Canon EOS R3 sensor resolution to be 45mp?

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,327
3,875
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
The Techradar "source" is a Canon Watch article that claims 45MP and quad pixel autofocus. Canon says the R3 will have next generation dual pixel AF so we already have reason to believe that at least half of the Canon Watch information is wrong. This calls into question the reliability of the 45MP claim from the same source.
Thanks. I was unaware of the Canon Watch story. I never go to that site, as they seem to mostly recycle @Canon Rumors Guy and other sites and publish anything regardless of whether or not it is credible.

After reading your response, I went to their site and they are now using the Techradar story to substantiate their story -- basically a closed loop. "We publish a rumor, someone else picks it up and then we use their repost of our story to substantiate our story."
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,726
2,135
Hamburg, Germany
Do you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?
There is already face and head AF that is aware of helmets, isn't there? Seems irrelevant if the human is on a bike at that point - unless it is the bike and not its rider you want to focus on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bahrd
I tend to agree, if it were 45mp then why not 8k? I am not a tech guy, but would BSI have anything to do with lack of 8k? Doesn't seem so but I don't know.
First of all be it known that I have no idea what Canon is going to do, but so of the reasoning I've been hearing for not having 45mp is driving me crazy. First of all the sports camera thing. Why not? Sony's A1 is billed as a sports camera and I believe it is 50mp. Along with that is that Canon has to compete with Sony. Putting a 45mp sensor would help to do that. At 30mp's we'll have to listen to the whiners. Besides, who says it doesn't have 8k....Guess we'll see someday!
 

definedphotography

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 13, 2020
56
49
If canon wants me to switch from EF to RF they'll have to up the 30 MP to 45 MP, or I'll wait and stick with my 5DmkIV.

Not sure if you've paid attention to the releases in the past year, but the R5 is exactly what you're looking for ;)
I've replaced one of my 5D IVs with an R5 and its just leaps & bounds better than the 5D. I doubt any other manufacturer is offering significantly better features.

The R3 is more a 1DX replacement than a 5D replacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
I'm sorry, but if you think (or insist) this camera must be 45mp or higher to succeed, this obviously isn't the camera for you. Canon knows what it's doing in this space, that's why they have dominated it for years. They built this for people who shoot fast action, not people who shoot photos of perched birds. While I do fall in this latter category, I have an R5 for those shoots. When things start flying or running 45mp is a problem. I have to almost double the shutter speed I used to use for my 1DX II for the same subjects to compensate for motion blur between pixels, which leads to higher ISOs. Higher ISO gives less detail and I may as well have 20mp. Before anyone starts blathering about downsampling, professional sports photogs don't have time to fuss with that nonsense. They need to shoot and upload. No post processing nonsense. Would I buy it at 45mp? Yes. Would I prefer my action camera to be 30? Absolutely. There's a reason the 1DX series never reached above 20mp, and it's not because pros were begging for more or that they couldn't manage the throughput. After all, the R5 sports the same processor as the 1DX III.
Seems like an irrational argument. Yes, if you are looking at pixel level, there will be more blur in action shots at the same settings with more MP, but if you use the same framing, then there will be essentially no difference in the overall image and the parts of the image that are correctly tracked, will be sharper with the higher MP body. All you have to do is downsample your R5 to 20 MP, and the shots will appear just as sharp as the ones from the IDX2, but of course, you will only have a 20 MP image. I fail to see how that makes 45MP "a problem".
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
Probably the most convincing argument for 45MP is "once you go to 8k, you don't go back". Clearly not a requirement for entry level cameras or M series, but any body at or above the price of the R5 will likely have 8k going forward (including the R1). There is, however a good chance the camera will include in camera downsampling and be able to produce lower resolution pseudo raw files that don't take up as much storage and transmission bandwidth to accommodate the sports crowd. Canon did say this is a "sports and wildlife" camera. Sports shooters don't want big files, but wildlife shooters typically want all the pixels they can get. It will be interesting to see how that dichotomy has been mitigated.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,568
2,909
Isn't it ironic that the video sensor math assists those in concluding rumor specs in a stills body?
 

