason for preferring high resolution cameras has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or advertising.
It's about depth of field, when shooting macro. You simply can opt to be further away from the subject, resulting in more d.o.f, and then simply reframe by cropping.
Otherwise, i do not feel the NEED for more than, say, 24 - 30 MP. Ideal combo (for me): R5 for macro, R3 for the rest .And a 5D V !!!!

 

[Sporgon]

Sure you can. Of course! But the huge prints will look better with a 50mp FF camera.

Yes, that's true, but the difference is not as great as some seem to think. Here's a shot I took to compare the 50mp 5DS with the 26mp RP. These scene was shot using a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC at f/5.6, and is apparently one of my highest resolving lenses, nearly matching Otus levels at this aperture in the centre. Studio tripod, delayed release etc etc. Here's the whole frame:


At 300 dpi the native output of the 5DS is 29" across long side. So I printed the middle of this image onto A4. The RP has a native output size of 21" long side at 300 dpi. To produce matching print sizes I upscaled the RP image to 29" across at 300 dpi. This was only done in PS, not with any fancy upsizing software.

Here is a photo of the two prints. Remember that the full size image is 29" across; this is just the middle for a comparison. Now it should be immediately obvious which was shot on the 50mp 5DS and the budget 26mp RP. Can you tell which is which ? Sure, the 50 mp is better when you press your nose up to the print. I apologise for the difference in contrast but I'm not doing it again !

Incidentaly the wire mesh on that cage is 3mm and the distance is 300m, yet some people call 24 mp "low resolution".

 

[sanj]

Yes, that's true, but the difference is not as great as some seem to think. Here's a shot I took to compare the 50mp 5DS with the 26mp RP. These scene was shot using a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC at f/5.6, and is apparently one of my highest resolving lenses, nearly matching Otus levels at this aperture in the centre. Studio tripod, delayed release etc etc. Here's the whole frame:
View attachment 199843

At 300 dpi the native output of the 5DS is 29" across long side. So I printed the middle of this image onto A4. The RP has a native output size of 21" long side at 300 dpi. To produce matching print sizes I upscaled the RP image to 29" across at 300 dpi. This was only done in PS, not with any fancy upsizing software.

Here is a photo of the two prints. Remember that the full size image is 29" across; this is just the middle for a comparison. Now it should be immediately obvious which was shot on the 50mp 5DS and the budget 26mp RP. Can you tell which is which ? Sure, the 50 mp is better when you press your nose up to the print. I apologise for the difference in contrast but I'm not doing it again !

Incidentaly the wire mesh on that cage is 3mm and the distance is 300m, yet some people call 24 mp "low resolution".

View attachment 199844

Thank you for this. However, I suspect that if viewed on a large print, the difference might be more visible.

 

[Sporgon]

Thank you for this. However, I suspect that if viewed on a large print, the difference might be more visible.

If you look at the full size image I put up it is equivalent of looking at the full size print through a magnifying glass ! Yes you can see the difference but for me the interesting part is that the 50mp hasn’t really resolved much more than the 26mp, only the native size is just bigger.

 

[privatebydesign]

Doesn't it get tedious and repetitive? The same old arguments that high resolution requires oh so specialised technique, tripods etc have been going on since Nikon introduced its 36 Mpx D800 series nearly over 9 years ago. Those of us using the 5DS and 5DSR have been shooting hand held with pixel level sharpness for over 5 years now.

Yes. But then the entire CR speckiverse seems to consist almost entirely of the same half a dozen questions posted in a few different ways.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

It seems that the most common reason for high megapixels is the ability to crop and to end with a low megapixel file afterwards anyway. I understand the bird photographers who need to crop the hell out of their photos even with a long tele lens, but my subject are skyscrapers and those are rather too big than too small. Only if I stand on a very tall building like Shangai Tower and I need to take photos down, I want some more reach, but then the hot air will spoil the image quality anyway. I usually travel in the hottest months, because then the air pollution in those large cities is the lowest. So I am very happy if a building looks relatively sharp at 500mm and 18 megapixels. I am not sure that 45 megapixels would help.