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

Ruined

EOS R
Aug 22, 2013
931
60
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.
That's only if you have control over the subjects you are photographing.

Higher MP bodies allow me to crop far away elements and still get a usable photo, or sometimes you can make multiple photos from the same base photo. Like, I have a photo where I took a 35mm street photography landscape-style pic using 5DsR+16-35 f/4L but I can then crop the RAW to get full quality photos of little scenes of people within the scene. Same thing happens with nature photos, sometimes I take a pic which looked pretty good when I framed it at the time and then realize if I cropped it by 50% it would look much cooler.

Now it's not worth sacrificing everything for this ability, but it certainly is a super useful tool now that I have access to it.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,310
3,849
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Since this seems to have become a thread about resolution, noise and cropping, I can't resist added a few comments regarding Canon's two most recent top of the line bodies, the 1Dx III and the R5.

In shooting the 1Dx III for almost a year now I have been impressed with the "secret sauce" Canon added to the sensor. The 20mp files of the 1Dx III seem to me to tolerate cropping much better than the 20mp files from the 1Dx II. I don't know why. Some say it is the weaker anti-aliasing filter and I am not knowledgeable enough to argue either way, but I do see a significant improvement between the two generations. I shoot a lot of sports under less than ideal conditions and I have yet to have to reject a photo because it is too noisy or too soft after cropping.

I've only been shooting the R5 for about six weeks but I have been impressed with the files that 45mp sensor delivers at high ISOs. Very little and easily managed noise.

Point being, I'm seeing a convergence in the new sensors, where many of the old arguments about lower resolution=less cropping room and higher resolution=more noise seem to be less and less relevant in my day-to-day experience. YMMV, but I feel as though too many people are stuck in arguments that were valid six or seven years ago, but aren't today. We may have to relegate these arguments to the same dustbin where the lens cap shadow noise arguments have been tossed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
313
690
The world-wide shortages - especially in semi-conductors - is already leading to price hikes in electronics. So whatever you thought it might cost - it will be more. Perhaps quite a bit more.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,858
1,787
[..]
In shooting the 1Dx III for almost a year now I have been impressed with the "secret sauce" Canon added to the sensor. The 20mp files of the 1Dx III seem to me to tolerate cropping much better than the 20mp files from the 1Dx II. I don't know why.[..]
I noticed the same when shooting the 1DxII and RP side by side, even with 6MP less, the 1DxIII pictures had more detail. This was with stationionary dragonflies with the 180L mounted on a tripod.
 

JamesG25

EOS R3 (ordered), R5 , R and RP
Jul 31, 2021
13
14
If really is 24mp then I think will be priced at $5499… which would sit roughly in middle between R5 at $3899 and eventual R1 at $6999. Would also be a $1000 below 1DX MK3. This pricing would fit with Canon’s comments of the R5 sitting between the 5 and 1 series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bergstrom

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,726
2,135
Hamburg, Germany
Since this seems to have become a thread about resolution, noise and cropping, I can't resist added a few comments regarding Canon's two most recent top of the line bodies, the 1Dx III and the R5.

In shooting the 1Dx III for almost a year now I have been impressed with the "secret sauce" Canon added to the sensor. The 20mp files of the 1Dx III seem to me to tolerate cropping much better than the 20mp files from the 1Dx II. I don't know why. Some say it is the weaker anti-aliasing filter and I am not knowledgeable enough to argue either way, but I do see a significant improvement between the two generations. I shoot a lot of sports under less than ideal conditions and I have yet to have to reject a photo because it is too noisy or too soft after cropping.

I've only been shooting the R5 for about six weeks but I have been impressed with the files that 45mp sensor delivers at high ISOs. Very little and easily managed noise.

Point being, I'm seeing a convergence in the new sensors, where many of the old arguments about lower resolution=less cropping room and higher resolution=more noise seem to be less and less relevant in my day-to-day experience. YMMV, but I feel as though too many people are stuck in arguments that were valid six or seven years ago, but aren't today. We may have to relegate these arguments to the same dustbin where the lens cap shadow noise arguments have been tossed.
The 1DX III introduced a new type of low pass (or AA) filter which blurs the image more gracefully. If you want to dive into the technical aspects, this site goes into even more detail than Canon's whitepaper:


I don't quite follow your point about old arguments though. I think you are finding that the higher effective resolution of the 1DX III over the 1DX II is beneficial. That to me would suggest that you are not saying higher resolutions are bad, so I don't follow you when you suggest discarding the notion of lower resolution=less cropping room.

As for higher resolutions being associated with more noise, that is mostly a consequence of people not knowing how to make valid comparisons. For any half recent cameras, higher resolutions don't lead to a noteworthy disadvantage in terms of low light performance.

Lens cap DR arguments are still relevant to the cameras that suffer from fixed pattern noise. It is only the very recent generations of Canon cameras (90D, M6 II, R, 1DX III, R6 and R5) have have managed to get rid of it. Even the 5D IV didn't get the firmware update that fixed it in the R as far as I'm aware. Not every Canon camera out in the wild today is as recent as those, so for the people who use older gear (like my 80D) knowing the limitations of how much shadows can be pushed is still useful.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,310
3,849
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I don't quite follow your point about old arguments though. I think you are finding that the higher effective resolution of the 1DX III over the 1DX II is beneficial. That to me would suggest that you are not saying higher resolutions are bad, so I don't follow you when you suggest discarding the notion of lower resolution=less cropping room.
I'm saying that the improved performance of the newest 20mp sensor in the 1DxIII allows cropped images to stand up better than they once did. Of course there are limits and the 45mp sensor of the R5 is certainly going to allow for more cropping, but people who dismiss the lower resolution sensors out of hand, as many on this forum do, fail to acknowledge the improvements that have occurred in recent years.
 

bernie_king

EOS 90D
Jun 30, 2014
101
145
I'm guessing $5499. Hoping for $4899, but that's probably unlikely. Either way, I'm a buyer. I don't mind the 24mp so long as there are significant improvements in AF over the R5, although I wish it were 30. I don't think it can be too much more than the A9 II (or the A9 III that is certainly coming) as that is the main competition in this segment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
448
493
USA
Two possibilities
1) R1 they are targeting to be just shy of $10k USD. R3, in this case and nodding to the press Canon gives it as 'not a flagship' would then be priced in to to the $6500 price slot, just below the 1DK III. This could still be possible if Canon intends the R1 to be only 20% more than the 1D series at $8kUSD. Canon does not seem to be worried about being 20% more than competitive models.

2) Canon wants to hold a more reasonable increase in the R1 cost to only $7k-7.5k USD, which could put the R1 Closer to $5500 USD.


One dream case - R3 costs $4000 and I can convince myself to save up for it over an R5, which I have been trying to convince myself to save up for over an R6 which is then nearing half the cost and is probably more than adequate for my needs.

Brian
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
458
569
I'm curious to see whether the recent lens price increases mean anything at all for the R3 release price.

a) Are Canon planning to price the camera a bit on the lower end of the predicted price spectrum to encourage more adoption of R bodies among DSLR users and drive more sales of profitable RF lenses?
b) Are Canon planning to release the R3 at the higher end of the price spectrum (the lens price increases and body price increases being a result of increased part, manufacturing, and shipping costs?)
c) Are the lens price increases completely unrelated to pricing of the R3?