Multiple mentions put the Canon EOS R3 sensor resolution “around 24mp”

USMarineCorpsVet

I'm New Here
Jul 2, 2021
11
6
Everything is a compromise. Not everyone wants 45mp. I am not sure why some people have a hard time accepting that. If no one wanted 20mp class cameras then 1dx3, 1dx2, R6, A9, A9II, D5, D6 yada yada yada would not exist and if they did they would not sell. For some the only spec that matters is the resolution of the sensor, for others it is not a big deal.

That being said I will not get rid of my 1dx3 to get an R3 if it is 24mp. I was really hoping for 30. That way I would have 45, 30 and 20.
These newer cameras have crop modes. You aren't restricted to shooting 45 mpx. And CRaw is available for smaller file sizes...
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
124
161
This speculation all seems to be based on looking at the JPEGs made available on Getty etc, so it could just be the case that the Canon NDA demands you resize to 24MP before uploading. But this does seem to be aiming more at spatial resolution than image size, so it’s believable.
If Canon really wants to keep the true resolution under wraps, a better way is to have prerelease firmware limit it to 24MP right on the camera. That way they’re not relying on somebody else remembering to resize the images before publishing them when things are happening fast at the olympics.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
335
304
Madison, WI
I am a photographer of polo, rugby and horseball, his statement about it is false, if I do not separate the subject from the background, the photo that garbage that will not be published. The new lenses with ridiculously slow apertures do not work in professional sports photography.
You know way more about it than I do, and I don't doubt I could be wrong. I wasn't thinking so much about the consumer f11's but more the 100-500 that's only one step larger at the long end for the extra reach. And the rumored slightly cheaper 400 f4 and 600 f5.6 lens that will might be in the 3-4k instead of 12k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carlosalberto

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
86
86
Sports is an interesting market segment, because as Canon has made clear with the 1DX2 and 1DX3 being literally identical in resolution, their data must really show that the specific market they're targeting doesn't care about resolution.

I agree. Sports shooters tend to shoot many, many thousands of images at maximum frame rate per game then quickly go through and cull out everything but the photos showing the height of the action. Having enough resolution is important, but having small enough files that you're not in a massive data crunch when culling photos is equally important. 1DX/II/III shooters have been shooting ~20MP for a while now, a bump up to ~24MP gives a nice bump up in resolution and still allows smaller file sizes and excellent dynamic range and noise performance.

I don't really shoot sports, but can say with my R5, I rarely put it in high speed shooting mode because the data size is just way too punishing. It doesn't matter what size card you have, 20fps fills it way faster than people realize.

Also, sports shooters and birders are similar use cases, but not in the same league (no pun intended).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skux
Jul 19, 2017
57
50
Prague
The photo on Jeff Cable's blog from Olympics has full EXIF. It was taken with R3 and RF 24-105mm. While the photo itself was downsized to just 1.5 MP, the EXIF has these two interesting lines:

24mpx.jpg


6000 x 4000 = 24 MP

BTW This is full EXIF dumped by Exif Viewer extension for Chrome:
Image Location: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JFU_RQWE...yrwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1483/Edit-Tokyo-Sreet-Pan3.jpg
Image Size: 1483 x 927
Date Time Original: 2021:07:21 19:14:45
Exposure Time: 1/20
F Number: f / 4
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings: 800
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: Flash did not fire
Focal Length: 24mm
White Balance: Auto white balance
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS R3
LensInfo: 24/1 105/1 0/0 0/0
LensModel: RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
LensSerialNumber: 9134002484
Lens: RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
:
Exif Version:
Flashpix Version:
Color Space: 1
Pixel X Dimension: 1483
Pixel Y Dimension: 927
User Comment: 1038
Date Time Digitized: 2021:07:21 19:14:45
Subsec Time: 34
Subsec Time Original: 34
Subsec Time Digitized: 34
Shutter Speed Value: 4.38
Aperture Value: 4 and RF 24-105.
Exposure Bias: -0.33
Max Aperture Value: 4.13
Focal Plane X Resolution: 4234.30
Focal Plane Y Resolution: 4232.80
Focal Plane Resolution Unit: 2
Custom Rendered: Normal process
Scene Capture Type: Standard
InteroperabilityIFDPointer: 1400
Image Width: 6000px
Image Height: 4000px
ExifIFDPointer: 420
GPSInfoIFDPointer: 1432
BitsPerSample: 3
PhotometricInterpretation: 2
Orientation: 1
SamplesPerPixel: 3
YCbCr Positioning: 2
X Resolution: 200
Y Resolution: 200
Resolution Unit: 2
Date Time: 2021:07:21 19:34:41
Image Description: Tokyo Night Test of the Canon R3
Software: Adobe Photoshop 22.4 (Macintosh)
Artist: Jeff Cable
Copyright: © Copyright - Jeff Cable Photography
City: Tokyo
Credit: Jeff Cable
DateCreated: 2021-07-21T19:14:45.034
 

rbielefeld

EOS 90D
Apr 22, 2015
162
363
If the R3 is 24mp then it would be a direct competitor to the Sony a9II (24mp) not the Sony a1, or Nikon Z9 for that matter, which are/will be those companies flagship camera bodies. A Sony a9II plus battery grip is approx. $4850.00 USD. So, I would think the Canon R3 will need to be around the $5000 mark to be competitive; again if the R3 is 24mp. I shot the Sony a9II for over a year with the wonderful 200-600mm f/6/3 zoom; which is less than $2000 USD. Also the 600 f/4, a very good lens on par with Canon's 600. These are great combos with an awesome AF system and 20 fps. Being a bird and wildlife photographer, I would not pay more than $5000 for the R3 at 24mp given what the competition has out there for the same resolution and basic skill set. I personally am hoping the R3 will be 30mp and have some other features that separate it from the a9II. For me every 1mp more helps for some of my work; up to a point of course.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,805
4,213
The photo on Jeff Cable's blog from Olympics has full EXIF. It was taken with R3 and RF 24-105mm. While the photo itself was downsized to just 1.5 MP, the EXIF has these two interesting lines:

View attachment 199227

6000 x 4000 = 24 MP

BTW This is full EXIF dumped by Exif Viewer extension for Chrome:
Thanks. Still, could be a firmware limit on pre-release cameras.
 
Feb 7, 2021
7
1
For birders 30MP is still a useful improvement over 24MP, that amounts to 12% extra reach. Every bit helps. Let's not forget even 30MP would be disappointing, but palatable. R1 no one has a clue about sensor or res, and at least another 12 months away and no doubt $1.5K dearer or more. We already have the 50MP A1 and Z9 is looking to be around 45MP like R5. If R3 was going to be A9II price 24MP would be more palatable, but if it's the rumoured $5.5K+ no thanks.
The r5 cannot autofocus on small birds against a busy background (think passerines in a forest) anything like a DSLR. Unless Canon solves this problem, I wouldnt buy the r3 for birds. I just bought another DSLR because my r5 does not work in a forest/jungle. The r5 is great otherwise and OK for manual focus in a forest/jungle. See forums for more explanation; e.g., https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/problems-with-af-on-birds-r5.39490/page-5
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
734
1,436
I guess the hardest thing for me to understand is why Canon ever kept the megapixels under wraps for this long.

The 1DX2 and 1DX3 development announcements jumped right on top of saying it would have a 20 megapixel sensor, and having that information from the get-go means people aren't investing months into speculation and dreaming where you end up having people think it might be 45 megapixels before they get disappointed. If it's just 24 megapixels, people understand the market and would understand what kind of camera it's aiming to be.

It just seems weird to me that they announced all these specs and gave so many people the camera but then kept the lid on the megapixels. Was that a marketing choice to avoid bad press during the hypetrain because of the higher resolution A1 and Z9 being out there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Howland

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,567
2,909
Can we at least agree it's not a flagship and therefore shouldn't be constantly compared to another brands flagship? The glass half full here is we get another body available for those who want and need it. It's pure win.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
421
356
I agree. Sports shooters tend to shoot many, many thousands of images at maximum frame rate per game then quickly go through and cull out everything but the photos showing the height of the action.

Canon has never solely targeted the 1D line at sports shooters , particularly after the 1DX merger. Wildlife photography is always mentioned in their press releases.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
734
1,436
Yes, all the buzz and speculation must be a nightmare for any marketing department.

I get that, but it just seems like a cheap trick if the answer to all the speculation and buzz is going to basically be, "megapixels don't matter."

24 mp is a resolution for the crowd that doesn't worry about resolution, so the fact that they chose that spec to hide this long feels a little weird to me.

I've accepted that as a justified spec and think it will be an excellent camera, but I just can't help but think that there's more to the story about the sensor/resolution if it's been so tightly sealed. CR did report a "resolution trick." I'm not sure if maybe a 96mp pixel shift mode would quite be the answer to that.
 

neurorx

EOS 90D
May 12, 2015
186
115
If the R3 is 24mp then it would be a direct competitor to the Sony a9II (24mp) not the Sony a1, or Nikon Z9 for that matter, which are/will be those companies flagship camera bodies. A Sony a9II plus battery grip is approx. $4850.00 USD. So, I would think the Canon R3 will need to be around the $5000 mark to be competitive; again if the R3 is 24mp. I shot the Sony a9II for over a year with the wonderful 200-600mm f/6/3 zoom; which is less than $2000 USD. Also the 600 f/4, a very good lens on par with Canon's 600. These are great combos with an awesome AF system and 20 fps. Being a bird and wildlife photographer, I would not pay more than $5000 for the R3 at 24mp given what the competition has out there for the same resolution and basic skill set. I personally am hoping the R3 will be 30mp and have some other features that separate it from the a9II. For me every 1mp more helps for some of my work; up to a point of course.
I would love for Canon to have a 200-600 6.3 zoom. At a rumored $5999 USD price for the R3, 4850 for an a9II that really wouldn't be competitive or undercut Sony. I agree! I was hoping for my wildlife reach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbielefeld

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
86
86
Canon has never solely targeted the 1D line at sports shooters , particularly after the 1DX merger. Wildlife photography is always mentioned in their press releases.
True, however birders is a very small subset of wildlife. I totally get that people want megapixels, and certain types of shooting absolutely are better suited for that, but at the same time, 20-30MP is plenty for lots of use cases.

One thing I have noticed is that people tend to fall into a few camps: the body MP matters a lot less, they have really expensive lenses that give them the reach that they require for the type of shooting that they do, then there are those that tend to want as much res as possible so they can crop as much as possible, and have shorter lenses, then those that want as much as possible, but priced like an RP.

Of course there are also those that would never buy the camera for any reason at all because they're not even the target market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaP34US

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
458
569
The photo on Jeff Cable's blog from Olympics has full EXIF. It was taken with R3 and RF 24-105mm. While the photo itself was downsized to just 1.5 MP, the EXIF has these two interesting lines:

View attachment 199227

6000 x 4000 = 24 MP

BTW This is full EXIF dumped by Exif Viewer extension for Chrome:
The R5 has the following JPEG options:
- L: 45M 8192x5464 (44.8MP)
- M: 22M 5808x3872 (22.5MP)
- S1: 12M 4176x2784 (11.6MP)
- S2: 3.8M 2400x1600 (3.8MP)

I can consistently post M size 5808x3872 images from the R5 with no cropping, but that obviously does not make the R5 a 22MP camera.

The EXIF information only has meaning if we are certain that it's the maximum possible resolution. In this case, we do not know that. This could be a lower quality output for any number of reasons previously discussed (firmware limitation on pre-production models, Canon's desire to prevent leaks and control the narrative, shooter's preference to limit file size when processing thousands of images each day, etc.). I don't think it's likely that Canon has lower MP sensors out there just for testing, but it's very possible that they have special software/firmware for testing to ensure there are no leaks as we know NDAs are not always foolproof.

If Canon really wanted to keep this information a secret, they would not have allowed photographers to post images with the EXIF. So, either the EXIF does not have as much meaning as we think it does, or Canon doesn't really care about keeping the secret anymore.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: sanj

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
316
695
I guess the hardest thing for me to understand is why Canon ever kept the megapixels under wraps for this long.

The 1DX2 and 1DX3 development announcements jumped right on top of saying it would have a 20 megapixel sensor, and having that information from the get-go means people aren't investing months into speculation and dreaming where you end up having people think it might be 45 megapixels before they get disappointed. If it's just 24 megapixels, people understand the market and would understand what kind of camera it's aiming to be.

It just seems weird to me that they announced all these specs and gave so many people the camera but then kept the lid on the megapixels. Was that a marketing choice to avoid bad press during the hypetrain because of the higher resolution A1 and Z9 being out there?
I couldn't find the 1DX II development announcement, but the 1DX III development announcement does not give the MP count. I believe (although there may be exceptions) that canon does not announce the MPs until the official announcement, not the development announcement.