More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
I wonder why Canon can't just give us two or three sensor options? Maybe 20, 30 and 60 megapixels. Then everybody would be pleased. Would threy really have to change a lot of the internals ofd a camera, if the megapixel count changes? If the camera can process 60 megapixel images, it should also be able to handle 20 megapixel images. At the moment I am working on hundredsof old photos I took with an 8.2 megapixel APS-H camera and I love how crisp they look on a pixel level. With a high megapixel count diffraction sets in much sooner. Of course you can always downsample those photos, but then you would still have to handle those large RAW files.
No it doesn’t. Diffraction is a function of aperture and magnification only, not mp numbers. If you look at a high mp image at a higher magnification (which it seems most people do) then it appears that diffraction is more apparent, but that is simply because you are looking at it bigger.
 
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2018
347
294
No it doesn’t. Diffraction is a function of aperture and magnification only, not mp numbers. If you look at a high mp image at a higher magnification (which it seems most people do) then it appears that diffraction is more apparent, but that is simply because you are looking at it bigger.
I would not call it a "higher magnification", if I look at both images at 100%. Images have to look well on a pixel level. Otherwise the resolution does not mean anything and I could just upsample a 20 megapixel photo to get 60 megapixels. A 60 magapixel image should also be 60 megapixel sharp. That effects a lot of parameters. Noise for example. And also the maximum allowed camera shake. Depth of field will also be lower on a pixel level, if you increase the resolution. So in low light you need a lower ISO and a higher f stop at the same time, which will result in a much longer exposure. And at the same time you need less camera shake. That means you need a good IS just to compensate for the higher resolution. But at the same time that higher f stop will lead to more diffraction which is even more visible on a pixel level because of the higher resolution. So no matter what you try, your image will look worse on a pixel level in most situations. If diffraction on a pixel level is already visible at f/5.6, that is a big downside for me, as I shoot mostly in f/8 and f/11 to reach a high depth of field. I do not like bokeh at all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
I would not call it a "higher magnification", if I look at both images at 100%. Images have to look well on a pixel level. Otherwise the resolution does not mean anything and I could just upsample a 20 megapixel photo to get 60 megapixels. A 60 magapixel image should also be 60 megapixel sharp. That effects a lot of parameters. Noise for example. And also the maximum allowed camera shake. Depth of field will also be lower on a pixel level, if you increase the resolution. So in low light you need a lower ISO and a higher f stop at the same time, which will result in a much longer exposure. And at the same time you need less camera shake. That means you need a good IS just to compensate for the higher resolution. But at the same time that higher f stop will lead to more diffraction which is even more visible on a pixel level because of the higher resolution. So no matter what you try, your image will look worse on a pixel level in most situations. If diffraction on a pixel level is already visible at f/5.6, that is a big downside for me, as I shoot mostly in f/8 and f/11 to reach a high depth of field. I do not like bokeh at all.
Well you might not, but you'd be 100% wrong. What else can I say in reply to a completely incorrect statement?

Images do not have to look good at a pixel level unless you are displaying them at a pixel level, a very few people do, the vast majority do not.

As for the rest of your comment, it is just ridiculous nonsense repeated parrot fashion from reviewers and people who don't know better and who aren't interested in actual images just page clicks and 'likes'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
If diffraction on a pixel level is already visible at f/5.6, that is a big downside for me, as I shoot mostly in f/8 and f/11 to reach a high depth of field. I
The theoretical 'diffraction limit' is nothing for a practical photographer to be concerned about.

I believe that f/5.6 is theoretical aperture at which my 50mp 5DS begins to suffer from diffraction. Well I can tell that that even when you are resolution limited, in other words trying to record very fine small detail that is far way from the camera (unlike portraits for instance) the 5DS isn't suffering at f/8 and not anything to be concerned about at f/11. However at f/16 the 50mp camera loses it's advantage over a lower resolution sensor unless you are going to print the 50mp at it's maximum (or even larger) output size. If your output is going to be more 20 mp native size then it's no better than a 20 mp camera at f/16.

In 35mm format f/16 is a pretty extreme aperture, but I'm guessing that a 100 mp FF chip is going to exhibit around the same softening at f/11 as the 50mp one does at f/16. Now at f/11 you getting into more practical apertures, and for anyone who is into landscape photography I think this will be a disappointment for them. IMO 100mp is too much for a 35mm format sensor.

