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

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
If I may observe, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that some types of professional photography (chiefly sport) rely on speed of delivery and the end result is rarely cropped much, nor often reproduced at high magnification. Plenty people have laboured under the misapprehension that low res = lower noise etc, despite plenty of us showing it to be largely untrue (with caveats) - DPR is rather late to the game in that regard. But I don't think Canon's choice is based on that. You keep asserting pretty much everyone benefits from higher res, but that's not true and especially so for a primary target audience for this sort of camera.
Please see my reply to Alam, posted above.

Incidentally, don't think dpr was late to the game - the original article was posted in 2015, at a time when virtually everyone was convinced that larger pixels resulted in less noise.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
...I could shoot on a 400mm F2.8, crop the image to 600mm equivalent, and still have an image as good or better than I'd get with a 600mm F4, at a fraction of the cost and weight...

I get your point but you've used a terrible example. You are comparing a $12,000 lens to a $13,000 lens and a 6.25 lb. lens to a 6.71 lb. lens. Significant may be relative, but I don't think anyone is choosing these lenses on the basis of weight or cost.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I didn't think there was any point in answering a rhetorical question. You and I both know that I don't have access to the extensive market research data which would be necessary to prove anything. You and I also know that you don't have access to data that would repudiate my "claim". I think everyone here knows and accepts that what *both* of us have expressed are our *opinions*.
No. Stating that you want a higher MP camera would be expressing your opinion. Stating that most people want a higher MP camera is claiming knowledge of others’ opinions, knowledge which you clearly lack. You overstepped.

Conversely, I stated that Canon has data on the opinions and buying habits of their customers. That’s a fact, not an opinion. I further stated that Canon uses those data in making design decisions, including putting a 24 MP sensor in the R3 (assuming that is what they announce). That’s a logical deduction in the case of the R3, one that’s based on the fact that Canon collects such data and for other products has made statements such as, “In response to customer demand, we…”

It’s sad that the inability to distinguish opinion from fact is so common today. That’s why we have Flat Earthers, vaccines that contain nanotrackers, space lasers that cause forest fires, and other ridiculous claims floating around.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I get your point but you've used a terrible example. You are comparing a $12,000 lens to a $13,000 lens and a 6.25 lb. lens to a 6.71 lb. lens. Significant may be relative, but I don't think anyone is choosing these lenses on the basis of weight or cost.
Agreed it wasn't a good example. I should have checked costs and weight first. Perhaps a better comparison might have been 100-500mm against 600mm, in which case there would be a considerable cost and weight saving. The 600mm would provide sharper images and has a wider maximum aperture. In terms of practicability, cropping the 100-500mm would be my choice. But for those with funds, who demand the ultimate in IQ, and don't mind lugging around a 600mm plus tripod, head and gimbal, the 600mm is the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
No. Stating that you want a higher MP camera would be expressing your opinion. Stating that most people want a higher MP camera is claiming knowledge of others’ opinions, knowledge which you clearly lack. You overstepped.

Conversely, I stated that Canon has data on the opinions and buying habits of their customers. That’s a fact, not an opinion. I further stated that Canon uses those data in making design decisions, including putting a 24 MP sensor in the R3 (assuming that is what they announce). That’s a logical deduction in the case of the R3, one that’s based on the fact that Canon collects such data and for other products has made statements such as, “In response to customer demand, we…”

It’s sad that the inability to distinguish opinion from fact is so common today. That’s why we have Flat Earthers, vaccines that contain nanotrackers, space lasers that cause forest fires, and other ridiculous claims floating around.
OK, I concede on that point - I normally add the caveat "probably" when making this sort of comment, but omitted to do so on this occasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.
Canon never offered uncompressed, uncropped RAW with varying resolutions. MRAW and SRAW have always simply been poorly labeled, as they are not RAW formats.

And, since the introduction of the CR3 file format, even those options are gone.
As far as I can see, there are no negative aspects to buying a high megapixel body, other than the greater initial cost.
How many shots can be in an interrupted burst (what people call buffer size) is also affected by resolution and with 24 MP, 30 FPS Canon might have pushed the resolution as high as they can without having a finite buffer.

