Canon EOS R3 to have a 30mp sensor? [CR1]

neurorx

EOS 90D
May 12, 2015
183
115
The main reason that they have different card slots is presumably to appeal to a broader audience, lots of people buying at this level surely have legacy cards from previous bodies. When I've upgraded in the past, I was glad to be able to use cards I had before (going from the 50D to 5D3, a CF, then later going to the 5Ds a high end SD). The other reason would presumably be lower cost. People are talking as if having unalike slots is because they can't, but it's clearly a deliberate decision.
I get the legacy card idea, but I think it would be frustrating trying to shoot 20-30 fps and have a camera stall like the Sony a9/a9ii because the buffer fills...its a sports, wildlife, speed oriented camera. Maybe it will have sufficient processing power to overcome the write speed of the card?
 

SHAMwow

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
40
78
How many frames do you usually shoot in a continuous burst at maximum frame rate?
I couldn't say exactly, but I understand what you're getting at. So when I shoot sports on my R5, I'm shooting at the 12fps mode. In bursts. I couldn't say for how long I'm holding down the shutter for, but after a year of shooting events/sports I still haven't had that moment where the shutter chugs and waits for the buffer to clear. I just don't see a situation where that becomes a problem. Shoot the series of actions, pause, shoot the next series. Or, shoot the bird, wait, shoot the next bird.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
406
295
I think the R3 sounds awful and I am sure it will be relegated to the bin of history like the Nikon DF and J series.

Can’t wait for the R3 II, maybe Canon will have worked out the bugs and get a 200mp sensor by then. I don’t understand anybody buying a camera with < 100mp in this day and age.

Quick, someone let an admin know that PBD's account got hacked ;)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,586
3,924
Tony Northrup made a video about that idea. He showed that it would cause some problems for the high resolution image, as such a configuartion would need a different Bayer filter. To combine four pixels to one, the Bayer filter of those pixels would need to have the same colour and that would cause problems in certain situations. He talks about that in the R1 rumors video he posted two or three months ago.
The fact that you rely on TN for any sort of information is not surprising, from the few of your posts I’ve read. Well, you probably could rely on TN for astrology information, that’s at his technical level.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
I believe the R1 will have not less than 80 mp and will be able to pixel bin to 20 mp. My opinion is that the R1 will not be a sports oriented camera but a studio camera with global shutter to flash sync at any speed.

Just because the 1DX3 is sports oriented, that doesn't mean the R1 has to be. Canon hasn't had an R3 type camera, so their lineup is shifting. With the R3 as their pro sports/PJ camera, the R1 will be their high resolution pro studio camera.
LOL, 80MP global shutter sensor, good luck with that.
 

talkin73

I'm New Here
Jun 8, 2021
9
5
I am 100% sure R1 will be a sports-oriented camera unless there is a separate R1X.
If R3 was a 1DX replacement then it would have 2 CF Express slots.
The lack of dual express cards is perplexing especially given the size. They don’t need a lot of space to dissipate heat from 8k video so… the drop in speed when you auto switch to another card is likely a serious turn off for some potential buyers used to this specific type of redundancy.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
I don’t remember that Nikon told us the rez of the Z9. Did they? (I’m too lazy to look it up right now.)
No didn't revela res, just we know it has to be a minimum of 39MP for 8K (7840 x 4320) or 42MP for DCI 8K, which no one but CAnon seems to use. I doubt it will be less than the D850 res.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
I can't imagine the R1 having a low rez sensor. The Nikon Z9 will have approx 50 mp for the flagship assuming its the same sensor as Sony A1, with a pro body unlike the Sony. I therefore doubt the R1 will be any lower. If it has a lower resolution, what is the value proposition over the R3? Dual CF express card slots? 40 fps?

If we assume that the R3 will sell for $5K, and the R1 will sell for $7K (inline with a 1 series price) what would the extra $2K get me? Global shutter? At that price difference, I would stick with the R3.
No way a global shutter FF sensor will be very high MP, not for a first gen sensor. R1 will differentiate itself, with higher res faster refresh EVF, probable ability to shoot 40fps, dual CFE A cards, even more rugged, QPAF, higher performing FTP, Wifi. Global shutter is a big deal, falsh sync at any shutter speed and no rolling shutter in video. But todate global shutter sensor have been hampered by much lower DR. Canon, Sony and Panasonic have alternative patents to get around this however, but I highly doubt they could full frame high readout of a lot more than 20-30MP and meet noise targets. Also R3 might be closer to $6K.

It would be to position the R3 as the flagship for sports journalists and the R1 would then be targetted at who exactly.

IMO the R3 should be the R5 on steroids, does everything better, no heat issues with 8K video, higher res EVF, bigger buffer, stacked sensor. R3 should be of appeal to a huge audience (price aside). R1 would be in a unique position if it has global shutter and would be perfect for serious pros.

