Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]

People salivating for more REZ here in the forums.

I am in the commercial (advertising) photography world, shooting and producing for companies like L'Oreal, LVMH, J Walter Thompson, Apple, Google, Amazon, Williams-Sonoma, Sephora, Martha Stewart…etc etc.
No one, and I mean NO ONE is asking for more pixels.

Just my two cents, from commercial experience.

Cheers.

From my commercial experience, the clients, who are not so proficient in technicalities, are not specifically asking for more pixels.

They are just EXPECTING them when they are doing the extreme crops of my photos.

The same photo can get an extreme vertical crop for a billboard that will go on a side of a tall building, and an extreme horizontal crop that will be printed on the side of a bus, a wide building, or a wide street billboard.

Sport-Opti-Odds-Set.jpg

The first photo on the left is already a crop of the original file,
so the last thin horizontal photo on the bottom right is an extreme crop of the already cropped file.


The 50 MP of my 5DS sometimes are BARELY enough.
There were occasions that I could be in trouble with less pixels, so I can't wait for the highest possible MP body. :)

When the larger DOF is needed I just refuse to obsess about the diffraction limits.
When I'm not pixel peeping at 100% and with some judicious sharpening I can get away even with f11 and get great results. :)

Yes, I could get a Fuji, but for various reasons I prefer Canon (AF, the lenses, form factor, etc, etc...).

....

So, PLEASE (pretty please!) let me have my 100+ MP Canon body. :)

I PROMISE, It's existence won't hurt you in any way!!! :D


PS
This is not addressed directly to @angelisland , but to all people who can't imagine that someone might need a camera like this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
365
252
From my commercial experience, the clients, who are not so proficient in technicalities, are not specifically asking for more pixels.

They are just EXPECTING them when they are doing the extreme crops of my photos.
Exactly. Also, they make your photos last longer for sales. Hardly anyone buys my 8 MPIX pictures anymore - even those that are with "evergreen" subjects. Finally, one great shot can be cropped to different format and sizes - making more than one picture available when you have enough pixels to work with (by splitting one frame into 2 or 3 separate shots). As late as last week I was told "send the largest file you've got".
 
Upvote 0
I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here! :sneaky:
So
R3 = November 27, 2021 introduced
Add four years to a not yet Rx (whatever it is, more MP all else being same)
Rx = November 27, 2024
This thread is very big projecting out to November 27, 2024
Add production ramp up, delivery, say, 9 months (real R3 experience) to an Rx
Rx = November 27, 2024 + 9 months, ... realistic availability
Rx = August 27, 2025 realistic availability
I'm not sure I can wait that long for a stacked sensor, higher MP, Eye Control, QP autofocus, ...
If I get the R3 now, and sell it when Rx available, not sure how much R3 worth selling at that time.
But I get the use of a new R3 from now until August 27, 2025
That's four years of R3 = $2K/year less resale, what can resale be in 4 years? $1500?
$6K-$ resale = $6K - $1.5K = $4.5K -----> $4.5K/4 years = $1,125/year is less than rental if do 4 global shoots per year
Thoughts
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,311
2,200
Kentucky, USA
So
R3 = November 27, 2021 introduced
Add four years to a not yet Rx (whatever it is, more MP all else being same)
Rx = November 27, 2024
This thread is very big projecting out to November 27, 2024
Add production ramp up, delivery, say, 9 months (real R3 experience) to an Rx
Rx = November 27, 2024 + 9 months, ... realistic availability
Rx = August 27, 2025 realistic availability
I'm not sure I can wait that long for a stacked sensor, higher MP, Eye Control, QP autofocus, ...
If I get the R3 now, and sell it when Rx available, not sure how much R3 worth selling at that time.
But I get the use of a new R3 from now until August 27, 2025
That's four years of R3 = $2K/year less resale, what can resale be in 4 years? $1500?
$6K-$ resale = $6K - $1.5K = $4.5K -----> $4.5K/4 years = $1,125/year is less than rental if do 4 global shoots per year
Thoughts
To me, if you want an R3 and you can afford it, I'd get it now and enjoy it for as long as you can and be happy no matter what it's worth when you sell it. But that's just me (I'm a hobbyist and not earning enough money with it to cover my Canon investments which is fine with me).

I think it's possible that the R1 comes out in a year or so and you may have wished then that you got it instead of the R3, but that's up to you regarding whether it's worth it to wait for the R1 or not.

