Place your bets! What do you think the R3 will cost?

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Ok, but if MP doesn't matter, why don't make it a 3 MP sensor? or even less
Because of output size, or to be more specific the relationship between quality / resolution and output size.
At 300dpi (for quality / resolution) a 3mp sensor gives an output size of just 7” long side. A 24mp sensor, at the same dpi has an output size of a very respectable 20”. That’s a big difference and quite a decent size picture for most people.
A 45mp camera has the equivalent output size of 27”, so you can see the diminishing returns of higher and higher mp beginning to kick in.
Then from a practical perspective take note that the larger the output size the further away it is likely to be viewed, which reduces the need for such a high dpi anyway.
IMO for FF sensor size 30mp is the sweet spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

Dockland

EOS RP
Nov 14, 2019
228
542
Sweden
Because of output size, or to be more specific the relationship between quality / resolution and output size.
At 300dpi (for quality / resolution) a 3mp sensor gives an output size of just 7” long side. A 24mp sensor, at the same dpi has an output size of a very respectable 20”. That’s a big difference and quite a decent size picture for most people.
A 45mp camera has the equivalent output size of 27”, so you can see the diminishing returns of higher and higher mp beginning to kick in.
Then from a practical perspective take note that the larger the output size the further away it is likely to be viewed, which reduces the need for such a high dpi anyway.
IMO for FF sensor size 30mp is the sweet spot.

Ok, so the earlier cameras with less resolution never was that good? Like the R6 or and the 1DX-models (can't recalll theri name)

One thing i was thinking of is the resolution vs burst speed, could that be a matter why Canon doesn't want to go "all in"

Theoretically speaking, isn't 30 fps "harder" to manage with a 45+ sensor as with one around 20/30 MP? Thinking of buffer size/limits and so on?
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Ok, so the earlier cameras with less resolution never was that good? Like the R6 or and the 1DX-models (can't recalll theri name)

One thing i was thinking of is the resolution vs burst speed, could that be a matter why Canon doesn't want to go "all in"

Theoretically speaking, isn't 30 fps "harder" to manage with a 45+ sensor as with one around 20/30 MP? Thinking of buffer size/limits and so on?
Yes it’s definitely harder to achieve say 30fps with say 45mp sensor with current technology.
Regarding earlier cameras ‘never being that good’, well when printed at 24” across a 3mp camera isn’t going to look as good as a 20mp one when viewed close, but 45 vs 20 not so much difference. I’d very happily use a R6 for top quality work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,578
2,615
Germany
Ok, but if MP doesn't matter, why don't make it a 3 MP sensor? or even less
As everything in life it is about compromise and finding the sweet spot for a specific application.

Higher MP mean smaller pixels, less light per pixel, higher readout noise, and higher amount of data when readout. Therefore slower readout.
No problem for landscape, but problem for high speed movements like rotor blades, props, car wheels, etc.

Lower MP give you bigger pixels, more light, lower readout noise, better performance at high ISO, faster readout, and so on.
This is why the "pro" and "sports" bodies like 1DX ... and Nikon Dx always had less MP than other models at the same time.

Ok, so the earlier cameras with less resolution never was that good? Like the R6 or and the 1DX-models (can't recalll theri name)
When you think about those older models keep in mind that their sensor tech was two to four generations behind. Nobody was thinking about BSI stacked sensor and much better readout speed and lower noise because of this design.
And the processors handling the data from the sensor where also generations older.
So this would be comparing apples with oranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

Dockland

EOS RP
Nov 14, 2019
228
542
Sweden
Yes it’s definitely harder to achieve say 30fps with say 45mp sensor with current technology.
Regarding earlier cameras ‘never being that good’, well when printed at 24” across a 3mp camera isn’t going to look as good as a 20mp one when viewed close, but 45 vs 20 not so much difference. I’d very happily use a R6 for top quality work.
So i suspected. In a couple of years I think we will smile at todays 45+ MP o r we go the other way around and back to approx 20-30 MP but perhaps way superior technology?
 

Dockland

EOS RP
Nov 14, 2019
228
542
Sweden
Yes it’s definitely harder to achieve say 30fps with say 45mp sensor with current technology.
Regarding earlier cameras ‘never being that good’, well when printed at 24” across a 3mp camera isn’t going to look as good as a 20mp one when viewed close, but 45 vs 20 not so much difference. I’d very happily use a R6 for top quality work.

Does anyone print these days? Maybe it's still a thing, don't know really. I think online is more common perhaps?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,837
Does anyone print these days? Maybe it's still a thing, don't know really. I think online is more common perhaps?
Most displays are 4K or less, and a 4K display is ~8 MP.

What advantage does 45 MP have over 30 MP when images are most commonly viewed on displays with much lower resolution (i.e., the far more common HD monitors or tablets/smartphones)?

How often do you personally upload/share images online that are over 20 MP, and even if you post full resolution images online, how often do you think they’re viewed without downsampling to the much smaller display size being used to view them?

The point is that print is pretty much the only medium for which there’s any need for higher resolution, and as @Sporgon and others point out, 30 MP is generally more than enough for that. For online viewing, even 30 MP is overkill to some exponential power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jprusa and Dockland

Dockland

EOS RP
Nov 14, 2019
228
542
Sweden
Most displays are 4K or less, and a 4K display is ~8 MP.

What advantage does 45 MP have over 30 MP when images are most commonly viewed on displays with much lower resolution (i.e., the far more common HD monitors or tablets/smartphones)?

How often do you personally upload/share images online that are over 20 MP, and even if you post full resolution images online, how often do you think they’re viewed without downsampling to the much smaller display size being used to view them?

Cropping?
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
406
295
Ok, but if MP doesn't matter, why don't make it a 3 MP sensor? or even less

I do realize the shock value of you saying 3MP to make a point. But MP does matter... it just has diminishing returns as you increase it. As a counter to your 3MP example, I'll give GigaPixel images as the opposite end of the spectrum (although as technically awesome as it would be... it's not remotely feasible in a handheld camera 'currently').

Going from 1 > 3 > 12 > 20 > 30 > 45 is not as lineal as the numbers suggest, as you have to take into account the % increase... but this really isn't new info.

Couple key generic points when looking at MP/DPI/Resolution...
  • Is the optical system actually able to take advantage of the increased MP?
    • Sure, I can scan on my cheap flatbed scanner @ 4800dpi or 600dpi, but does the 4800 really look any better than the 600 (hint... it doesn't).
    • However for the RF system w/ L Glass, we know the ceiling on what MP can be resolved is very high... so lets assume this isn't as much of an issue here and we still have a lot of headroom.
  • Are the workflows used able to process/store the increased MP?
    • This is where the computer you are using comes into play. Drive Size/Speed, RAM, CPU, GPU (for accelerated workflows) etc.
    • This is also sometimes subjective when there is hardware that can process the MP fast, but there is a reluctance of upgrading to that hardware (due to cost, feasibility, or whatever).
  • Does increasing it 'now' matter?
    • Basically, is the normally produced product going to need the MP to justify the overhead/cost of having more MP? This is where things turn subjective and there is no pleasing everyone.
  • Are the sacrifices worth it?
    • This is where cost, speed, and ease of use come into play, and is also semi subjective.
The thing is Canon combines a lot of feature they think makes sense for the camera that they think they can sell for the people looking for those feature. There is no pleasing everyone here... and most will stand behind what they want/need as fact (when it's just fact for them). Also, given that Canon makes multiple models, there is always the segmentation of choice from the consumers (based on what available)... that eventually they will deliver models that hit on the 'most important' feature someone needs.

I believe we are beyond anything new coming out at less than 20MP. I also think that for a camera of this caliber that 'at least' 30MP was expected for the R3 (honestly I was hoping for more).

My threshold of where the 'line in the sand' is, is just that... a line in "SAND". Say I want the best possible image that I can crop the heck out of... I may deem min 45MP. Say I want to limit rolling shutter or get more FPS... I know I will need to sacrifice MP to get a faster readout due to "today's technology"... so the 30MP is actually not looking that bad.

Personally I love technology pushing the limits... even if it's not something I will use now, it usually refines processes that I will use later. I also do not give the excuse that 'if I get it my current computer will melt'... since my computer specs are usually great (or I'll upgrade if needed).

Here is a good example we hear on CR. (I hope PBD doesn't mind but I'm going to use him as an example because he has been very vocal about it lately.) Anyways, he has a workflow where he uses 20MP for paid jobs where the end product is huge, but gives the desired results, without the hassle of dealing with larger files. If Canon wants to sell him the camera, they have to cater to what he wants. From what I gathered he doesn't really want more MP ;) , but he does like the speed and other items the R3 has to offer. Canon might have catered to him when building up the R3. Actually, I don't think he is alone... as 1DX users that prefer other stats over MP might be eying up the R3 too.

