Exclusive! DPReview confirms what has already been confirmed. The Canon EOS R3 will be 24mp

[privatebydesign]

A person can play around with semantics; "pushed" or "responded," it really does not matter. Without Sony doing what it did with mirrorless and the resulting market response, I do not think Canon is all in with mirrorless so rapidly. Canon did not react by just developing a line of FF MILC cameras, it basically quit the DSLR business altogether. Canon saw the writing that Sony painted on the wall and... Well, I am just glad Canon did what they did to get in the game. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I do hope Canon brings forth a camera that is high mp and fast fps with all the great AF, built-in grip, etc. in the very near future. The R5 is great, but the BSI, stacked sensor promises things that the R5 can't produce for those of us who make a living shooting some of the fastest and most elusive subjects on the planet; doing so in the awesome low light of early mornings and late evenings. The R3 may be, in Canon's mind, for the sports shooters, so be it, next bring on the pro R body for us wildlife photographers.

See that is where what you think and the facts diversify. Canon still make and sell millions of dslr’s, they didn’t quit anything, they followed the market.

Anybody expecting some kind of game changing upgrade in IQ because of BSI/stacked sensors again, isn’t looking at facts. The Sony A7RII, the first FF BSI sensor, had lower DR than the A7R. And stacking really only seems to help ES readout times.



The R5 already bests the A7RIV, A9 and A1 for DR.

 

[unfocused]

I am pretty sure Sony has had and continues to have Canon's attention. Sony pushed Canon into the mainstream mirrorless game in a big way.

I was actually being a bit sarcastic. However, I don't think we can say that Sony "pushed" Canon. I believe Canon makes decisions based on market research more so than what their competitors are doing. A fine line, and certainly watching their competitors is part of market research, but too many on this forum think that these companies sit around and say "X has this model, therefore to compete we have to have a similar model." More likely they research the market and then watch their competitors to see if the competition's market research (as evidenced by the competitors product line) reflects what they see in the market. If they see a surprise, they go back to their own research and analyze what the competition might be seeing that is prompting the competitors' decisions.

I also suspect that Canon and Nikon were content to use Sony as a "beta tester," watching them develop their bodies while Nikon and Canon were perfecting their own technology. For both Nikon and Canon, with their well established reputations, the risks of releasing a product that fails to meet expectations is much greater than other manufacturers. And, frankly, both are conservative companies that are less likely to go all in on new technology until its proven. It's pretty clear to me that Canon knew that once they got into the market, they could dominate it. Which is what seems to be happening.

A question I have is in regards to all the talk of Canon making the R3 for professional sports photographers and that these folks do not want or need high mp bodies. How many professional and enthusiast sports photographers are there? This versus how many professional and enthusiast wildlife photographers are in the wild, many of whom want higher mp bodies? I don't have the data, but I would be surprised if wildlife photographers do not outnumber sports photographers. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Canon stated the R3 was being developed to be a pro-level sports and wildlife camera. At 24mp I believe many wildlife shooters will be left wanting. As always this is just one persons thinking on this subject.

There are certainly more enthusiast wildlife photographers than professional sports photographers. I question whether or not there are more professional wildlife photographers though, as it seems to me to be pretty difficult to monetize wildlife photography. As someone who gets paid for sports photography but not wildlife photography, it looks to me that most of the professional wildlife and bird photographers are earning a living from running tours or producing videos, while quite a few sports photographers still earn their keep shooting pictures (although the market is shrinking and you would have to include people who shoot on contract or on staff for schools, as I do.)

But, to your actual point, it seems to me that Canon really targeted the wildlife and bird photography market with the R5. Again, we don't have access to their market research or sales figures, but I think there is a good chance that they have scooped up the bulk of that market with the R5. Just a quick look at topics on You Tube you can see a lot of "R5 -- The best birding camera ever" type videos.

 

[usern4cr]

I think that there will be a lot or people that get the R3 with 24MP at whatever price it is, and that they will absolutely love it! It will have better "shadow recovery" and less image noise than the R5 which is a major improvement, as well as all the other improvements it comes with.

If I had unlimited funds, I'd get one as well as one of all the future bodies. But since I don't, I will choose to see what the next body comes out with. I am indeed willing to get a body with as "low" as 24 MP and be quite happy with it, but I will wait for their next BSI sensor'd body with QP technology (what I REALLY want) or else R3-like features in a smaller & lighter R5-like form with whatever MP value it happens to be. By the time the next body comes out, it'll probably have an improved EVF with either better resolution, apparent image size, or accuracy of eye-pupil tracking or possibly a sharper/brighter or larger back LCD or maybe a global shutter with integrated ND filter option. I'm glad the R3 is coming out to keep Canon profitable, and look forward to their future bodies that might be exactly what I happen to be hoping to get.

 

[Pixel]

A friend of mine is at the Olympics and has used an R3 says it’s absolutely a game changer and says transmitting photos wirelessly is a LOT easier so expect some major networking advancements.

 

[Jethro]

A friend of mine is at the Olympics and has used an R3 says it’s absolutely a game changer and says transmitting photos wirelessly is a LOT easier so expect some major networking advancements.

I think these 'connection' features are likely to mean a lot more to the target market of the R3 than MP counts.

 

[Bob Howland]

Amazing how many people here are hung up on pixel count, as if that’s the most important camera spec. That’s just plain puerile. Such a camera needs ruggedness for the field and a resolution sufficient to export sharp jpegs for the web. Also excellent ergonomics to not miss the shot while fiddling with controls. The R3 has all of that.

But how is the image being displayed? "The web" might be displayed on an 80" 4k television mounted on the wall, about 8Mp. I'm not planning on using my 5Ds for everything from now on.

 

[privatebydesign]

A friend of mine is at the Olympics and has used an R3 says it’s absolutely a game changer and says transmitting photos wirelessly is a LOT easier so expect some major networking advancements.

That would be very nice, along with enhanced remote control. Canon’s WFT’s are expensive jokes.

 

[slclick]

I was hoping for 30 MP, but I give in and accept it will be only 24...
resolution-wise not a huge improvement over my 5D3.

Let's see what this novel sensor can do in terms of dynamic range and if this justifies an upgrade... (the R5 very nearly got me, but not quite yet...)

Please explain how you built your time travel machine since it's impossible to come to your conclusion without using the R3. I went from a 5D3 to an R6 and my resolution gains are HUGE. There is much more to a camera body than a single part. Stop being suckered by the mp numbers game.

 

[canonmike]

I was actually being a bit sarcastic. However, I don't think we can say that Sony "pushed" Canon. I believe Canon makes decisions based on market research more so than what their competitors are doing. A fine line, and certainly watching their competitors is part of market research, but too many on this forum think that these companies sit around and say "X has this model, therefore to compete we have to have a similar model." More likely they research the market and then watch their competitors to see if the competition's market research (as evidenced by the competitors product line) reflects what they see in the market. If they see a surprise, they go back to their own research and analyze what the competition might be seeing that is prompting the competitors' decisions.

I also suspect that Canon and Nikon were content to use Sony as a "beta tester," watching them develop their bodies while Nikon and Canon were perfecting their own technology. For both Nikon and Canon, with their well established reputations, the risks of releasing a product that fails to meet expectations is much greater than other manufacturers. And, frankly, both are conservative companies that are less likely to go all in on new technology until its proven. It's pretty clear to me that Canon knew that once they got into the market, they could dominate it. Which is what seems to be happening.




There are certainly more enthusiast wildlife photographers than professional sports photographers. I question whether or not there are more professional wildlife photographers though, as it seems to me to be pretty difficult to monetize wildlife photography. As someone who gets paid for sports photography but not wildlife photography, it looks to me that most of the professional wildlife and bird photographers are earning a living from running tours or producing videos, while quite a few sports photographers still earn their keep shooting pictures (although the market is shrinking and you would have to include people who shoot on contract or on staff for schools, as I do.)

But, to your actual point, it seems to me that Canon really targeted the wildlife and bird photography market with the R5. Again, we don't have access to their market research or sales figures, but I think there is a good chance that they have scooped up the bulk of that market with the R5. Just a quick look at topics on You Tube you can see a lot of "R5 -- The best birding camera ever" type videos.

"as it seems to me to be pretty difficult to monetize wildlife photography"......" it looks to me that most of the professional wildlife and bird photographers are earning a living from running tours or producing videos,"

Concur, unfocused. Awhile back I found myself in a local bird feed and accessory store. Approaching the counter to pay for my purchase, I remarked to the owner what neat bird photos she had hung on the walls throughout the store and behind the register. Funny thing she said, responding to my comment. Everyone oooh's and aaahh's over them but not one customer buys any of them. This may very well validate your comments and your earning a living from running tours or making videos comment is probably spot on. I would like to see some meaningful numbers on just how many pro birders out there are actually making a living off the sale of their bird photos alone. Sadly, I doubt the number is very high. A few of my fellow wedding photographer friends love wildlife photography but do it for the personal pleasure of it, while shooting weddings is what pays the bills for them.

 

[YuengLinger]

I love the 45 MP of my R5. And I love the 20 MP of my R6. There are times I know I'm going to want to crop a bit heavy, and times I know I won't need to at all.

And, as I'm loving everything atm, I love that Canon isn't, at this time, caught up in the megapixel wars that seemed inevitable. I believe they found a happy medium, a great balance of performance and resolution.

I do hope we get a body that offers some control over burst mode with electronic shutter. A firmware update for the R5/R6 would be a wish granted!

 

[mbike999]

One thing that changed is the competitions' wanting higher resolution images for the winners. As the res of cameras has increased, so has their want for high res final compositions. Many of these competitions now hang the winners in major exhibitions and they want to print the images the size of walls. When you make the semi-finals or finals (depending on the comp.) they ask you to send in the RAWs and full-size JPGs. If the full-sized JPG is too low res. it may work against you. Make no mistake, a stellar image should and most likely will win even if the final composition is relative low resolution, but if there are two images battling it out for a win and one is low res and the other high, the high may get the nod. Moreover, competitions also are now putting wording in their rules that large crops are to be avoided, again, in part, to increase the probability of getting winning images that are high enough res to print big. Should it be this way, probably not, but these competitions want to be able to use the winning images in many different ways to promote many different things, and higher res images allow for flexibility in use.

Large format printing guidelines dictate that 30x40"+ printed comfortably from a 24 MP image:

How Big Can I Print My Image?

Any image can be printed as large as you want. It just depends on your expectations. From the fact that you’re reading this article on this website, I’d have to guess that you’re a more discerning person than the average Joe. So, I’m going to assume that you want an excellent quality print...

fotoworkspro.com

While I agree and understand your point about cropping being a factor, I just looked at several of the most prestigious awards (POTY, NFWF, NatureTTL, NHS) and all of them have very modest requirements e.g. 72 PPI, 1920p longest dimension...nobody is asking for huge megapixel counts. Most are actually asking for smaller pixel counts or compressed files.

What I'm simply trying to say, is if someone has troubles getting award winning images with a 1DX-style camera that they can do almost anything they want with, the 10 inches behind the viewfinder is to blame, not the megapixel count.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

There's still a room for doubt. Canon could make all R3 users set the camera to a smaller than native resolution.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

When will people learn. Canon doesn't release cameras to compete with Sony. Sony releases cameras to compete with Canon and Nikon.

Hmm not anymore I think. Canon now competes with Sony, Nikon catches up. Canon and Sony are the two at the top of the mirrorless market, not Canon and Nikon.

 

[BuffaloBird]

Ugh. This is far more depressing than it ought be. My hopes were so high that it'd be 45. Then I heard 30 and grew depressed, knowing I wouldn't buy such a low-res sensor after falling for the R5 sensor. But 24MP? Horrific...for my shooting needs. Zero interest.

 

[PBguy]

GREAT! An R6 with an inbuilt battery grip.
24mpix? WHYYY????

The R6 is 20mpix. I'm guessing you've never used a 1-Series Canon camera if you think it's the same as using a regular body with a grip.

 

[privatebydesign]

Ugh. This is far more depressing than it ought be. My hopes were so high that it'd be 45. Then I heard 30 and grew depressed, knowing I wouldn't buy such a low-res sensor after falling for the R5 sensor. But 24MP? Horrific...for my shooting needs. Zero interest.

That’s funny because for the market it is intended, current 1 series owners, it is looking to be an awesome body with an RF mount.

 

[fred]

So… R1~Z9>R3?

 

[Kiton]

Honestly with owning a R5, I realize the only thing I really need in a camera is an RF mount version of my 1dx2 so that I can go fully RF mount.

It honestly makes sense to view this as an upgrade for people still using the 1dx, 1dx2, and 1dx3 but wanting to move to RF mount.

With that in mind, you're nearly doubling the 16 FPS of the 1dx2 with the R3, on top of the durability of limitless electronic shutter, RF mount lenses, new huge and super fast EVF, built-in wi-fi, the TouchPad AF on button, a 4 mp increase, tracking focus, flip screen, the list truly goes on.

All that put together, it's honestly a compelling upgrade for 1dx/1dx2/1dx3 users. I'm sure at 24 megapixels this is going to be a blistering fast and responsive camera that gives you the same responsiveness as a DSLR, and possibly a similar sort of battery life too.

I don't honestly need anything more out of my 1dx2, but it will be an incredibly worthwhile upgrade for me to get a similar camera to the 1dx2 but with an EVF and RF mount.

If Canon didn't make a camera that was a direct update along the lines of the current 1-series, what would those users feel comfortable upgrading to? A lot of that market isn't looking to deal with 50 mp files at 30 fps.

Now that they have the R3 though, I think it frees Canon to do whatever they want with the 1-series and not have to strictly worry about that market.

A lot of good points.
A good buddy who shoots for the wires was complaining about the file size with the A1 during the NHL finals.
I shot compressed RAW, which gave me a 25 meg file on the hard drive, I was fine with that and happy with the ability to crop severally on the far net.
But, I was really hoping for a little more meat in the files of the R3. If the company buys me an R3, I will take it!! But I bought my R5 and it will be me buying the next body too, so I will hold out and see how it plays out.
Like you, I have 2x Idx mk 2 and the R5, I am hardly suffering, all are great cameras.

 

[shire_guy]

Ugh. This is far more depressing than it ought be. My hopes were so high that it'd be 45. Then I heard 30 and grew depressed, knowing I wouldn't buy such a low-res sensor after falling for the R5 sensor. But 24MP? Horrific...for my shooting needs. Zero interest.

It works both ways. When I first heard about the R3 and the improved subject AF I also assumed it was going to be approx 45MP, which, given I had already sunk my money into an R5 was a bit depressing. Now it seems like the R3 will be 24MP I am more than happy I went for the R5, my credit card is happy too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hmm not anymore I think. Canon now competes with Sony, Nikon catches up. Canon and Sony are the two at the top of the mirrorless market, not Canon and Nikon.

DSLRs comprise 45% of the ILC market. Sony doesn’t sell any, Canon and Nikon do.