No doubt this is the exact opposite of how it will pan out, but I would be disappointed to see the R1 be the high MP camera and the R3 the low res one.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,022
Kentucky, USA
The fact that you rely on TN for any sort of information is not surprising, from the few of your posts I’ve read. Well, you probably could rely on TN for astrology information, that’s at his technical level.
TN has IMHO very informative information on photography issues and history. Is he always right? - No, of course not. None of us are. But that is no reason to call him, and the fellow CR poster, someone who relies on "astrology" information. I'd hope we were all able to interact better than that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: h2so4 and Chig

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
375
471
No way a global shutter FF sensor will be very high MP, not for a first gen sensor. R1 will differentiate itself, with higher res faster refresh EVF, probable ability to shoot 40fps, dual CFE A cards, even more rugged, QPAF, higher performing FTP, Wifi. Global shutter is a big deal, falsh sync at any shutter speed and no rolling shutter in video. But todate global shutter sensor have been hampered by much lower DR. Canon, Sony and Panasonic have alternative patents to get around this however, but I highly doubt they could full frame high readout of a lot more than 20-30MP and meet noise targets. Also R3 might be closer to $6K.

It would be to position the R3 as the flagship for sports journalists and the R1 would then be targetted at who exactly.

IMO the R3 should be the R5 on steroids, does everything better, no heat issues with 8K video, higher res EVF, bigger buffer, stacked sensor. R3 should be of appeal to a huge audience (price aside). R1 would be in a unique position if it has global shutter and would be perfect for serious pros.

No doubt this is the exact opposite of how it will pan out, but I would be disappointed to see the R1 be the high MP camera and the R3 the low res one.
Maybe the R1 will include lawn bowling af to differentiate from the R3...
 
Jun 15, 2021
1
2
The R3 at 30fps and 30mp could be perfect for my 'birds in flight' photography. Hopefully the auto focus will improve upon the already good R5. I find very fast birds at close range are not tracked quickly enough in frame with the current R5 autofocus. I already shoot at 20fps in electronic shutter mode, using Canons compressed raw, which gives average file sizes around the 30mp range. The big questions will be a) Can the auto focus track faster than the current R5 b) Can it shoot consistently at 30fps in electronic shutter mode whilst improving on the rolling shutter effect experienced with the R5 at high shutter speeds.... 1/5000 or higher in my experience. If the answer is yes, then its well worth switching from the R5 to the R3 for my wildlife work. In terms of twin CFexpress card slots....i would suggest the issue is more about heat.......The type 'b' cards generate intense heat very quickly when shooting fast bursts. If writing to two of them simultaneously, i would be very concerned about heat dissipation, and would not be surprised if the cooler second slot sd card choice is a compromise with heat in mind.
 

David_D

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 19, 2021
52
52
Only a semi-serious question, as I am probably reading to much into this, but ... I had an email from Canon selling the R3:
EOS R3 SPECS REVEALED

The EOS R3 is our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera perfect for pro sports and wildlife photography and filmmaking – discover what it has to offer.
Would < 8K (i.e. 30mp) be "perfect for pro sports and wildlife photography and filmmaking"? I can see the arguments for pro sport, wildlife would prefer higher mp but could compromise for other improved features, but would it be perfect for filmmaking? (Certainly not for 8K!)
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,005
792
Only a semi-serious question, as I am probably reading to much into this, but ... I had an email from Canon selling the R3:

Would < 8K (i.e. 30mp) be "perfect for pro sports and wildlife photography and filmmaking"? I can see the arguments for pro sport, wildlife would prefer higher mp but could compromise for other improved features, but would it be perfect for filmmaking? (Certainly not for 8K!)
1DX Mark III and C 300 Mark III are arguably perfect for filmaking.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,586
3,924
TN has IMHO very informative information on photography issues and history. Is he always right? - No, of course not. None of us are. But that is no reason to call him, and the fellow CR poster, someone who relies on "astrology" information. I'd hope we were all able to interact better than that.
Northrup is an infotainer who’s job is to generate income from clickthroughs.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes. but when someone points out your mistake, you admit that you were wrong and move on. If instead, like Northrup, you double down on your mistake in the comments section of the original post and further in subsequent posts, IMO you’ve totally lost credibility.

But the beauty of the Internet is that if you want to read the National Enquirer for factual information about alien-celebrity hybrid babies or visit Northrup’s feed for camera technical information, you are free to do so. Caveat emptor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

BuffaloBird

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
14
49
If this really is 'only' 30MP, it is an absolute pass from me, which is sad. I would love a 1-series body, but I am not downgrading from the 45MP R5 to get it. I've grown to love the flexibility of the R5 MPs for my small bird photography. The 20MP strategy of the 1Dx series is the sole reason I never jumped on those, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,626
585
What is an anonymous source? Someone who just contacted you and told you that number? If he knows the number, why does he just say "around"?

We already know that it probably does not have 8K, because 4K was mentioned. So it has less than the 39.3 megapixels needed for 8K, which is very good news.

If it has 30 megapixels, the question is if it is worth buying know or if it would be better two save another $2000 or so more and wait another year or so with the R1 with a much better 20 mepapixel or so sensor. How much time or money would the upgrade from 30 to 20 megapixels be worth?
You lost me.

Why would 20MP be better than 30MP?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne
 
Aug 7, 2018
347
294
You lost me.

Why would 20MP be better than 30MP?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne
Lower noise, higher dymamic range and higher f-stop possible before diffraction is visible on a pixel level. Of course you could always downsample a highe resolution image to a lower raeolution, but why not use a low resolution in the first place? Getting a high resolution image sharp, requires less camera shake, less subject movement or a much shorter exposure which you have to compensate by either higher ISO of a lowr f-stop. So your photography will change a lot. You might even be required to use a tripod in situations where you would to a hand held shot if the resolution was smaller. And you might need to buy a much sharper and therefore more expensive lens. It is much easier to take photos in way that they look good at 20 megapixels.