Also,we don't know how much higher price would be if Canon would have went for a higher resolution for their first stacked and BSI sensor. As you point out, production processes matter and we have no information about the one that gives rise to the R3 sensor other than it is new and associated with high costs in the context of other sensor manufacturers like Sony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I can absolutely understand why someone would be happy with a 24MP camera, or even a 12MP camera, if all they wanted was to post images on the internet, shoot video, or to make smallish prints.
I wonder what people did before there were cameras that had more than 24 MP? Did anyone make large prints or crop images? All those people shooting with 1-series bodies only post images on the internet? All those weddings and events shot on a 5D, 5DII or 5DIII were only used for smallish prints?

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, but people should realize that sometimes expressing their opinions makes them look foolish.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
OK, I concede on that point - I normally add the caveat "probably" when making this sort of comment, but omitted to do so on this occasion.
Better to preface it with 'I guess' or something along those lines, in my opinion. As it also can be argued that Canon having better data than us and acting in a certain way is an indication that their actions have a higher probability of pleasing the market than what we would like them to do. Note that of course that using 'the market' is such a simple way of making such an argument, as it can exclude the folks not pleased by a given product.
It’s sad that the inability to distinguish opinion from fact is so common today. That’s why we have Flat Earthers, vaccines that contain nanotrackers, space lasers that cause forest fires, and other ridiculous claims floating around.
It is also sad that something as natural and human as being wrong about something or not articulating it in the best manner is often met with such harsh judgment and condescending reactions.

A person can be wrong and come to that realization by interactions that question their position in a way that challenges their understanding and supplements the necessary information to understand the correct information.

I believe getting to such an outcome is significantly hindered if either party is acting like their position justifies dismissing and humiliating the other side.

I enjoy a lot of your posts, but it often seems your great factual knowledge goes to waste in discourse due to your choice of word distracting from that factual level. It may not be your goal to make people listen to what you are expressing, but I usually suspect that it is and believe a gentler tone would make it more likely that you succeed with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Canon never offered uncompressed, uncropped RAW with varying resolutions. MRAW and SRAW have always simply been poorly labeled, as they are not RAW formats.
Doug Kerr posted an excellent treatise on those non-RAW formats.

And, since the introduction of the CR3 file format, even those options are gone.
I never even noticed that mRAW and sRAW were gone from the EOS R (when I get a new camera, I just set it to RAW and that’s where it stays).

But once again, we see an opinion like ‘reducing the output size of a high MP sensor is as easy as selecting a lower resolution RAW output format’ being refuted by fact.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
Here ist a guy who says that 18 megapixels are enough for a 36x24 inch print. I wish he had compared it with a high resolution camera. Then we would really know if there is a visible difference. However I printed many photos from my 1D Mark II in 60x40 centimeters. The camera only has 8.2 megapixels, but the photos look okay. Photos of that size are usually viewed from a distance of one metre or more and from that distance 8.2 megapixels look great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
It is also sad that something as natural and human as being wrong about something or not articulating it in the best manner is often met with such harsh judgment and condescending reactions.
Being wrong is fine. Quadrupling down on being wrong is ridiculous.

Having said that, I have been guilty of conflating similar responses from different members, and replying harshly to one when it's really not deserved based on the posting history.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Agreed it wasn't a good example. I should have checked costs and weight first. Perhaps a better comparison might have been 100-500mm against 600mm, in which case there would be a considerable cost and weight saving. The 600mm would provide sharper images and has a wider maximum aperture. In terms of practicability, cropping the 100-500mm would be my choice. But for those with funds, who demand the ultimate in IQ, and don't mind lugging around a 600mm plus tripod, head and gimbal, the 600mm is the way to go.
Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.

Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).

