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

[Ian K]

If you do not understand that I was explaining to a transatlantic member who was saying that $6000 for an R3 is a record price, that we in the UK are already paying $5900 at the current conversion rate for an R5, then I give up. You can buy on eBay from China with all the risks if you want, but don't tell me to. It's a pretty daft comparison with buying from Adorama or B&H in the US.

I wasn't suggesting you did. But if you are comparing the price -tax and illegal tax avoidance schemes then eBay is a more compatible price.

 

[Ian K]

You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%. The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.

Are you suggesting you're all criminals?

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

I paid close to $7,000 for one of my 1DS III's over ten years ago.

I'm not saying you are wrong, more that it is interesting what many people think they need and what commercial image creators actually have to have.

Put it this way, would you rather buy a ten year old new car or a new new car and pay the same money?

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

How do all the people saying "24MP is a massive disappointment" feel about the 1DXiii that shoots 20MP? This honestly feels like a resolution upgrade for the types of photogs presently using the 1DXiii, and that's clearly the sort of photographer Canon is targeting with this body.

Keep in mind that you are comparing the R3 to a 10 year old camera. That doesn't make sense. Certainly a 1DX is a great camera but technology doesn't stop and if that's what you want buy a 1DX.

 

[SteveC]

Put it this way, would you rather buy a ten year old new car or a new new car and pay the same money?

I'd buy a new 1992 Integra, but Acura rather small-mindedly doesn't make them any more.

Cars aren't improving nearly as rapidly as cameras (and in many respects are un-improving).

That aside the point you were making is a good one with respect to cameras.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

TVs improve quite a lot, but they do not get more expensive. I still remember the first flat TVs for five digit prices.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You may have missed that state sales tax in the US is readily avoidable for just about anyone who cares. Very uinlike what IU understand in your system. And for those who don't care to avoid, it's typically only about 8%.The only people who pay sales tax on a camera are those who don't care about the sales tax.

And...you know...those people who prefer to follow the law. Tax evasion is illegal, and the fact that many people do it doesn't change that. Those using something like B&H's Payboo card are acting legally, because the tax is being paid to your state by them. But other illegal 'workarounds' are just that – illegal.

State Sales & Use Tax revenues fund things like local education, fire and police departments, and infrastructure. Maybe those things aren't important to you, and you're personally fine with breaking the law and negatively impacting your local resources because you 'care to avoid the sales tax'. You do you.

/soapbox

 

[neuroanatomist]

TVs improve quite a lot, but they do not get more expensive. I still remember the first flat TVs for five digit prices.

The first DSLRs cost north of $10K.

 

[AlanF]

The first DSLRs cost north of $10K.

And Canon broke that mould with the 300D (Digital Rebel) for $999 with kit lens in 2003 - I kept mine for sentimental reasons. It was a real breakthrough.

 

[miketcool]

I think you are suggesting that a lower resolution camera will have batter AF performance. My understanding is that the R5 is faster and better behaved than the R6. The processing is supposed to be the same, but the R5 has the higher res sensor.

Canon states themselves that the R5 AF is accurate down to -6.0EV and the R6 -6.5EV. In bright or average conditions, AF and Face/Eye detect are more accurate on the R5. At the lower end of the range, the R6 has a small advantage.

 

[Martin K]

A long thread with many words, but has it yet been established that the 24mp could not be a crop from a 60mp sensor?

 

[tron]

A long thread with many words, but has it yet been established that the 24mp could not be a crop from a 60mp sensor?

Hmmm someone is greedy

 

[Normalnorm]

As I asked in the other thread, could these cameras not be restricted in firmware to output max 24 MP JPG files?

As we are living in a world where any conspiracy theory seems to have currency, sure, why not?

 

[David_D]

Canon states themselves that the R5 AF is accurate down to -6.0EV and the R6 -6.5EV. In bright or average conditions, AF and Face/Eye detect are more accurate on the R5. At the lower end of the range, the R6 has a small advantage.

Sounds like a draw then But there are two parts to the AF:

1. Selecting the AF point and tracking
2. Actually focussing using that AF point

I could be wrong, but I thought we were discussion part 1. I suspect part 2 is affected by the -6.0 or -6.5 EV limit. (Both are needed to get accurate focus, of course.)

 

[CanonFanBoy]

I wasn't suggesting you did. But if you are comparing the price -tax and illegal tax avoidance schemes then eBay is a more compatible price.

Ebay charges sales tax these days.

 

[tapanit]

using exif from another R3 Olympic photo, the Focal Plane X & Y Resolution info works out to a 24mp sensor. For those not familiar (I just learned this myself), these tags indicate the sensor resolution per unit, and Unit 2 as seen below is inches. Convert 36mm x 24mm to inches (divide by 25.4) and multiply by the Exif for focal plane resolution, and you've got the final answer on resolution.

View attachment 199254

Nope.

I just did a quick test with R5: those resolution figures change when it's set to lower resolution.

In a full resolution image:

Focal Plane X Resolution : 5773.079634
Focal Plane Y Resolution : 5769.799366

which work out to 45 megapixels as expected.

In a M-quality jpeg:

Focal Plane X Resolution : 4093.023256
Focal Plane Y Resolution : 4088.701162

which work out to 22 megapixels.

So those particular numbers don't prove anything.

As far as I can see, the only field in the M-quality image exif that reveals the sensor is actually bigger is "Sensor Width", which is the same, 8352, in both images. I haven't looked at any of the R3 images in the web to see how it looks in them, but I'm sure somebody will.

 

[miketcool]

Sounds like a draw then But there are two parts to the AF:

1. Selecting the AF point and tracking
2. Actually focussing using that AF point

I could be wrong, but I thought we were discussion part 1. I suspect part 2 is affected by the -6.0 or -6.5 EV limit. (Both are needed to get accurate focus, of course.)

That’s where this additional layer of computing comes into play. Not only is the R3 finding the points based on a series of algorithms, it’s also interpreting where those points are moving in three dimensional space, interpreting how to stay locked on as the points change (really curious how Canon is prioritizing vehicles), and how to filter out data that is trying to confuse this process, while tracking your pupil in EyeControl AF, and learning so as to improve the next series of shots.

The less noise you have, the more efficient the above process is, and theoretically should result in a greatly improved AF. Those EV numbers matter.

 

[tapanit]

A long thread with many words, but has it yet been established that the 24mp could not be a crop from a 60mp sensor?

No. All that has been established is that the R3s used in the Olympics (that have pictures posted publicly) can produce 24 mp images (or images that indicate that in their exif data).

In theory, it remains possible that the sensor is bigger but the photogs with loaner R3s have agreed (as a condition to getting them, presumably) not to take or at least not publish any pics with more resolution, or that the cameras indeed have a prerelease firmware that prevents it (or fakes the exif). Not very likely, I think, but not yet proven impossible either.

 

[AEWest]

No. All that has been established is that the R3s used in the Olympics (that have pictures posted publicly) can produce 24 mp images (or images that indicate that in their exif data).

In theory, it remains possible that the sensor is bigger but the photogs with loaner R3s have agreed (as a condition to getting them, presumably) not to take or at least not publish any pics with more resolution, or that the cameras indeed have a prerelease firmware that prevents it (or fakes the exif). Not very likely, I think, but not yet proven impossible either.

For whatever reason Canon has deliberately chosen not to announce MP count for the R3.
I don't think they would allow the loaner R3s to spill the beans from exif data - they may as well announce it then.

 

[SwissFrank]

Good camera but... I'll stay with my 1DXmk3, 5D4 and 5Ds for many years to come. Too great investment in 14 EF (mostly L) lenses and frankly, what will the R3 really do MUCH BETTER than my 1DX?

I had 15 EF's, I think, when the R came out. Down to the 135/2 and 180Mac. now.

Far better AF, better low-light, better DR, smaller body and lenses.

And it will use RF lenses which I think are such a game-changer that they make the move worthwhile even if everything else was identical. (50/1.2 is 10x sharper, 24-105/4 much smaller, 85DS doesn't even exist in EF, macro with SA knob and 1.4x, f/2 zoom, wide-angle macro, 100-500, 14-35, 35/1.2 will probably rock, since it doesn't need to be a retrofocus design, 135/1.8. Maybe the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 aren't decided advancements, but my theory is that they're just solde to suckers anyway who don't understand f/4's are the better solution for general photography now, given high ISO, IS, IBIS these days.