Another point to remember is that smaller pixels will never be as well defined as larger ones, but if you reduce the larger mp sensor down to the same size as the smaller one the difference between the two diminishes rapidly. Similar with noise; people say the 5DS doesn't have good high ISO performance. I got quite interested in a Sony A7SII for my low light work - until I found that up to my usual high ISO working level - ISO 6400, when I reduced the 5DS fils down to 12 mp they weren't much worse that the A7SII ! (Which is a 12 mp camera).
 
Aug 7, 2018
347
294
I hardly ever print a photo. If a photo looks noisy or blur on a pixel level, the resolution obviously is too high. Canon always had problems with noise. If you try to recover shadows even from a 1D X at ISO 100, it still looks noisy. So anything that increases noise on a pixel level even more, is bad news. So I would even pay more money for a lower resolution. The main advantage of a full frame sensor for me are the large pixels. If you increase the resolution at the same time, the advantage of the larger pixels is gone. I hate it if Canon makes a smaller resolution camera cheaper than the higher resolution camera. I do not want a cheap camera. Please make the 20 megapixel version the most expensive! $4000 for 60 megapixels and $5000 for 20 megapixels would be fair.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
130
97
I hardly ever print a photo. If a photo looks noisy or blur on a pixel level, the resolution obviously is too high. Canon always had problems with noise. If you try to recover shadows even from a 1D X at ISO 100, it still looks noisy. So anything that increases noise on a pixel level even more, is bad news. So I would even pay more money for a lower resolution. The main advantage of a full frame sensor for me are the large pixels. If you increase the resolution at the same time, the advantage of the larger pixels is gone. I hate it if Canon makes a smaller resolution camera cheaper than the higher resolution camera. I do not want a cheap camera. Please make the 20 megapixel version the most expensive! $4000 for 60 megapixels and $5000 for 20 megapixels would be fair.
then why don't you just downsample your high-MP images for better noise performance, more headroom w.r.t. DLA and better looks on pixel-level if that's what you're after?
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
407
349
Yorkshire
I had planned to ditch the last of my sony gear for canon once the R3 was released(right now I am part sony(a9ii), and part canon - (R5)). If this camera is less than 36mp, there's no point in upgrading, and especially paying $6000 to upgrade to a camera that is less of a camera than the R5. Who really needs 30fps. The R5's speed is plenty. If the R3 doesn't come near the R5's resolution, canon really dropped the ball. I will be extremely disappointed.
But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?

I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.

Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?

I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.

If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
 

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
375
471
But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?

I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.

Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?

I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.

If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
Many are judging the R3 by MP count alone. Yet the 1DX3 only has 20mp for $6500, and the 5D4 has 30 mp for $3,500 and they didn't flinch at the price difference.

The R3 will definitely be a step up from the R5 in terms of AF, frame rate, build, connectivity, sensor, grip etc, justifying a higher price even if it has a lower MP count.
 

rick1

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 8, 2016
65
36
But Canon aren't saying that the R3 is an improved replacement for the R5 - surely this is more about certain models being used designed or specified for specific use types?

I can't believe their initial comments alongside the initial releases which say "Our new high-performance, high-speed mirrorless camera marks a new era for sports, wildlife and news photographers" (direct quote from Canon Europe (UK)) is an accident - to me it seems clear they are aiming the model at certain groups of users.

Isn't it possible, or allowable, that the R3 could be appropriate for some purposes while the R5, even though less expensive, is more appropriate for other uses?

I think we sometimes get too hung up that the Canon price and numbering system must somehow mean that each camera further up the ladder must be better than the one before in every use or metric.

