The Canon EOS R3 will be 24mp, confirmed by EXIF data

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
316
695
I honestly think Canon is going to surprise us with the price.

Remember, they said this slots "below" the 1DX Mark III. At 24 megapixels, even with a grip, I think Canon would be smart to price this at an incredibly competitive price point to the A9II.

I lean towards $4800 due to the full grip, but they could genuinely undercut Sony with a roughly $4500 price point where you're saving actually money by not needing to buy an additional grip.

If the price is right on this thing, it would be an easy out for most of the comparisons with the Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 and their $6500 price point.

I can see the DP Review headlines now, "Canon's most affordable pro model yet."
One thing to consider if you've been keeping up with the world-wide shortages, is that prices have been going up considerably for electronics in the past month or two. So, alas, the price will almost certainly be higher than predictions of two or three months ago. Of course, people on the internet will curse Canon and blame them for over-pricing everythting, completely ignoring the actual economic situation that is influencing most of the world right now.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,435
2,301
Actually, an acre was not meant to be square. The 10 acre square you mention is 10 chains or 1 furlong on each side. The Ideal Acre was defined as 1 chain by 10 chains (66x660 ft.) with the notion of that as a lot that you could build a house near the front and have a space to grow stuff at the back, all the while making access road at the front relatively short and putting neighbors close together. The 11 pops out of a chain being 66 ft long. I have never seen a definitive explanation that proves whether the system started from the top (mile) or bottom (chain). The rod (16.5 ft) is clearly a sub unit as 1/4th of a chain. If you have a sense of humor it is actually kind of fun- a mostly binary (quaternary in area) system with a sneaky 11 hiding in there. The system was created from practical usage, whereas the Metric system starts with a base unit and throws factors of ten at everything. For many things (cooking is a good example) a binary approach is actually more useful than the metric system.

Probably the biggest hang-up in the English measuring system is the dichotomy between the statute mile and the nautical mile which was only finalized after someone actually figured out how far it really was around the world. So now we have MPH and knots to deal with. The nautical mile is a practical measure in that it takes 21,600 of them to go around the world making 1 minute of latitude equal to 1 nautical mile. Are we having fun yet?
"not meant to be square"...no kidding!!! yes, you can make a clean "rectangular" acre (but at least it's not 6000x4000 anything).

Figuring this out (which I did a few years ago) made me at least see an underlying logic to the system; it's kind of screwball in its own amusing way. It's not as "clean" as SI, but at least one can see where it came from.

I do recall reading that a mile was 5000 feet until it got bumped up to 5280 so that it'd be a whole number (8) of furlongs, so I suspect it was started from both the top and bottom, when the inevitable collision occurred, "up from the bottom" won. (Wikipedia has a long explanation of this I don't have time to parse right now to check it against my recollection; but it appears the year was 1593.)

The nautical mile is now defined to be 1852 meters (note it's tied to metric); before it was 6080 (in the UK) or 6080.2 (in the US) feet, a bit over 1853 meters. So though the original intent was to be one minute of arc on the earth's surface, it isn't quite that any more. (Of course the meter was originally defined to be 1/10,000,000 the length of a meridian from the equator to the poles; it isn't any more either.)

Weight is another one with a lot of history. Apparently even groceries were measured in troy pounds of 5760 grains before Queen Elizabeth; after her reforms we went to the avoirdupois pound of 7000 grains (the grain itself not changing). However, the monetary system was tied to troy pounds (a pound sterling really was a troy pound of 0.925 fine silver at one point), so we couldn't stop doing precious metals in the troy system. And so we continue to have two different kinds of ounces to this day.

All well and good, until you start dealing with other countries with slightly different histories and therefore two different kinds of miles, pounds, etc. At that point it becomes an ungodly mess...so there is the rationale for the SI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfr0317 and Dragon

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
316
695
And yet I've seen the same thing happen with the R5, which is a far more affordable option at 45 megapixels and 20 FPS. Several Sony shooters I know, and a big name pro Nikon shooter I've followed, have all switched to the EOS R5 since its release. The Nikon shooter dropped over $20,000 in Nikon gear to switch to a two EOS R5 set-up, because he wasn't happy with the Z-series and had no interest in spending $6500 per camera for the A1 or future Z9.

The same enthusiasts making these choices are going to be very aware of the fact they can save $2500 over the A1 by going the R5 route instead, which is enough to net you a lens, possibly two if you go the 800mm F/11 route, and almost enough for the 100-500. I'm aware these people have the money, but the R5 is an incredibly compelling camera for the price that it's at.
I think people who are actually in the camera market are comparing the A1 with the R5. And it seems pretty clear that the R3 is comparable to the A9 - not the A1. People saying that the R3 need more MPs to compete with the A1, but Canon already has the R5 to compete with the A1 - and by most comments and reviews I have seen from actual photographers, the R5 is more than holding its own.
 
Aug 16, 2016
5
2
The firmware may allow multiple sizes of RAW but be currently limited to the smallest. They could be working out issues with the higher resolutions. Zero evidence of this but still possible.
I don't think this is firmware related but sensor hardware architecture related.

1) This kind of sensors with multiple raw sizes like for example 7D, 5D mark II, 5D mark III used to have, do not exist anymore. Except the recent cameras like 6D mark II for example, that still use old sensors (single gain), this camera still have multiple raw resolutions, but worse dynamic range.
Since they added dual gain to sensors (since 1D X mark II), multiple resolutions in RAW mode have disappeared.
So until this moment you either have multiple raw resolution or better dynamic range, you cannot have both.

2) Also confirmed by electron microscopy analysis of a single gain sensor (1D X)
"additional transistor connecting FD in three rows is used for binning"

3) The resolution of raw video mode of cameras like R5 is only in the 8K mode not also in 4K mode. The 8K mode is a 1:1 pixel read of the sensor at 16:9 aspect ratio, so there are only some skipped rows at the botton and top of the sensor, there is no binning involved.

--
But is still possible to have good multiple resolutions in JPEG mode, this is good enough for sport photographers. For example Sony A1 (50Mpx) can shot JPEG at 21 and 12 Mpx. Canon R5 (45Mpx) can shot JPEG at 22, 12 and 4 Mpx.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H. Jones

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,435
2,301
I think people who are actually in the camera market are comparing the A1 with the R5. And it seems pretty clear that the R3 is comparable to the A9 - not the A1. People saying that the R3 need more MPs to compete with the A1, but Canon already has the R5 to compete with the A1 - and by most comments and reviews I have seen from actual photographers, the R5 is more than holding its own.

Oh, but the R5 is losing in one key category; it has fewer trolls extolling it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarjei99

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
973
569
Colorado, USA
I'm not buying it.

I'm not buying those numbers.
Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
Anybody ever seen a camera with resolutions this "round"?

In a decimal world, 6000 and 4000 might make sense, but we're living in a digital world where those numbers are not good. In a digital world 6144 by 4096 would make sense, but not those decimally-round numbers.

No, I'm not buying it. This has got to be firmware-modified numbers.

There are some, like my M3 and M5. I believe some of the APS-C rebels are also 6000x4000.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
151
159
I'll watch for an R5-resolution successor with that "just right" size with integrated vertical grip. Didn't need 30 FPS.

Saved $2000+ on an "upgrade" and lost $100 on a wishful bet.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,313
3,860
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay...

How long have you used 1-series cameras? Perhaps you use a spec sheet to take pictures?
I know I am the exception, but I've never found the ergonomics of the 1 series to be that much superior to the five or seven series, especially if you choose to add a grip. In fact, the older I get the more I like not having to lug around the extra weight of a 1 series body. Part of it, I know, is just the way I shoot. After decades of using film cameras, my muscle memory is so accustomed to leaving my hands in the same place when I switch to vertical, so I find the vertical controls on the 1 series and grips to be useless for me.

I don't stand around in the rain using my camera without any protection. Weathersealing is poorly defined and from what I've seen of field tests, even the lowly R does quite well in that regard, so that's not a big factor for me. If they actually built a camera and lenses that could be submerged, it might be a different case, but until they do that, I'll just keep using rain covers when I have to shoot in bad weather.

I looked up the shutter life or the R5 and it is rated the same as the 1DxIII, so that doesn't seem like a major differentiation either.

Now, if I owned a big white, I might want the bigger battery and I do admit that the short battery life of the R5 is annoying at times. But, if I'm going to be shooting for an extended period of time I can add a grip.

Point being that individual preferences vary and for me, the body style won't be a major reason to buy the R3 if I go that route.
 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
511
335
I have never seen that happen before. Anything is possible, but I don't think you hand these cameras out to people under NDAs with an announcement around the
Oh, so Canon intentionally left out the resolution in marketing so that the EXIF files would display it anyhow. Please. The higher resolution most likely was not selectable. Canon engineers are aware the photographers will transmit files. Next month we'll see different EXIF files.
 

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
127
111
Wow, this is a disappointment that I have to process for a couple of days. After waiting for a few years I thought this could be the mirrorless pro for me. But with 24mpix after using the R5 for a day. Sorry but I cannot understand why a camera company would make a 24mpix PRO BODY camera after they made a 45mpix SEMI PRO BODY camera a year earlier... Am I crazy?
 

DanCarr

I'm New Here
Apr 15, 2015
19
18
I'm not buying it.

I'm not buying those numbers.
Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
Anybody ever seen a camera with resolutions this "round"?

In a decimal world, 6000 and 4000 might make sense, but we're living in a digital world where those numbers are not good. In a digital world 6144 by 4096 would make sense, but not those decimally-round numbers.

No, I'm not buying it. This has got to be firmware-modified numbers.
Sony a9 and a9 II both shot 6000x4000px, as did a bunch of their other 24mp cameras. This really isn't unusual.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
Wow, this is a disappointment that I have to process for a couple of days. After waiting for a few years I thought this could be the mirrorless pro for me. But with 24mpix after using the R5 for a day. Sorry but I cannot understand why a camera company would make a 24mpix PRO BODY camera after they made a 45mpix SEMI PRO BODY camera a year earlier... Am I crazy?
Yes. Or you just don’t understand the actual pro market for an R3.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
You really need to understand who you are as a photographer. What works for the next photog may be totally inadequate for your purposes.

I purchased a used, almost new Nikon D5 for $4,500 because some wildlife photographers I respected raved about it. What I didn't give enough attention to was that these wildlife photographers shoot large mammals (including whales) in dark extremely moist places like the wilds of the Pacific Northwest. Their subject matter and location differ dramatically from the small animals and birds I shoot in very bright Florida. Needless to say, the D5 was a disappointment. Images were very sharp and in focus, but the detail I craved just wasn't there, and I never needed to shoot above ISO400, so low-light prowess was not an issue. Oh, and the camera was mediocre at base ISO.

Of course that camera along with the 1DX series, are the best sports DSLRs ever created. Rarely shooting sports, that accolade provided little solace to me.
And I didn’t say anything that contradicted that. I said specifically current 20mp camera buyers aren’t going to be annoyed or put off because their latest option is 24mp, despite the fact that many people want and or feel they need more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
380
475
If the R3 does turn out to be 24mp, and the Nikon Z9 turns out to be 45mp or higher, I think Canon would be making a big mistake if they gave the R1 a 20mp sensor. Canon would already have a 24mp 30 fps beast available. It really would make no sense to have the R1 be basically the same camera at 20mp; unless it has a global shutter. If the R1 and R3 both end up having sensors in the 20mp range, what does Canon have to compete with the Sony a1 and most likely the 45mp Nikon Z9? And I don't believe Canon does not need to compete with these cameras. Sony pushed Canon to go mirrorless, so Sony is not clueless to what photographers are looking for as far as tools go. Myself, as a wildlife and bird photographer, I really do need more than 20mp at a high frame rate with great weather sealing, fast 1Dx type AF cycling, etc. Moreover, I am far from the only one with these needs as there are a lot of wildlife and bird photographers out here. I might even make an educated guess that there are more wildlife and bird photographers than sports photographers in the world. Birds especially have taken off with photographers ( pun intended). In the past, technology kept the resolution and speed of camera bodies down. That barrier no longer exists. I think Canon will come through with a high res (45-50mp) high speed (30fps) body for the mass of photographers, like myself, that are looking for such a camera. In my mind, it will be the R1.
No sense in making 2 pro body R cameras with low mp count. One will be the low mp sports/pj camera (R3) the other a high mp studio camera with lower fps (R1).