More features and specifications for the Canon EOS R3 have emerged

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,155
1,907
Kentucky, USA
I was under the impression that the 5ds cameras or whatever were specifically made for astrology, that they didn't have some filter on them that made them better for taking pictures of the stars. Is this incorrect? I don't know a single person that owns a 5ds. I was under the impression that it was a gimped 5d for most general purposes and that it was specifically for astrology. Do you know anyone that even owns one?
Do you mean "astronomy" instead of "astrology"? If so, then I'm glad to mention it so that the rest of us don't get the wrong impression of your intent. Best regards.
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
405
349
Yorkshire
If people do not print, I wonder why they ask for 45 or even 86 megapixels. Isn't that just for printing? Most images we see are on the internet and they usually have a resolution of less than two megapixels. That does not mean that cameras should only have two megapixels, but 20 should be more than enough unless you are planning an exhibition with large format prints.
YES - in a word.

In more words: there are always use cases for being able to crop further in, albeit electronically, before presenting your shots on the birds in flight or bird portrait threads :giggle:
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,560
3,952
Irving, Texas
If people do not print, I wonder why they ask for 45 or even 86 megapixels. Isn't that just for printing? Most images we see are on the internet and they usually have a resolution of less than two megapixels. That does not mean that cameras should only have two megapixels, but 20 should be more than enough unless you are planning an exhibition with large format prints.
It is not just for printing. Not. Just. For. Printing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and Joules

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,221
5,275
It is not just for printing. Not. Just. For. Printing.
Then what do you need 50+ mp for? Even an 8k screen, which very few of us have, is only 33mp, if people aren’t printing with all those pixels why do they need them? To display on a screen that can’t resolve them?
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,155
1,907
Kentucky, USA
Then what do you need 50+ mp for? Even an 8k screen, which very few of us have, is only 33mp, if people aren’t printing with all those pixels why do they need them? To display on a screen that can’t resolve them?
Cropping is as important as printing, to me. But I think that the 30MP(assumed) R3 will have a better image quality than the 45MP R5. If a future body had a 30MP QP sensor then I'd prefer it over an 80MP DP sensor as I value the best eye AF much more than the diminishing returns of ever tinier pixels with questionable matching lens resolutions. So it's more about the image quality than the MP (and that is a much harder thing to quantify).
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,560
3,952
Irving, Texas
Then what do you need 50+ mp for? Even an 8k screen, which very few of us have, is only 33mp, if people aren’t printing with all those pixels why do they need them? To display on a screen that can’t resolve them?
1. I never said I needed it. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it. It is not just for prints. That's a fact.
2. People like the extra leeway for cropping or even getting more than one composition from the same photo. More versatility. I know I have very much enjoyed the extra mp of my R over my former 5D Mark III. Especially when photographing birds in my backyard. Not all of us can afford a super-tele.
3. "Need" is something of a subjective thing. You might say they don't need it. You might be correct. However, a person doesn't need to justify to you or anyone else what they think they need.
4. Canon obviously believes there is a need out there, or Canon wouldn't be pushing the count so far.

*I've never said I needed 50+mp. However, there are people here who want it or think they have a reason for it. That's their business. I find it bad form to try and second guess what others (who we don't know at all) want or need based on our own use cases... and then use that to try and tell them they are "wrong" for wanting or needing. Sometimes "need" is moot. The fact is, many of us are hobbyists. It is want, not just need.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,221
5,275
1. I never said I needed it. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it. It is not just for prints. That's a fact.
2. People like the extra leeway for cropping or even getting more than one composition from the same photo. More versatility. I know I have very much enjoyed the extra mp of my R over my former 5D Mark III.
3. "Need" is something of a subjective thing. You might say they don't need it. You might be correct. However, a person doesn't need to justify to you or anyone else what they think they need.
4. Canon obviously believes there is a need out there, or Canon wouldn't be pushing the count so far.
All right let me rephrase it even though I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, what is 50mp needed for if not for print?

I see two caveats, enough to crop for aspect ratio changes and leveling horizons etc, and the focal length limited scenario where ‘pixels on duck’ does make a difference.

I didn’t say people didn’t need it, I asked what they think it is needed for. You know from my posting history I have repeatedly said people don’t need a reason to want or use something, just feeling good about something is plenty good enough justification were any needed. I’m just interested in why people think they need it. Personally I believe it is good marketing that has convinced the majority of buyers that ‘more is better’ and I haven’t seen much in the way of practical uses to change that thinking.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,560
3,952
Irving, Texas
All right let me rephrase it even though I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, what is 50mp needed for if not for print?

I see two caveats, enough to crop for aspect ratio changes and leveling horizons etc, and the focal length limited scenario where ‘pixels on duck’ does make a difference.

I didn’t say people didn’t need it, I asked what they think it is needed for. You know from my posting history I have repeatedly said people don’t need a reason to want or use something, just feeling good about something is plenty good enough justification were any needed. I’m just interested in why people think they need it. Personally I believe it is good marketing that has convinced the majority of buyers that ‘more is better’ and I haven’t seen much in the way of practical uses to change that thinking.
You’ve listed two reasons yourself as to why someone might need it. That ain’t good enough?

You mention screens that can’t resolve. Well, what a man has today isn’t, probably, what he’ll have in 10 years. In the mean time, those photos won’t look worse on what he has now, and they’ll look fantastic on what he’s got years from now. So I really do not understand your thinking. Most of us out here have to make choices on how we spend our money over time. We don’t go out and overhaul our whole home electronics kit all at once. So we look ahead towards what we might have 5, 10 years from now. What little video I’ve shot on my R looks great on my 1080p television. Should I have looked for a used 70D because my tv can’t resolve 4K? No! Because in the next year or two I will have a 4K tv. So, if I were in the market for a 50+ megapixel camera… should I base the decision to buy it or not on what I have now or on what I might have to watch video 10+ years from now when I want to reminisce? There.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,221
5,275
You’ve listed two reasons yourself as to why someone might need it. That ain’t good enough?

You mention screens that can’t resolve. Well, what a man has today isn’t, probably, what he’ll have in 10 years. In the mean time, those photos won’t look worse on what he has now, and they’ll look fantastic on what he’s got years from now. So I really do not understand your thinking. Most of us out here have to make choices on how we spend our money over time. We don’t go out and overhaul our whole home electronics kit all at once. So we look ahead towards what we might have 5, 10 years from now. What little video I’ve shot on my R looks great on my 1080p television. Should I have looked for a used 70D because my tv can’t resolve 4K? No! Because in the next year or two I will have a 4K tv. So, if I were in the market for a 50+ megapixel camera… should I base the decision to buy it or not on what I have now or on what I might have to watch video 10+ years from now when I want to reminisce? There.
No! Conversations involve questions, I am just asking questions nobody seems to want to answer. As far as I can see regular Joe camera buyer who isn’t genre specific focal length limited and doesn’t print large often has little reason to ‘need’ more than 30mp or so. I’m not saying they shouldn’t want it or buy it, I am simply asking why they want it.

I am a working pro with 20mp cameras, my images get used for everything from Facebook posts to billboards, rarely do I encounter issues with a lack of pixels and now there are so many tricks to intelligently increase resolution rarely has gone to never. That doesn’t mean because I don’t find myself needing more others shouldn't, it just means I am curious what everybody else is doing differently from me that they do feel the ‘need’ for more. I don’t understand why that is so antagonistic to you.

If you are buying a 4K tv in “a year or two” then you might be up to 8k in ten years. 8k is 33mp.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,560
3,952
Irving, Texas
No! Conversations involve questions, I am just asking questions nobody seems to want to answer. As far as I can see regular Joe camera buyer who isn’t genre specific focal length limited and doesn’t print large often has little reason to ‘need’ more than 30mp or so. I’m not saying they shouldn’t want it or buy it, I am simply asking why they want it.

I am a working pro with 20mp cameras, my images get used for everything from Facebook posts to billboards, rarely do I encounter issues with a lack of pixels and now there are so many tricks to intelligently increase resolution rarely has gone to never. That doesn’t mean because I don’t find myself needing more others shouldn't, it just means I am curious what everybody else is doing differently from me that they do feel the ‘need’ for more. I don’t understand why that is so antagonistic to you.