If the R5 is 'better' for your purposes than the (speculated specification) R3 - I'd say that was good news and you should be happy that you get what you need and get to save $2k as well.
Canon has never been the one to "target" specific users. Sony does that. I HATE that. Canon makes cameras that appeal to all users. For example, the 1Dx cameras appealed to wedding photographers AND sports photographers, etc. I've always loved that about canon. With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something. If they do target this specific genre of photographer, they will be breaking from what they've always done. It will be extremely disappointing and they will have lost a permeant canon mirrorless convert.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark
Feb 15, 2020
527
362
Canon has never been the one to "target" specific users. Sony does that. I HATE that. Canon makes cameras that appeal to all users. For example, the 1Dx cameras appealed to wedding photographers AND sports photographers, etc. I've always loved that about canon. With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something. If they do target this specific genre of photographer, they will be breaking from what they've always done. It will be extremely disappointing and they will have lost a permeant canon mirrorless convert.
Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense to me. Every company has a target user in mind when they develop a product. Otherwise they would just make 1 product in total right? Segmentation within a product lineup is of course something that Canon employs. But please correct me if I have mis understood what you are getting at?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,720
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
Canon always had problems with noise. If you try to recover shadows even from a 1D X at ISO 100, it still looks noisy. So anything that increases noise on a pixel level even more, is bad news.
There are no issues with noise in modern Canon sensors though. 90D, M6 II, 1DX III, R6 and R5 all use sensors where you can recover shadows to your hearts content.
The main advantage of a full frame sensor for me are the large pixels. If you increase the resolution at the same time, the advantage of the larger pixels is gone.
You are not giving up anything in terms of low light performance due to a higher resolution. The R5 isn't lacking compared to the 1DX III / R6 or Sony:


And this is especially true with the R3, which will feature backside illumination.
I do not want a cheap camera.
If you have an issue spending too little on camera gear, you can always buy your gear twice and donate the additional one.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
841
692
Frankfurt, Germany
Basically, any architecture/real estate photographer needs this feature to expose a room and also capture the view out the window, so it's not actually that esoteric.
I know exactly what you mean, but I have seen a lot of beautiful artistic images working even with the shortcomings of film in such settings. Sometimes it is much more rewarding if you are restricted in your technical options, in particular in photography. Caution: this reply is written by the artist amongst my multiple personalities, not the geek (who was told to shut up) ;)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,591
3,933
Basically, any architecture/real estate photographer needs this feature to expose a room and also capture the view out the window, so it's not actually that esoteric.
I think 'needs' is incorrect. Architecture/real estate photographers capture such images today, and that feature doesn't yet exist.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
608
343
I think 'needs' is incorrect. Architecture/real estate photographers capture such images today, and that feature doesn't yet exist.
Fair enough, it might not be quite a need, but it should be able to speed up work quite a bit compared to the alternatives.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,591
3,933
Fair enough, it might not be quite a need, but it should be able to speed up work quite a bit compared to the alternatives.
I think that depends on the implementation. Actually taking the multiple exposures really doesn't take long, with current cameras' ability to set up exposure bracketing, it's really just a press-and-hold of the shutter button. If you're envisioning an in-camera combination of the resulting multiple exposures, then that would save time to the extent that the camera does a good job at that combination...somehow, I doubt in-camera will come anywhere close to proper exposure blending or luminosity masking (certainly, current 'in-camera' HDR features are not that great), but maybe it will be 'good enough'. If it's not good enough, then honestly the feature will not make a meaningful difference for things like architecture/real estate.

Where it might make a meaningful difference is with moving subjects, e.g. a bird against a bright sky, where you may want cloud detail and detail on the underside of the bird, an ultrafast pair of exposures with a few stops difference could make shots possible that aren't, with current technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Canon can sell a billion entry-level cameras that help them lead in market share and none of those folks could buy another Canon camera (which would be brand loyalty).
Why, if someone has a Canon camera and they buy another one, is this necessarily 'brand loyalty' ? I use Canon as my working cameras and I wanted a (jacket) pocketable APS-c compact. I have no brand loyalty at all, and I looked at the Ricoh GRIII and Fujica X100V, but the best one for me was the Canon G1XIII. Brand loyalty had nothing to do with it, it's a case of Canon coming up with the best camera.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
With cameras like the R5 available, there is no way a sub-36ish mp camera will appeal to wedding photographers, unless it has some insane low light abilities or something.
Why wouldn't a wedding photographer, who may shoot six to eight hundred images in a session, be interested in a camera that is lower than 36 mp ?
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
Why wouldn't a wedding photographer, who may shoot six to eight hundred images in a session, be interested in a camera that is lower than 36 mp ?
Indeed. I have shot a decent numbers of weddings and never with a >20mp camera and never once have I been asked for more.

What having more mp does is allow for other inadequacies, particularly focal length, but certainly is not a necessity.
 
Last edited: