Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

[AlanF]

Yes. But then the entire CR speckiverse seems to consist almost entirely of the same half a dozen questions posted in a few different ways.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose​

 

[stevelee]

My only reason for preferring high resolution cameras has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or advertising.
It's about depth of field, when shooting macro. You simply can opt to be further away from the subject, resulting in more d.o.f, and then simply reframe by cropping.
Otherwise, i do not feel the NEED for more than, say, 24 - 30 MP. Ideal combo (for me): R5 for macro, R3 for the rest .And a 5D V !!!!

So with enough megapixels you don’t need true 1:1 macro lenses, since you are cropping anyway, and can use shorter focal lengths for greater depth of field?

 

[privatebydesign]

It’s pretty common to not know what an alicorn is, which is why I used ‘flying unicorn’ instead. A Pegasus’ head lacks the single horn characteristic of unicorns (which are wingless) and alicorns (which have wings). Mythical taxonomy lesson over.

A flying unicorn could just mean the unicorn is in an airplane or other flying contraption, it doesn't necessarily imply it has wings. On the other hand if you had said a unicorn with wings then obviously you would have been better using the correct term alicon.

But to be honest the part of your statement that causes me the most concern is the suggestion the taxonomy is mythical!

Here is a photo leaked by an early tester of the R1. Before anybody looks, all the EXIF has been stripped but the pixel dimensions suggest it is an 8472px x 8472px, 72mp square sensor.......

 

[unfocused]

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose​

I've always been fond of, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." Which certainly applies to forum debates as well.

 

[entoman]

It seems that the most common reason for high megapixels is the ability to crop and to end with a low megapixel file afterwards anyway. I understand the bird photographers who need to crop the hell out of their photos even with a long tele lens, but my subject are skyscrapers and those are rather too big than too small. Only if I stand on a very tall building like Shangai Tower and I need to take photos down, I want some more reach, but then the hot air will spoil the image quality anyway. I usually travel in the hottest months, because then the air pollution in those large cities is the lowest. So I am very happy if a building looks relatively sharp at 500mm and 18 megapixels. I am not sure that 45 megapixels would help.

More megapixels will help if you shoot with a wideangle and have to correct converging verticals in post - the more resolution you start with, the less interpolation is needed, so you'll get genuine detail rather than interpolated "guesswork".

But ideally you'd be using tilt-shift glass, to minimise the need for corrections in post.

 

[Del Paso]

So with enough megapixels you don’t need true 1:1 macro lenses, since you are cropping anyway, and can use shorter focal lengths for greater depth of field?

I use the same focal length (100mm), at a longer distance, to obtain more DOF.
I rarely use 1:1 since I usually take pictures of entire flowers, mostly wild orchids. An alternative would be to use high MP APS-C , same lens, and same distance as high MP FF, so, same result without the need for cropping.
Hoping for the R 7 , if it ever gets produced, which will be far less expensive than the R1 while offering a high pixel density, EOS 90D style.

 

[Chig]

I use the same focal length (100mm), at a longer distance, to obtain more DOF.
I rarely use 1:1 since I usually take pictures of entire flowers, mostly wild orchids. An alternative would be to use high MP APS-C , same lens, and same distance as high MP FF, so, same result without the need for cropping.
Hoping for the R 7 , if it ever gets produced, which will be far less expensive than the R1 while offering a high pixel density, EOS 90D style.

Have you tried using the EF100-400ii or the RF100-500 ?
I have a 7Dii and the EF100-400ii and find it great for close up near macro as the working distance is more practical . I often use this combo' with a screw on diopter 500D lens which gives a great working distance of about 30-40cm and magnification of up to 0.7:1 (or more if I use 1.4x or 2x T.Cs ), I would like to see how well this would work with an R5.
I have been waiting for the rumoured R7 but it seems a bit doubtful now so will probably save up for an R5 for my bird and close up bug photography.

 

[privatebydesign]

My only reason for preferring high resolution cameras has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or advertising.
It's about depth of field, when shooting macro. You simply can opt to be further away from the subject, resulting in more d.o.f, and then simply reframe by cropping.
Otherwise, i do not feel the NEED for more than, say, 24 - 30 MP. Ideal combo (for me): R5 for macro, R3 for the rest .And a 5D V !!!!

Do you have any actual examples of that because when I tried it in the real world with the EF 100L Macro that simply isn't what I found to be true.

Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]

You can also quite clearly see, in DPReview's DR comparison tool, that the D850 (higher pixel density) yields better results under a +5 or +6 push than pretty much anything else, even when starting at ISO 100. Again, one must ask the question, is what DP Review measuring actually DR, or is it...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[canonmike]

The only people that will buy this camera are canon users. Canon won't steal any sony or nikon users with a $6k 24mp camera. If anything people would be jumping ship to sony to get a 50mp camera with the same speed for the same price. You say $6k is a bargain compared to the 1Dxiii. Yes it is, but the market has changed. The 1Dxiii was priced the way it was because there was no competition. With the sony a1 on the scene, $6k is not a bargain for a 24mp camera. It is more of a disappointment.

I don't think that Canon's upcoming release of the R3 is an attempt to get Nikon and Sony users to defect. Rather, they just want to satisfy a need for more mirrorless options among the Canon users niche group. More options is a good thing, even if you and I would not buy an R3. Personally, I don't think the R3 will fall under the disappointment category and I'd sure like to have one but I have never felt like any Mfgs. high end cameras are bargains. That's not who they are targeted for. You want high end specs and results, you have to pay up to play in that market. Again, I'll be very surprised if the R3 is a disappointment and am convinced that most will find it another great tool to get the job done, no matter what the MP's are.

 

[sanj]

If you look at the full size image I put up it is equivalent of looking at the full size print through a magnifying glass ! Yes you can see the difference but for me the interesting part is that the 50mp hasn’t really resolved much more than the 26mp, only the native size is just bigger.

This has been a great education. Thank you. I wonder, then, why does Canon make high MPX cameras?

 

[sanj]

I feel very sorry for you if when you take a photo that your goal is maximum sharpness - or that sharpness can create some sort of stress and pressure. I can safely say that in 40 years of taking photos, I have never once thought about sharpness as I am taking a photo or about to take a photo. Only if I am taking photos of birds or wildlife knowing that I will need to crop severely, will I examine my photos on the computer for sharpness. But the idea that one will feel pressure to achieve some sort of sharpness with a 50 MP camera compared to a 24 MP camera is very odd, in my opinion.

I just bought a 45 MP Nikon Z7 and did some comparison shooting with my 24 MP Z5. First of all, shooting hand held reveals very little difference in sharpness (resolution really) - so the idea that I should feel pressure shooting with the 45 MP camera just doesn't materialize. The camera will give me whatever sharpness/resolution advantage without my worrying about it. For subjects around 50 feet away, I couldn't see any difference in resolution at 100% crop on the Z7 & 137% crop for the Z5 (to get the same size image) shooting with a 300mm lens. For subjects about 100 feet away, there was a minor difference or advantage to the Z7. Only at more distant subjects was the Z7's advantage more noticeable at 100%/137% crops. Obviously, my results may not be everyone else's results. Lenses matter, atmospheric conditions matter, the cameras AA filter matters. Using a tripod would probably create more of an advantage for the Z7, but I doubt it would be that much of a factor as a tripod helps regardless of the cameras MPs. I might carry a tripod less since the camera's additional MPs will give me at least a little bit if an advantage ov er the Z5. But considering that the resolution differences in my real world shooting between 24 MP and 45 MP were minor, it is not the increased MPs that are the reason I'm getting the Z7 - it's the quicker focusing and better focusing in low light that is the major factor. The differences in MP would not be a deciding factor if choosing between the two cameras for what I shoot (mostly landscapes and flowers - not a lot of wildlife.)

That's just my opinion of course.

The joy of photography is creating images that give us joy and satisfaction. Subject, emotion, light, beauty, SHARPNESS etc are all part of the image.

 

[privatebydesign]

The joy of photography is creating images that give us joy and satisfaction. Subject, emotion, light, beauty, SHARPNESS etc are all part of the image.

Yes but for many of us sharpness comes way way down the list of importance whereas for some it is everything. For me, and I'd guess most photographers rather than people who use photography as a part of a broader hobby, subject, emotion, and light ARE the reasons for the images.

The focal length limited birders here will scoff at anything that isn't pixel level sharp whatever the mp number, meanwhile I couldn't care if I never saw another picture of a bird, sharp or not. Look at some of the greatest emotive photography ever and you will see so many examples where sharpness would be considered a joke, yet the emotions they stirred in us as kids and impressionable young adults lite a fire inside for us to follow. Yet we piss that legacy away with irrelevant arguments about what is good enough, how sharp, how many MP, enough DR....

 

[privatebydesign]

This has been a great education. Thank you. I wonder, then, why does Canon make high MPX cameras?

Because the customers think they need it. Canon isn't in the business of giving people what they need, it is in the business of making people what they want. People wanted 45mp, 8K, 20fps, etc etc, most of them don't need anything more than an R6, but they aspire to an R5.

I am a member of a very modest camera club, all the other members are hobbyists. Four of them have R5's and I am the only pro in the group and I shoot professionally with 20mp. I buy what I need and does the job I need it to do......

 

[sanj]

Because the customers think they need it. Canon isn't in the business of giving people what they need, it is in the business of making people what they want. People wanted 45mp, 8K, 20fps, etc etc, most of them don't need anything more than an R6, but they aspire to an R5.

I am a member of a very modest camera club, all the other members are hobbyists. Four of them have R5's and I am the only pro in the group and I shoot professionally with 20mp. I buy what I need and does the job I need it to do......

Dear Private. I am finding it difficult to believe that Canon makes high Mpx cameras just because 'customers think they need them'. I still believe that a high mpx camera will make better larger prints and allow for cropping, and a lower mpx will allow for cameras to have better 'speed'. But, I am exploring this actively now and will keep learning.

 

[Jethro]

It depends partly on your usage, and access to lenses etc. I'm largely a macro photographer, and a lot of that is fungi (including only a few mm high). So, before I got my 100mm x2 lens, I was filling a lot less of my sensor than (sometimes) I wanted. Therefore, cropping - and sometimes quite a bit - was a real thing for me. Plus I was often using minimal lighting, so higher ISOs were a thing. I therefore loved going from the 6D to the EOS R, partly because I had more MP to play with in post. BUT - with the right lens, and slightly more liberal use of lighting, I find I'm now no longer cropping much at all - so I see less need for more and more MP - and I could even imagine going down in MP if and when I upgrade my EOS R.

 

[sanj]

Yes but for many of us sharpness comes way way down the list of importance whereas for some it is everything. For me, and I'd guess most photographers rather than people who use photography as a part of a broader hobby, subject, emotion, and light ARE the reasons for the images.

The focal length limited birders here will scoff at anything that isn't pixel level sharp whatever the mp number, meanwhile I couldn't care if I never saw another picture of a bird, sharp or not. Look at some of the greatest emotive photography ever and you will see so many examples where sharpness would be considered a joke, yet the emotions they stirred in us as kids and impressionable young adults lite a fire inside for us to follow. Yet we piss that legacy away with irrelevant arguments about what is good enough, how sharp, how many MP, enough DR...

When I return from a photography trip and scan my photos, the first ones I delete are the ones that are not sharp. But, I know what you mean.

 

[HotPixels]

I think a lot of us can't afford an R3 either...or and R5. Post Covid, the pro photographic industry is in tatters.
There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market. I really can't believe the vast price price difference between the ef and rf lens range has anything to do with R&D / manufacturing costs. Canon have openly admitted that the most expensive overhead of a DSLR is actually the combined pentaprism, separate metering and AF module / engineering costs. Negate those from your build and pass that over to a Software based system that works off sensor. Canon hasn't passed on those cost savings to the consumer...instead they have jacked up their prices to offset the declining market size.

So now every rumor counts as truth? Canon introduced the RF mount because the entire industry was moving to mirrorless.

As to prices and passing along any cost savings on mirrorless to consumers...Canon is not a charity but a for profit business, as are all camera companies. Is Sony passing along the cost savings on mirrorless to consumers? They released an $6500 mirrorless model the that has the same dinky body as their much cheaper ones. Oh and BTW, the R5 is at least 90 to 95% of what the A1 is but at 60% of the price.

The reality is that the camera industry has suffered a very steep decline in sales due to smartphones. Smartphones have gobbled up the bottom of the market, and now are doing the same with the mid tier. The volume of camera sales today is roughly one tenth of what it was about 10 years ago. So imagine you work in an industry where you've lost 90% of your customers. How do you attempt to make up for that? You try to create higher profit per unit. The math is the math.

No camera company can afford to count on a large enough volume of sales of cheaper units. That does not exist any longer. And as smartphones gobble up the market from the bottom, that leaves the consumers who want the better, more fully featured models.

All camera companies are releasing new models at higher prices than the old ones. Sony released that A1, which was really an A9III, but called it an A1 to justify putting it at the much higher price. They came out with the A7SIII which was more expensive than the A7SII. When they release their A7 IV, it will be more expensive than their A7 III. And don't tell me those dinky Sony bodies cost that much to produce.

In this market you don't want to be a company chasing every lower prices. You can have lower priced products, but overall you need to be going upscale to survive.

Now in return, the companies do offer you cameras with more features. But they are not a charity. They need to pay their bills, which includes their employee salaries and benefits.

 

[stevelee]

Yes but for many of us sharpness comes way way down the list of importance whereas for some it is everything. For me, and I'd guess most photographers rather than people who use photography as a part of a broader hobby, subject, emotion, and light ARE the reasons for the images.

The focal length limited birders here will scoff at anything that isn't pixel level sharp whatever the mp number, meanwhile I couldn't care if I never saw another picture of a bird, sharp or not. Look at some of the greatest emotive photography ever and you will see so many examples where sharpness would be considered a joke, yet the emotions they stirred in us as kids and impressionable young adults lite a fire inside for us to follow. Yet we piss that legacy away with irrelevant arguments about what is good enough, how sharp, how many MP, enough DR....

I printed out a picture on 13” wide paper of a shot I made of the harbor in Victoria from my hotel room in the Empress near sunset. It was shot with my Canon s95, and I obviously didn’t pay attention to the shutter speed, so it is not terribly sharp. It has a nice atmospheric quality, some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot. It definitely conveys the feeling and mood of being there. I spent $90 or so having it framed, and it is in my living room.

For travel I had the S95 and then the S120 and then the G7X II and now the G5X II. In normal times, I take most of my pictures with the travel camera. Prints from them grace walls in my house. In late 2019 I took over 3,000 pictures with the G5X II.

During the pandemic, I have been using my DSLR a lot more, because I am here to use it all the time. I rented TS-E lenses to play with, and got that mostly out of my system.

After reading all this discussion about resolution and such, I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera. I am unsure of what lenses I would want, and really I doubt that I would develop enough interest in taking landscapes around here to justify owning the camera. And the more I think of my pattern of shooting, I suspect that if life and travel get back more to normal, I would use it even less. But a birthday is coming up in just over a month, so I won’t try to predict what I might do.

 

[sanj]

I printed out a picture on 13” wide paper of a shot I made of the harbor in Victoria from my hotel room in the Empress near sunset. It was shot with my Canon s95, and I obviously didn’t pay attention to the shutter speed, so it is not terribly sharp. It has a nice atmospheric quality, some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot. It definitely conveys the feeling and mood of being there. I spent $90 or so having it framed, and it is in my living room.

For travel I had the S95 and then the S120 and then the G7X II and now the G5X II. In normal times, I take most of my pictures with the travel camera. Prints from them grace walls in my house. In late 2019 I took over 3,000 pictures with the G5X II.

During the pandemic, I have been using my DSLR a lot more, because I am here to use it all the time. I rented TS-E lenses to play with, and got that mostly out of my system.

After reading all this discussion about resolution and such, I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera. I am unsure of what lenses I would want, and really I doubt that I would develop enough interest in taking landscapes around here to justify owning the camera. And the more I think of my pattern of shooting, I suspect that if life and travel get back more to normal, I would use it even less. But a birthday is coming up in just over a month, so I won’t try to predict what I might do.

"some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot" Why?
"I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera" Why, if technically better is not important, sir?

 

[sanj]

I printed out a picture on 13” wide paper of a shot I made of the harbor in Victoria from my hotel room in the Empress near sunset. It was shot with my Canon s95, and I obviously didn’t pay attention to the shutter speed, so it is not terribly sharp. It has a nice atmospheric quality, some of which might have been lost in a technically better shot. It definitely conveys the feeling and mood of being there. I spent $90 or so having it framed, and it is in my living room.

For travel I had the S95 and then the S120 and then the G7X II and now the G5X II. In normal times, I take most of my pictures with the travel camera. Prints from them grace walls in my house. In late 2019 I took over 3,000 pictures with the G5X II.

During the pandemic, I have been using my DSLR a lot more, because I am here to use it all the time. I rented TS-E lenses to play with, and got that mostly out of my system.

After reading all this discussion about resolution and such, I am looking at the new 102 MP Fujifilm camera. I am unsure of what lenses I would want, and really I doubt that I would develop enough interest in taking landscapes around here to justify owning the camera. And the more I think of my pattern of shooting, I suspect that if life and travel get back more to normal, I would use it even less. But a birthday is coming up in just over a month, so I won’t try to predict what I might do.

Happy Birthday in advance!