Here is where I disagree with him (now please note this is subjective for both of us). If I could have my cake and eat it too, I would! I would love to see the R3 at 45+ MP if it didn't sacrifice the other specs. The additional overhead of dealing with higher MP images does not put me off. However I am also a realist, and I don't think Canon can deliver that camera at this time... something would have to give.

At the end of the day... Canon is releasing a R3. This may or may not be the camera you are dreaming of. If not, wait until a Canon camera is released you do want is made or buy another brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,837
At the end of the day... Canon is releasing a R3. This may or may not be the camera you are dreaming of. If not, wait until a Canon camera is released you do want is made or buy another brand.
Back when I had a 7D and a 5DII, I wished for a camera that would combine them…and Canon delivered the 1D X.

Now, I have a 1D X and an EOS R, and I wished for a camera that would combine them…and Canon is poised to deliver the R3.

Me happy.
 

Dockland

EOS RP
Nov 14, 2019
228
542
Sweden
I do realize the shock value of you saying 3MP to make a point. But MP does matter... it just has diminishing returns as you increase it. As a counter to your 3MP example, I'll give GigaPixel images as the opposite end of the spectrum (although as technically awesome as it would be... it's not remotely feasible in a handheld camera 'currently').

Going from 1 > 3 > 12 > 20 > 30 > 45 is not as lineal as the numbers suggest, as you have to take into account the % increase... but this really isn't new info.

Couple key generic points when looking at MP/DPI/Resolution...
  • Is the optical system actually able to take advantage of the increased MP?
    • Sure, I can scan on my cheap flatbed scanner @ 4800dpi or 600dpi, but does the 4800 really look any better than the 600 (hint... it doesn't).
    • However for the RF system w/ L Glass, we know the ceiling on what MP can be resolved is very high... so lets assume this isn't as much of an issue here and we still have a lot of headroom.
  • Are the workflows used able to process/store the increased MP?
    • This is where the computer you are using comes into play. Drive Size/Speed, RAM, CPU, GPU (for accelerated workflows) etc.
    • This is also sometimes subjective when there is hardware that can process the MP fast, but there is a reluctance of upgrading to that hardware (due to cost, feasibility, or whatever).
  • Does increasing it 'now' matter?
    • Basically, is the normally produced product going to need the MP to justify the overhead/cost of having more MP? This is where things turn subjective and there is no pleasing everyone.
  • Are the sacrifices worth it?
    • This is where cost, speed, and ease of use come into play, and is also semi subjective.
The thing is Canon combines a lot of feature they think makes sense for the camera that they think they can sell for the people looking for those feature. There is no pleasing everyone here... and most will stand behind what they want/need as fact (when it's just fact for them). Also, given that Canon makes multiple models, there is always the segmentation of choice from the consumers (based on what available)... that eventually they will deliver models that hit on the 'most important' feature someone needs.

I believe we are beyond anything new coming out at less than 20MP. I also think that for a camera of this caliber that 'at least' 30MP was expected for the R3 (honestly I was hoping for more).

My threshold of where the 'line in the sand' is, is just that... a line in "SAND". Say I want the best possible image that I can crop the heck out of... I may deem min 45MP. Say I want to limit rolling shutter or get more FPS... I know I will need to sacrifice MP to get a faster readout due to "today's technology"... so the 30MP is actually not looking that bad.

Personally I love technology pushing the limits... even if it's not something I will use now, it usually refines processes that I will use later. I also do not give the excuse that 'if I get it my current computer will melt'... since my computer specs are usually great (or I'll upgrade if needed).

Here is a good example we hear on CR. (I hope PBD doesn't mind but I'm going to use him as an example because he has been very vocal about it lately.) Anyways, he has a workflow where he uses 20MP for paid jobs where the end product is huge, but gives the desired results, without the hassle of dealing with larger files. If Canon wants to sell him the camera, they have to cater to what he wants. From what I gathered he doesn't really want more MP ;) , but he does like the speed and other items the R3 has to offer. Canon might have catered to him when building up the R3. Actually, I don't think he is alone... as 1DX users that prefer other stats over MP might be eying up the R3 too.

Here is where I disagree with him (now please note this is subjective for both of us). If I could have my cake and eat it too, I would! I would love to see the R3 at 45+ MP if it didn't sacrifice the other specs. The additional overhead of dealing with higher MP images does not put me off. However I am also a realist, and I don't think Canon can deliver that camera at this time... something would have to give.

At the end of the day... Canon is releasing a R3. This may or may not be the camera you are dreaming of. If not, wait until a Canon camera is released you do want is made or buy another brand.

Great explanation. Thanks a lot.

I was on another forum discussing this matter as well, the other person claimed that if this R3 would have a 45+ MP sensor, it certainly would be a complete flop, no one would buy it, stating that the more MP the lousier image quality. :D "That's why most real pro grade cameras only have 12-20 MP"

I'll buy the R3 and compare it with my R5 (and perhaps R6) just for fun. I think I can sell it quite easily if I don't get hooked.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Back when I had a 7D and a 5DII, I wished for a camera that would combine them…and Canon delivered the 1D X.

Now, I have a 1D X and an EOS R, and I wished for a camera that would combine them…and Canon is poised to deliver the R3.

Me happy.
Do you think you could find time to wish for a R6 with a R5 body and R3 sensor for $2500 please.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
406
295
Great explanation. Thanks a lot.

I was on another forum discussing this matter as well, the other person claimed that if this R3 would have a 45+ MP sensor, it certainly would be a complete flop, no one would buy it, stating that the more MP the lousier image quality. :D "That's why most real pro grade cameras only have 12-20 MP"

I'll buy the R3 and compare it with my R5 (and perhaps R6) just for fun. I think I can sell it quite easily if I don't get hooked.
I don't agree with what that other forum person was saying... in that increasing the MP would reduce IQ. However, I do agree that if they raised the MP and essentially made a high MP R5, sacrificing the other options, people may have passed on it. I mean we already have an R5 and possibly a R5S coming that would boost that more.

Right now the R3 specs tell me this camera is about 'getting the shot' vs showing off high MP. In it's current state... I see this as an attempt to lure current 1DX users to mirrorless or users that want a 1DX but in mirrorless. I know Canon said the R3 is not a 1DX equivalent (which will be reserved for the R1)... but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, perhaps it's a duck :).

I think the R1 will decimate the R5/R3/1DX when it's released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

Dockland

EOS RP
Nov 14, 2019
228
542
Sweden
I don't agree with what that other forum person was saying... in that increasing the MP would reduce IQ. However, I do agree that if they raised the MP and essentially made a high MP R5, sacrificing the other options, people may have passed on it. I mean we already have an R5 and possibly a R5S coming that would boost that more.

Right now the R3 specs tell me this camera is about 'getting the shot' vs showing off high MP. In it's current state... I see this as an attempt to lure current 1DX users to mirrorless or users that want a 1DX but in mirrorless. I know Canon said the R3 is not a 1DX equivalent (which will be reserved for the R1)... but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, perhaps it's a duck :).

I think the R1 will decimate the R5/R3/1DX when it's released.

I'll probably buy the "R1" as well if I know myself :)
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
917
941
Scotland
I don't agree with what that other forum person was saying... in that increasing the MP would reduce IQ. However, I do agree that if they raised the MP and essentially made a high MP R5, sacrificing the other options, people may have passed on it. I mean we already have an R5 and possibly a R5S coming that would boost that more.

Right now the R3 specs tell me this camera is about 'getting the shot' vs showing off high MP. In it's current state... I see this as an attempt to lure current 1DX users to mirrorless or users that want a 1DX but in mirrorless. I know Canon said the R3 is not a 1DX equivalent (which will be reserved for the R1)... but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, perhaps it's a duck :).

I think the R1 will decimate the R5/R3/1DX when it's released.

If it has better high ISO nose than the R5/R6 I would put it down to being a newer sensor and a BSI sensor rather than its being lower MP. And historically the 1-series and single digit Nikon's have given up some IQ for speed. They where all about getting the the shot vs say the 5DIII (vs the 1Dx) which got a better image.

Often we hear one sensor is better at high ISO noise than the other and the case for it being lower MP is often made, however, I have found that sensors of the same generation and CPU generation perform about equally and then the higher MP version has equal noise to the lower MP version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

xps

EOS R
Oct 19, 2011
1,007
113
Middle Europe
I found an seller, who sells it an 7299 Euros. Anotherone for 9.999 Euros.... (in Germany, this means inclusive VAT))
 
Last edited: