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

[Deleted member 385220]

Honestly using my R5 in 20 FPS mode, I barely see the rolling shutter effects in day-to-day use, and haven't been particularly bothered by it while photographing sports and wildlife. It would be more of a bonus to me if the image quality/dynamic range in electronic shutter matches the mechanical shutter, and 0 distortion would also be nice, but I just can't imagine that being 2000-to-3000-dollars-more-nice.

Shooting sports is almost impossible with the electronic shutter, as soon as you pan the vertical lines | end up like / or \ in the backgrounds. Also had some odd egg shaped footballs, I haven't used elec for a while now on my R5 shooting sports.

 

[GoldWing]

ROFL - The sky is falling.... Who cares.... Wait for the R1 and keep shooting with you 1DXMKIII

 

[StandardLumen]

I would really prefer to stay in the Canon ecosystem, but if the R3 is actually only 24mpx and the R1 is over a year away I will be eagerly waiting to see if Nikon will be able to lure me over with the Z9.

 

[Diltiazem]

The scary part of this rumor is that it is likely to be true.

 

[SteB1]

24mp would make sense, considering that until recently, no sports system camera exceeded that, and Canon would have been planning this camera, developing the sensor etc, from several years back, where without industrial espionage, Canon would have been unaware that Sony and Nikon were aiming to go with 45-50mp sensors for this type of camera. 24mp is more than adequate for the type of photographer using this camera and bigger files have downsides for pro photographers needing to sort and cull large volumes of photographs and supply them very quickly.

If this is the case I think it quickly answers why Canon went with the 3 designation and not the 1 designation. In other words, that Canon have at least considered a higher resolution sensor for a 1 tier camera. Also it's possible that various resolution prototypes were in circulation.

 

[Wildlife Junkie]

24 MP for the R3 would be a reason not to buy this camera. Even 30.1 MP falls way behind Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 but still k if other features are ok. But 24 MP is a no go for me.

 

[H. Jones]

24 MP for the R3 would be a reason not to buy this camera. Even 30.1 MP falls way behind Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 but still k if other features are ok. But 24 MP is a no go for me.

At 24 megapixels this camera isn't falling behind the A1 or Z9, it's matching the A9II. Sony didn't stop selling the A9II when they released the A1, and that didn't stop Sony from releasing a 12 megapixel camera either. These are totally different markets, the only reason the R3 is being compared is that the Z9 and the A1 are the most recent launches.

As it stands, the R5 is plenty of competition to those cameras for a far lower price, and the R1 will definitely take the flagship role above all of those cameras.

A year ago the entire conversation would be that the R3 has 10 more FPS than the A9II does. I remember when the original A9 came out and all the people were like, "the A9 has 4 more FPS than the 1DX2, Canon is d**med!"

 

[Aussie shooter]

Well!!!! What a joke!!!!!. I was never going to buy this camera but this is just devesting news. I will have to show my outrage by joining the sony rumours forum.......or something. I would consider joining the nikon rumours forum but the shame would kill me. Oh. Woe to me!

 

[Joules]

I wonder why they would limit themselves to 30 FPS if the sensor is just 24 MP. 30 MP 30 FPS would have matched the R5 in terms of data throughput. To do that with 24 MP, the camera would have to shoot 37.5 FPS.

What's the bottle neck? The stacked sensor should be plenty fast, and we know the processor can handle more data. Perhaps they just don't want to overwhelm the buffer, as the CFexpress cards can't keep up with this much data and therefore endless shooting like on the 1DX III isn't possible.

Seems like a missed opportunity to beat Sony in at least one metric though, as little as that may matter to practical usability.


Or perhaps this information is simply false. I recall the original rumor that the camera would feature a' resolution trick'. What ever became of that? Is the trick just that it keeps confusing rumor sites?

 

[H. Jones]

I wonder why they would limit themselves to 30 FPS if the sensor is just 24 MP. 30 MP 30 FPS would have matched the R5 in terms of data throughput. To do that with 24 MP, the camera would have to shoot 37.5 FPS.

What's the bottle neck? The stacked sensor should be plenty fast, and we know the processor can handle more data. Perhaps they just don't want to overwhelm the buffer, as the CFexpress cards can't keep up with this much data and therefore endless shooting like on the 1DX III isn't possible.

Honestly, I was thinking about this all day.

I was just looking at the buffers of all the recent cameras on The-Digital-Picture:


Perhaps at 24 megapixels using the CF Express Type B Canon can ensure a 1000+ image buffer at full-quality, full-resolution 14-bit 30 FPS? I think there's a strong case for 30 FPS at 24 megapixels in that scenario. The A9II only has a 361 image buffer, and I honestly think the moment a former 1-series user hits a camera's buffer, they're going to wish they were using their old 1-series.

It also could mean that the camera has more processing power to ensure a super responsive, zero blackout, 240+ fps viewfinder throughout shooting 1000+ full resolution images. Reliability and responsiveness is probably the number one request from most 1-series users, and I will say that sometimes the R5 does get a little laggy when you're shooting huge 20 FPS bursts.

Add to that, 24 megapixels would be less of a drain on the battery life.

All that said, I think there's a lot left to know about this camera even if it turns out to be 24 mp. I'd be interested to see the battery life, viewfinder buffer, responsiveness, and any other new features they pack into it before I dismiss it at all.

 

[David_D]

I recall the original rumor that the camera would feature a' resolution trick'.

Perhaps this is good news. The R3 can shoot at 24mp for hard core sports pros, but can shoot at quad resolution (96mp) for everyone else

 

[PerKr]

I for one would not be unhappy. My current cameras are all 24MP and definitely not handicapped in resolution. If you really want more, there's the R5. Getting fully functional AF at max framerate is far more interesting than whether the resolution is 24 or 30 megapixels.

 

[tron]

There will be sc


Many will be screaming no matter what number it is.

My "screaming" would be different: Oooof I saved my money ... for now

 

[Deleted member 381342]

24MP would make sense if they still believe that is what pros want based on the research for the 1Dx to 1DxIII. Just because Sony and soon Nikon have 45 MP for their pro bodies, doesn't mean this is what pro shooters are demanding now when only a couple of years ago the bulk buyers of the 1-series where demanding around 20 MP. I am guessing stadiums haven't upgraded to 2.5/5/10/25 Gbps ethernet yet and the camera body only has 1 Gbps ethernet.

 

[sulla]

[...] I did a quick check on the difference between a 24MP image and a 30MP [...]

I made a comparison using an actual image: I resized an original image to tiny size, once for 30MP and once for 24MP (ie. 89% on each side) and enlarged it in photoshop to show the inidividual pixel-raster. Thus, my example shows a tiny area (0.12% of the full image) of a whole image

Can you tell the difference? When pixel-peeping: barely...

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Wow, that is great news, if true. I already had some problems accepting 30 megapixels and was shocked when the 45 megapixel rumors surfaced, but 24 megapixels are even better than 30. I hope Canon does not do a compromise between speed and image quality though. I do not care about speed at all and offering 30 frames per second means that each image only gets a maximum of 1/30 s computing time. Of course I only use RAW, but that low computing time could even have en effect on RAWs. I hope Canon allows for computing time per image in single shot mode.

 

[Iain L]

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.

 

[SnowMiku]

For those that are in the market for the R3 and are unhappy with the 24 MP, there's always the R5 which is cheaper, the extra money you save on the R5 can be used to help buy a nice lens.

You can also wait for the R1 but going by the history of the 1 series they have never been high MP anyway, I don't think the R1 is going to match the R5 in MP since it seems like most 1 series users prefer speed, including faster post processing and smaller files to transfer.

 

[tron]

I made a comparison using an actual image: I resized an original image to tiny size, once for 30MP and once for 24MP (ie. 89% on each side) and enlarged it in photoshop to show the inidividual pixel-raster. Thus, my example shows a tiny area (0.12% of the full image) of a whole image

Can you tell the difference? When pixel-peeping: barely...

This camera may be perfect or close to perfect to sports photographers but as a birder I would rather have a 45mp+ camera with a big (11.1v) battery that drives big white lenses really fast.

So a comparison for me could be a R5 file enlarged to 90mp vs a 24mp file enlarged to 90mp.

EDIT: Canon is being honest by declaring it a sports camera. So we cannot protest if it has a rather low megapixel count. Now where is our R5fast ?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The problem is 30 megapixels was already horrible to begin with. 24 megapixels just makes it a complete joke and adds insult to injury. It ain't 2017 anymore.

An yet many of these professionals are taking phenomenal Olympic photos with their jokes of cameras 1DX II and 1DX III.
At the same time, I do see the benefit of a higher resolution sensor and I expect that to come in the form of the R1.