Canon tech specialist talks the Canon EOS R3

[sdz]

Especially since the competition doesn't seem to have a problem with higher resolution sensors that the R3 has. I thought it was funny that there are repeated excuses for the 24mp and why you don't need it.

Even though Canon offered a 24 mp sensor on its new Stacked Sensor, BSI camera, it does not follow that it could not have chosen a higher resolution sensor. The pending 1R may break with past practice by including a very high resolution sensor. At this time, we do not know what capabilities canon has and will have soon. But Canon will need to differentiate the 3R and the 5R and 1R lines, and sensor size is one way to do that.

The Canon is doomed meme refuses to die even when considering milestone achievements.

 

[perplex1]

does anyone know if Canon's BSI sensor have any impact on the dynamic range for video?

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Does anyone know if the R3 will crop in any of the video modes. I expect that it will work with the new Canon VR lens, but a crop factor would screw thugs up for the higher frame rate modes (which is where the R3 kicks the R5’s behind).

 

[SereneSpeed]

24MP can make a 20"x30" print at 200 pixels per inch. That's good enough for me and I'd prefer that sensor development emphasize improving other areas.

200ppi is very limiting, if you have a detailed, or textured image.

240ppi is noticeably lacking in detail vs 300ppi, if you approach the image.

The argument that nobody approaches a large image, is based upon the experience of viewing low detail (low ppi) images.

If you have 300ppi, and engaging content, people will approach the image.

 

[angelisland]

200ppi is very limiting, if you have a detailed, or textured image.

240ppi is noticeably lacking in detail vs 300ppi, if you approach the image.

the argument of nobody approaches a large image is based upon the experience of viewing low detail (low ppi) images.

If you have 300ppi, and engaging content, people will approach the image.

Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up. (It's landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.)
ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.

 

[entoman]

Did he actually imply that wildlife photography was NOT part of the target market? I had wondered about that since so many wildlife photographers seem to want lots of crop-ability which 24MP doesn't emphasize.

Canon seem to be stating that sports and reportage are the primary target markets, but the R3 will be bought by a diverse group of photographers, that also includes weddings, portraiture and wildlife.

Why do so many people want superb resolution anyway? lol

Many wildlife photographers, especially bird photographers, like to have as many megapixels as we can get. This enables us to leave a safety margin space around fast moving subjects that are hard to track visually. It also lets us choose between horizontal and vertical crops from the same frame, and allows the image to be rotated for dynamic effect. Rotating a low resolution image will result in greater loss of detail, compared to rotating a high MP image.

Having said all this, there are plenty of people who have spent years with 1Dx and/or 7D series cameras, and they will probably be perfectly happy with 24MP.

There is no single “best” solution. Canon offer us choices, it’s up to each of us to choose the option that suits our own genres of photography, and our own style of working.

 

[entoman]

Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up.
ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.

With respect, that is meaningless without more information. What is the subject matter? Does it have a lot of very fine detail? What is the “up close” viewing distance?

Also, of course, most people will be looking primarily at the subject matter and aesthetics of your images, and factors such as edge sharpness, fine detail resolution and even accurate focus will be secondary to that.

The most relevant question is whether a high resolution image is preferable to an identical low resolution image.
With some subjects and treatments it won’t matter. With other subjects and treatments more resolution is far better.

 

[entoman]

Does anyone know if the R3 will crop in any of the video modes. I expect that it will work with the new Canon VR lens, but a crop factor would screw thugs up for the higher frame rate modes (which is where the R3 kicks the R5’s behind).

The R3 specification chart from Canon states that cropping is supported in stills mode only.

https://downloads.canon.com/DMSD/r3/EOS-R3_downloadable-specifications.pdf

 

[neuroanatomist]

Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up. (It's landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.)
ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.

We disagree, you must be wrong. Unless you’re talking about a 24 MP Sony sensor, then of course the images are superb.
Sincerely,
—The Forum

 

[angelisland]

We disagree, you must be wrong. Unless you’re talking about a 24 MP Sony sensor, then of course the images are superb.
Sincerely,
—The Forum

Ha! (it was mostly Nikon cameras with Sony sensors)
But to answer the other guy's questions re the 36" prints at SF MOMA museum - the images are all landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.

Believe me - I like more pixels - at the moment I shoot with an R5 and an A7rIV mostly, but when I see the excellent large prints from 24mp sensors, I think why the F do I need more pixels than my old D750 had...

Cheers.

 

[Methodical]

More horsepower is always better, so everyone wants a V8 engine in their car. Lol.

Yeah, but there are some V6 engines that can out muscle some V8s.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, but there are some V6 engines that can out muscle some V8s.

Real men want a massive engine in their car and more MP in their camera. Anyone who settles for a turbocharged V6 when there is an 8 L, 16 cylinder 1500 hp engine available, or anyone who settles for a 50 MP FF camera when there’s a 150 MP MF camera available, is a wuss.

 

[Random Orbits]

One of our local camera shops, Nelson's, had an anniversary sale this last weekend with reps from the big names there. Canon had two reps and a pre-production R3 available for in store use. The eye control was unique as I was able to shift from face to face or in the parking lot, car to car just by shifting my focus. There will be a learning curve as it is also easy to shift to the wrong spot but willing to bet this will be a big hit with the sports types. It also felt very light and even with the slightly smaller size(compared with 1DX models), the buttons seemed to be in suitable positions without feeling cramped.

This is the camera that I would love to rent for a day's worth of soccer games. Multiple kids in the frame and the subject isn't facing you but others are. I waffle between selecting my own focus point and letting the camera decide for me, and I use the control ring to flip through the modes. It's clunky. I've missed many shots when the camera couldn't focus on the player I wanted fast enough or chose someone else instead. And if I choose the AF point, I end up framing looser because I can't track and move the point at the same time. I'd love to see if eye AF can solve many of these issues.

 

[entoman]

Real men want a massive engine in their car and more MP in their camera. Anyone who settles for a turbocharged V6 when there is an 8 L, 16 cylinder 1500 hp engine available, or anyone who settles for a 50 MP FF camera when there’s a 150 MP MF camera available, is a wuss.

More horsepower is always better, so everyone wants a V8 engine in their car. Lol.

Right, there are some who will always claim that they “need” MF and 200MP, and there are always those who claim that can get an equally good large print from a 5 year old 8MP smartphone. The truth is that everyone has different needs and perceptions, and most of those who make such claims have never seen a side by side comparison of prints to back up such nonsense.

There are people who fall for the sales hype and buy cameras with specifications beyond their needs, and for Mr Average, a 24MP APS-C is almost always enough. But even angelisland admits that he shoots mostly with an R5 or a7Riv, despite his claims about 24Mp being enough for “excellent large prints”…

Sensible photographers will choose the camera with the specification that best meets their personal needs. I’ve used cameras ranging from 8-62MP, and as an ex-industrial photographer turned hobbyist, I’ve shot ultra high resolution 16x20” industrial and 8x10” field cameras, so I know when high resolution is needed, and when it is not needed.

As I stated above, “many wildlife photographers, especially bird photographers, like to have as many megapixels as we can get. It enables us to leave a safety margin space around fast moving subjects that are hard to track visually. It also lets us choose between horizontal and vertical crops from the same frame, and allows the image to be rotated for dynamic effect. Rotating a low resolution image will result in greater loss of detail, compared to rotating a high MP image.”

All of us have different needs.

To quote another of your posts “It’s funny that everyone thinks their opinions are universal.”

 

[Cyborx]

The 'lucky few' who don't need a decent amount of megapixels that is...

 

[SereneSpeed]

Meanwhile I've had a bunch of framed 24x36" images in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art museum gallery, all printed from a 24mp sensor and they look superb - even close up. (It's landscapes with loads of detail, water, mountains, etc.)
ZERO complaints about image quality, or anything technical for that matter.

I didn’t say you couldn’t do it.

All I said was; Your detail was limited by the resolution and if you’d had more resolution, the difference would be noticeable.

Congratulations on getting your art on the wall. I’d love to see some of your work, if you have any online and you don’t mind sharing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 'lucky few' who don't need a decent amount of megapixels that is...

There are, indeed, relatively few 1-series body owners. For a somewhat larger few, there is the R5. For the majority, there are 24-32 MP APS-C cameras. Did you have a point? I mean, other than trolling that is apparently your raison d'être.

 

[juststeve]

I have an R3 on order, but the order was not placed until about 3 hours after it all started. Not likely to be in the first batch or even second batch of arrivals. I waffled about order the camera, liking virtually everything about it except the 24 MP.

Well, get an R5, some of you say. Well, I have had one since they became available. I feel it is the best camera I have owned or used. Its ability to quickly and accurately focus and deliver 45 MP at 12 FPS is near perfect for my needs. Near perfect.

I do not use the full electronic shutter because the slower readout rate has caused problems noticeable in prints. The faster R3 readout should be close to eliminating the problems.

Also, the faster readout speed of the R3 should improve focusing speed and accuracy, even over the R5. Handling appears as if it might be a bit better than with the R5. Again, for me, perhaps not everyone. Also, there is the hope eye control will work well. I still wear glasses and eye control did not work well for me on the EOS 3, my previous favorite camera of all time, but for several reasons I am hopeful it will on the R3.

So I am happy to have placed the order for the R3, but also happy not to be getting one in the early shipments. It will be nice to be able download some files, process them and see how well they stack up to R5 and 5Ds prints. The R3 price seems a bit steep, although I do believe stacked sensors are very expensive to make and yield is likely low compared to Canon's previous sensors, even R5 sensors. I would like to be sure of getting value for my money for my needs with the R3.

 

[Bob Howland]

All I said was; Your detail was limited by the resolution and if you’d had more resolution, the difference would be noticeable.

Noticeable at what viewing distance? I maintain that the optimum viewing distance of a piece of art is about equal to its diagonal measurement. If you are close enough for the increased resolution to be noticeable, you are no longer looking at a piece of art, you are looking at a small part of a piece of art. What's the point?

In addition to my 5D3, I own a 5Ds which I bought the day that Canon dropped the price by 65%. One of these days, I might do a blind test: different camera, same lens, same scene, asking people which print was made with which camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Noticeable at what viewing distance? I maintain that the optimum viewing distance of a piece of art is about equal to its diagonal measurement. If you are close enough for the increased resolution to be noticeable, you are no longer looking at a piece of art, you are looking at a small part of a piece of art. What's the point?

Depends on the art. This triptych by Hieronymus Bosch deserves closer study than the 4.3 m / 14' viewing distance that your diagonal measure guideline would suggest is optimum.


People viewing the painting at the Museo del Prado in Madrid tend to stand much closer than 4 m.


What I didn't know until I saw it in person is that because the triptych was designed to be closed, the backs of the side panels are also painted.