Shooting.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
Only in America can we sit around a table consuming $30.00 steak dinners, all while discussing the merits of buying or not, a camera body costing upwards of $4-6,000.00
Canon Rumors is an international forum.
It is mostly made up of English speakers but you can add Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand to that list.
That doesn't mean there are no people having the same discussion in different languages.
It is a first-world problem for sure.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,574
4,110
The Netherlands
If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.[..]
No. For RAW you only get one resolution without cropping. Everything else is processed and hence not RAW anymore. The 'mRAW' and 'sRAW' Canon offered in the past were downscaled, debayered TIFFs, not actual RAW files.
The current models allow only full resolution RAWs, you only get to pick between lossless or lossy compression. Or enter crop mode.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
I am already buying something that is outdated the moment I leave the shop.
If you are a collector then you would be better off buying a Leica as they hold value a lot better.
If you actually plan on using the camera I can't fathom how that matters at all.
A better camera would not render it useless and nothing is forcing you to buy either camera.
 
Upvote 0

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
494
419
Canon Rumors is an international forum.
It is mostly made up of English speakers but you can add Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand to that list.
That doesn't mean there are no people having the same discussion in different languages.
It is a first-world problem for sure.
International for sure, EOS 4 Life......Since I'm American, I don't mind picking on myself but didn't want our intn'l audience to possibly feel like I was singling them out. There is no doubt that many of our fellow members, from all over the world, have been blessed with good fortune. I, for one am very grateful and don't take it for granted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
Here ist a guy who says that 18 megapixels are enough for a 36x24 inch print. I wish he had compared it with a high resolution camera. Then we would really know if there is a visible difference. However I printed many photos from my 1D Mark II in 60x40 centimeters. The camera only has 8.2 megapixels, but the photos look okay. Photos of that size are usually viewed from a distance of one metre or more and from that distance 8.2 megapixels look great.
It depends upon subject matter as well as viewing distance. Some printer drivers may deal with things better that others, I’d expect. On my wall is a 13”x 19” print I made from a 4 megapixel shot I took of the Grand Pacific Glacier. It looks fine viewed from 6” away. I don’t know why, but it does.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
No doubt that it is a change. But you can't call it a step backwards without either mentioning the metrics that you use to determine that, or acknowledge that it is just your personal preference.

In terms of power consumption or delay it is a downgrade. In all other aspects, it is either a question of personal taste or an objective improvement.

Seeing the digital image is arguably closer to what the camera actually perceives and therefore more relevant to the final digital output. Of course one can still prefer the OVF image, although that is also just a (analogue) copy of reality and not an authentic representation, changing for example the brightness and depth of field.

For Canon and the broader market, the objective benefits seem to outweigh the previous points:

Constant exposure of the sensor based focus system to light, allowing far greater AF coverage, greater subject recognition, enhanced focus at narrow apertures and dim conditions, higher framerate due to elimination of the need to rotate the mirror up and down frequently.

No mismatch between viewfinder image and sensor plane/position, allowing powerful IBIS implementation without risking user frustration due to differences in the viewfinder composition and actual image.

No need for AFMA due to alignment issues.

True DoF preview.

No clipping of bokeh balls due to the mirror box.

Enhanced lens design flexibility due to no restriction on back focus distance.

And so on...
I use the viewfinder plus telephoto lens as a spotting scope, which made me favour the OVF as I can use it it for ages without running down the battery, other than by the IS. But, there are a couple of real pluses using an EVF. Quite frequently, birds are backlit and I can't make out what one is with an OVF as it is just a black object, but with the EVF I just up the iso or lower the shutter speed and I can see it clearly. It also means I can get the exposure right manually. The same applies to other situations where the subject is only dimly visible or conversely telling me when I am overexposing highlights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.

Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).

View attachment 199792
I’ve used my 600F4 on safari handheld. Too much of it can cause serious injury. I was wrecked after it. Interesting hand position on the tripod foot . It’s a great lens but most times a zoom is more practical . I’ve a large vanguard bag for it, heavy tripod and wimberly gimbal. It’s like a workout carrying it all.
 
Upvote 0