Either way, I don't think it's worth worrying about a R3 successor now as it will probably be one of the last bodies of many that are introduced by Canon in the next few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,439
8,718
To me, if you want an R3 and you can afford it, I'd get it now and enjoy it for as long as you can and be happy no matter what it's worth when you sell it. But that's just me (I'm a hobbyist and not earning enough money with it to cover my Canon investments which is fine with me).

I think it's possible that the R1 comes out in a year or so and you may have wished then that you got it instead of the R3, but that's up to you regarding whether it's worth it to wait for the R1 or not.

Either way, I don't think it's worth worrying about a R3 successor now as it will probably be one of the last bodies of many that are introduced by Canon in the next few years.
Agreed. I buy cameras to use them, not for resale value. I used my 1D X for 10 years. $650/year is pretty good, and I’ll probably get $1K or so selling it.

I preordered the R3 and I’m happy with it. If the R1 tempts me, I’ll buy that and sell the R3 for whatever it’s worth at that point.

I wonder if the R1 will have eye controlled AF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,001
5,187
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
...I wonder if the R1 will have eye controlled AF?
It would be nice it future versions of eye-controlled AF actually worked. I have yet to find any good use for this function. Too slow to react for sports. Selections are too random. Bounces around the viewfinder randomly. Selects the wrong subject, even when I am looking at the subject. Maybe it is just my glasses, but I put this in the same category as the control bar thingy on the original R.
 
Upvote 0
It would be nice it future versions of eye-controlled AF actually worked. I have yet to find any good use for this function. Too slow to react for sports. Selections are too random. Bounces around the viewfinder randomly. Selects the wrong subject, even when I am looking at the subject. Maybe it is just my glasses, but I put this in the same category as the control bar thingy on the original R.
I'm going to have to rent an R3 for a week and test Eye Control. It is a prime reason I am leaning to R3, the others being back illuminated sensor, the grip, fast readout, Ethernet port, Smartphone Link Adapter. I'm selling to myself, you guys are perceptive, and I have the money.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,669
17,743
It would be nice it future versions of eye-controlled AF actually worked. I have yet to find any good use for this function. Too slow to react for sports. Selections are too random. Bounces around the viewfinder randomly. Selects the wrong subject, even when I am looking at the subject. Maybe it is just my glasses, but I put this in the same category as the control bar thingy on the original R.
Maybe it is because you are unfocused.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,669
17,743
Maybe I am too focused on too many secondary details. Or my internal brain's Eye Control did not follow / respond correctly. But your point is well taken.
I am afraid you missed the joke: it was @unfocused I replied to after he said he couldn't focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

angelisland

Commercial Photographer
Mar 30, 2021
35
52
CA and NY
I would have no problem with a 100 megapixel camera, as long as you can choose RAW file sizes.
The 100 megapixel sensor would be 25% more resolution than 50mb.
I’m betting you could simply up rez the 50 mp file to whatever size you want, no one’s gonna know from a billboard distance. Or even a bus - they are low rez canvas- type prints anyway. Dots the size of golf balls - well almost .
They all look like azz close-up due to the printing and medium.
I live part time in Manhattan, where there are billboards everywhere, buses plastered with imagery…large ads on subway platforms.
Anyway as long as we don’t always have to deal with 150mb raw files, it’s fine with me.
(Here in SF there are Apple billboards printed from iPhone images which look as good as any other billboard on the avenue.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
  • Apr 5, 2016
    4,521
    2,543
    That makes a lot of sense. If the subject you're most interested in is distant enough to be too small on the sensor, than a more affordable & compact APS sensor with more pixel density would indeed give you more pixels on the subject, and probably would give you better results. I guess you need something like an R7 in a new more compact (& affordable) gripped body?

    Not necessarily more affordable. I think $1,500 is about as good as it gets for anything remotely capable of what I need. I was surprised that the price at announcement time was not higher, and I expected about what we got, with the exception that I assumed it would be designed to accommodate a grip.

    I could use an R7 as is if it was designed to work with a well integrated grip.

    I would prefer a more hardened version, even if it cost a bit more, say around $2K. I'd also prefer it was about the same size and had the same control layout of the R5/R6. But I have no illusion that any of those preferences will be forthcoming.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0

    usern4cr

    R5
    CR Pro
    Sep 2, 2018
    1,311
    2,200
    Kentucky, USA
    Not necessarily more affordable. I think $1,500 is about as good as it gets for anything remotely capable of what I need. I was surprised that the price at announcement time was not higher, and I expected about what we got, with the exception that I assumed it would be designed to accommodate a grip.

    I could use an R7 as is if it was designed to work with a well integrated grip.