If you are buying a 4K tv in “a year or two” then you might be up to 8k in ten years. 8k is 33mp.
Well, then. You asked me, specifically, why I need a 50+ mp camera if I am not printing. Never said I did. I simply stated that high mp cameras were not there just for printing. We've both covered at least three reasons somebody might want it if they are not printing. So, if you didn't mean me specifically, then why ask me with a quote of my post? You could have asked that as a stand alone post.

I was not being antagonistic at all, yet I feel you were. You implied that I said I needed it, and wanted to know why. Never said it. Then you "rephrased" and said you were not putting words in my mouth. Yes, you were. You are English, correct? Then you know that if you wanted to ask me why anybody or somebody else needed it (You already knew why somebody would think they did), you'd have phrased it differently to begin with. "Why would one, or somebody, or anybody need...". But no, you wanted to see whether or not I had an answer sufficient to justify myself to your imagined idea that I said I needed it. When you realized that I, in fact, didn't say it... you rephrased. Man up.

That's what's got me riled. You're being disingenuous.

Again, you bring up screens. That might be somebody's reason. Will be mine in several years. I don't really care whether or not an 8k tv is 33mp. The fact remains that something shot in 4k today will look just wonderful a decade from now or 2 decades... 1080p by then? meh, compared to what is available screenwise by then. My dad has a bunch of 8mm film reels. Hard to watch. I can imagine that 1080p might look bad in 20 years compared to where screen are in decades on.

Nobody wants to answer your question? Hell, man! It's been answered on this forum by various individuals for years. Besides, you already knew the answer.

I am positive you are great at what you do.
 
Last edited:

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
26
28
You say 'continue to decline', 'continue to dwindle' but they haven't declined, they've maintained their position if not slightly strengthened it relative to their competitors. Also are they focusing more on entry level? Nothing much new has been released for APS-C in a couple of years, it's all been about (FF) RF.
What I said was "Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline"; just as an FYI, one can still hold first position but their LEAD can decline, which Canon's is in the FF sector in many markets. You can't run a race at the same speed just because you're first. If the person behind you is getting closer and closer, stagnation will get you beat. Canon is seeing some good results with their RF line thanks to the R5 and R6, which IMO, was equivalent to them running a bit faster, but that won't be enough to keep them ahead long-term if they stick to their old strategies.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
And not to mention sticking it in the sand too! :)

You'd be hoping it was securely propped up - I wouldn't fancy handing it back to Canon at the end of the week with sand inside :cool:
So not only is it weather proof, it’s sand proof to. Given the location and venue I wonder if it’s bullsh!t proof too ? :ROFLMAO:
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,851
992
UK
www.flickr.com
What I said was "Canon's overall market lead will continue to decline"; just as an FYI, one can still hold first position but their LEAD can decline, which Canon's is in the FF sector in many markets. You can't run a race at the same speed just because you're first. If the person behind you is getting closer and closer, stagnation will get you beat. Canon is seeing some good results with their RF line thanks to the R5 and R6, which IMO, was equivalent to them running a bit faster, but that won't be enough to keep them ahead long-term if they stick to their old strategies.
But has their lead declined? Neuro knows much more about sales figures than me, but that's not the impression I get. In any case we've heard all this before, year after year. They innovate plenty, and seem to have strategies that work in the long run, whilst still being able to surprise us regularly (nobody had any idea this body was coming until very recently).
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,335
541
Actually 98% of my photos will never get printed at all and I think this is true for most photographers. So 1:1 on a monitor is the way I look at them. Of course I also zoom out to see the whole picture, but they should look good at 1:1. My displays still have HD resolution or even less. So defects on a pixel level are visible. I opted against a 4K or even higher resolution display, because I want to see pixel level defects at 1:1.
You keep referring to 'pixel level' sharpness (which doesn't actually exist because a pixel only contains data about the light).
Sharpness is what helps us define detail in an image. A properly focussed 45MP camera will always contain more detail than a properly focussed 8.2MP image - surely you agree with that.
This is the same fallacy surrounding 'diffraction limiting'. What diffraction does is it reduces the benefits of more pixels - doubling pixels from 40MP to 80MP is unlikely to give you twice the resolution because diffraction will affect it, but the 80MP image will still be higher than the resolution of the 40MP image.

I opted against a 4K or even higher resolution display, because I want to see pixel level defects at 1:1.

If you want to see pixel defects then surely 4k is what you want?
But I guess you mean you don't want to see them?
You have a real odd way of approaching photography?
 
Aug 7, 2018
210
170
If you want to see pixel defects then surely 4k is what you want?
But I guess you mean you don't want to see them?
You have a real odd way of approaching photography?
What I meant is that with just an HD display, each pixel is still visible. I would notice a hot pixel at 1:1 for example.
 

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
26
28
But has their lead declined? Neuro knows much more about sales figures than me, but that's not the impression I get. In any case we've heard all this before, year after year. They innovate plenty, and seem to have strategies that work in the long run, whilst still being able to surprise us regularly (nobody had any idea this body was coming until very recently).
In FF sales in some markets they absolutely were losing market share. The R5/R6 definitely bolstered their position, no doubt, but times are changing. That can't be denied. More people are relying on their phones versus buying entry-level cameras, where Canon has dominated for years. Yes, historically Canon has managed to make enough moves to stay in front, but IMHO I think times are historically different than many years past. I don't think Canon can stick to their same strategies and continue to see long-term success. In my eyes Canon is already doing things different; five years ago the R6 wouldn't have the same AF system and dual-card slots as the R5, we both know that! I don't think Canon will become a Sony-type company any time soon (e.g. releasing cameras on what feels like an annual cycle or taking feedback from us mere mortals and implementing features into new cameras) but I 100% believe Canon's strategies today are changing from what they've historically been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,014
2,935
What I meant is that with just an HD display, each pixel is still visible. I would notice a hot pixel at 1:1 for example.
Huh? Or to be less polite, WTF are you talking about?

Looking at an image displayed 1:1 means that one pixel in the image is represented by one pixel on the monitor. Doesn't matter if that's a 4 MP image on an 8K display or a 45 MP image on an HD display. One image pixel = one display pixel. One to one. 1:1. Get it?

Sure, when you look at the 4 MP image on the 8K display the full picture will only take up about 12% of the screen, and when you look at the 45 MP image on the HD display you can only see about about 5% of the whole picture at a time, but 1:1 is just that. A higher resolution display just gives you the ability to see more of the 1:1 image at a time.

Edit: maybe you mean that if you got a 4K or higher display, you'd set the monitor to use a lower resolution, because the UI would be too small, etc. That means you either need a bigger display so each pixel is bigger, or you need glasses to correct your eyesight.
 
Aug 7, 2018
210
170
Huh? Or to be less polite, WTF are you talking about?

Looking at an image displayed 1:1 means that one pixel in the image is represented by one pixel on the monitor. Doesn't matter if that's a 4 MP image on an 8K display or a 45 MP image on an HD display. One image pixel = one display pixel. One to one. 1:1. Get it?

Sure, when you look at the 4 MP image on the 8K display the full picture will only take up about 12% of the screen, and when you look at the 45 MP image on the HD display you can only see about about 5% of the whole picture at a time, but 1:1 is just that. A higher resolution display just gives you the ability to see more of the 1:1 image at a time.

Edit: maybe you mean that if you got a 4K or higher display, you'd set the monitor to use a lower resolution, because the UI would be too small, etc. That means you either need a bigger display so each pixel is bigger, or you need glasses to correct your eyesight.
If the resolution is too high, you might not be able to see a single pixel. Apple calls that "Retina Display" and they say that the resolution is so high that you can't see the single pixels. That is what I want to avoid. Of course you can always watch an images at 200%, but some programs will just interpolate 75% of all the pixels then. It only works if 200% means that every pixel is shown four times like Photoshop for example does it. An 8K display has even tinier pixels than a 4K display. Of course you can see more of the photo at 1:1 then, but you will not notice a single "wrong" pixel because it is just too small.