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
127
111
There is one fact giving hint R3 is actually ~30mpix. Before release of A1 all Canon rumors was around ponential R1 camera but this changed after specs of A1 has been revealed. I think Canon had plan to release R1 with 30mpix but after they realized i won't compete on paper with 50mpix A1 they had to rename it to R3 and left room for future potential R1 flagship with matching or overleap A1 mpix count.
Pretty plausible analysis...
 

bernie_king

EOS 90D
Jun 30, 2014
101
145
Seems like an irrational argument. Yes, if you are looking at pixel level, there will be more blur in action shots at the same settings with more MP, but if you use the same framing, then there will be essentially no difference in the overall image and the parts of the image that are correctly tracked, will be sharper with the higher MP body. All you have to do is downsample your R5 to 20 MP, and the shots will appear just as sharp as the ones from the IDX2, but of course, you will only have a 20 MP image. I fail to see how that makes 45MP "a problem".
Because they look noticeably softer. The target audience for this camera doesn’t have the time for down sizing. It would be ok with me, but I’m not a sports pro.
 

reef58

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 16, 2016
423
409
North Carolina
youtu.be
R5 just isn't enough of a step to switch to RF given the investment I have in EF bodies and lenses (yes there's that converter - but it'll remain a handicap to use it). The eye controlled AF point selection is what triggered my interest big time as I still haven't gotten over my old-timer focus and reframe shooting style from the old days - it's high time I relearn that but it's hard and I was hoping the eye control would give me enough of a tool to make the jump and finally stop doing what I learned as a kid using my dad's gear that had just one AF point.

As to the R5 itself: I'll lose the internal (and highly reliable) GPS functionality of the 5DmkIV and 7DmkII a feature I use a LOT. Not sure if the R3 will have it back or if it's going to be that kludge where you need the GP-E2 nonsense or an unreliable Bluetooth link to a phone.
I came from the 5d4 myself along with the original 1dx. The R5 is a pretty seamless transition. Of course I don't really care about gps in my cameras.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,327
3,875
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...Canon did say this is a "sports and wildlife" camera. Sports shooters don't want big files, but wildlife shooters typically want all the pixels they can get. It will be interesting to see how that dichotomy has been mitigated.

My thinking is this is a sports camera that will work well for wildlife. I think Canon considers the R5 to be their main birds and wildlife camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bernie_king

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
152
144
Given that the Nikon Z9 & Sony A1 both have +45 MP sensor & 8K video, we should expect that Canon will match that in either the R3, or a future R1. I don't think the R5 is on the same level as the Z9 & A1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,821
4,271
yes there's that converter - but it'll remain a handicap to use it
Depends on your perspective. Personally, I find the ability to use only rear gelatin filters with my 11-24, or the fact that I need to carry filters the size of salad plates for my TS-E 17, a handicap. The ability to use an adapter with drop-in filters is an advantage in those cases.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
946
791
www.flickr.com
Sure 6K is worth mentioning. Red even named their camera after it… the “Komodo 6K”, so it’s clearly worth mentioning. R5 could not shoot 6K raw. But that said, I’m not sure why Canon would make the R3 have the same resolution as the Eos R? I think the 45MP sensor makes more sense at this point.
The R5 could shoot 6K raw but it would be crop... realistically 8k raw is better for downsampling (perfect 8k->4k) ratio with the only downside being the bit rate over 6k
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
946
791
www.flickr.com
Isn't it ironic that the video sensor math assists those in concluding rumor specs in a stills body?
We need to understand that AF tracking is all about video processing from the sensor and display in the EVF/rear screen. We cannot separate the two for mirrorless or live view on DLSRs. Canon chose 45mp to be the first with 8k recording in that camera body envelope. The ratios are just too perfect to pretend otherwise. They had the great leap forward with the 5Dii and then the R5.

Given that the battery capacity between the A1 and R5 is within 7%, the massive CIPA difference is the efficiency of the processing and perhaps the CFe B card slot. Sony have been doing video processing for years of experience with PSx boxes. It would make sense that they have leveraged this capability for their camera processors as well
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slclick