    I would prefer a more hardened version, even if it cost a bit more, say around $2K. I'd also prefer it was about the same size and had the same control layout of the R5/R6. But I have no illusion that any of those preferences will be forthcoming.
    Well, I meant more affordable than a new Canon FF gripped body probably would be, which would be very expensive. Hence an APS gripped body would have to be more affordable than a FF gripped body. But I'd be somewhat surprised to see a gripped APS Canon, which would remind me of the (not-so-well-received) gripped Olympus MFT body that came out with a small sensor in a (seemingly) big body.
     
    Upvote 0

    Michael Clark

    Now we see through a glass, darkly...
  • Apr 5, 2016
    4,521
    2,543
    Well, I meant more affordable than a new Canon FF gripped body probably would be, which would be very expensive. Hence an APS gripped body would have to be more affordable than a FF gripped body. But I'd be somewhat surprised to see a gripped APS Canon, which would remind me of the (not-so-well-received) gripped Olympus MFT body that came out with a small sensor in a (seemingly) big body.

    By "well integrated grip" I meant the R7 as is with an optional attachable grip that included a minimal set of functional controls on the add-on grip: shutter button, main control wheel, M.Fn. button, AF-ON button, AE-L button, joystick, etc...
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    scyrene

    EOS R6
    Dec 4, 2013
    3,209
    1,480
    UK
    www.flickr.com
    I really liked my 5DIII (it unfortunately went for an unexpected swim in the sea). The 5DSR for me always has been a strange camera. Very good in a studio, very good at ISO 100 on a tripod. Very slow as a camera, as in unresponsive after a few shots have been taken waiting for the buffer to clear. I found the 5DIII a great camera, a great all rounder. A no excuse camera, generally it was the users fault if you didn’t get a decent camera. I found the 5DIV an allround improvement on the 5DIII. The 5DSR I always felt it was rushed to get 50MP out and that it was at the time a stretch too far .
    Maybe it was partly the memory cards you were using? I went from 5D3 to 5DS and found it almost identical in its behaviour, but I made sure to get a more modern, higher capacity card before upgrading. The only reason I went back to the older body was to save storage space and processing time on my computer.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    Hector1970

    EOS R
    CR Pro
    Mar 22, 2012
    1,494
    1,054
    Maybe it was partly the memory cards you were using? I went from 5D3 to 5DS and found it almost identical in its behaviour, but I made sure to get a more modern, higher capacity card before upgrading. The only reason I went back to the older body was to save storage space and processing time on my computer.
    Yes could be. The cards I have aren't slow but there a newer faster ones. I've aquired a few I must see if they make a difference.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    LogicExtremist

    Lux pictor
    Sep 26, 2021
    501
    352
    From my commercial experience, the clients, who are not so proficient in technicalities, are not specifically asking for more pixels.

    They are just EXPECTING them when they are doing the extreme crops of my photos.

    The same photo can get an extreme vertical crop for a billboard that will go on a side of a tall building, and an extreme horizontal crop that will be printed on the side of a bus, a wide building, or a wide street billboard.

    View attachment 204172

    The first photo on the left is already a crop of the original file,
    so the last thin horizontal photo on the bottom right is an extreme crop of the already cropped file.


    The 50 MP of my 5DS sometimes are BARELY enough.
    There were occasions that I could be in trouble with less pixels, so I can't wait for the highest possible MP body. :)

    When the larger DOF is needed I just refuse to obsess about the diffraction limits.
    When I'm not pixel peeping at 100% and with some judicious sharpening I can get away even with f11 and get great results. :)

    Yes, I could get a Fuji, but for various reasons I prefer Canon (AF, the lenses, form factor, etc, etc...).

    ....

    So, PLEASE (pretty please!) let me have my 100+ MP Canon body. :)

    I PROMISE, It's existence won't hurt you in any way!!! :D


    PS
    This is not addressed directly to @angelisland , but to all people who can't imagine that someone might need a camera like this.
    Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!
     
    Upvote 0

    neuroanatomist

    I post too Much on Here!!
    CR Pro
    Jul 21, 2010
    28,439
    8,718
    Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!
    With that example, it seems that it would be relatively easy to extend the background in any direction or magnitude desired using Photoshop.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    unfocused

    Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
    Jul 20, 2010
    7,001
    5,187
    69
    Springfield, IL
    www.thecuriouseye.com
    @LogicExtremist and @neuroanatomist, I think you are missing the point. Clients want the image editable for any medium and format. Anything from a low res web header to the side of a building. The photographer isn’t going to be making those changes, the graphic designer is. So you have to deliver an image that has maximum flexibility. Besides, if the client expects high res images that’s what you have to deliver whether or not you agree.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 4 users
    Upvote 0