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

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,341
544
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.
It depends on the point you are making.
Some people use the US to UK price difference to 'prove' that Canon are fleecing UK customers (which is the most common use of this argument). In that argument, the advertised price (and the tax inherent to it) is relevant because Canon has no control over the tax applied by the local market.
If you are asking 'I would not pay 6,000USD for the camera' then tax is irrelevant because the price is what it is.
 

tarjei99

EOS M50
Dec 27, 2013
49
39
The build quality, superior sealing, etc.. is important and on the list of reasons I want an R3. The biggest reason for me is AF acquisition. The R5 just isn't there with my 600 F4 II. I had the same problem with the 7D II. I suspect it's the lower voltage battery. There will be those who claim that's not true, but I can only say that every LP-E6 body I've used was slow and every 1 Series body I've had was quick. There are also smaller features that don't get much mention but make a big difference like metering tied to the AF point. I'll still keep my R5 (assuming the R3 is lower mp) for when I need extra cropping, but when things start to move I want faster AF. I haven't really had much issue with rolling shutter and viewfinder lag.. but it will be nice not to worry about that as well. If it turns out this thread is wrong and the R3 is 45+ I may sell the R5 and buy two R3s.

Canon spoken before about autofocus speed. 1 series cameras focuses faster (at least initially) than cameras with LP6 batteries (5D, 6D, 7D, xxD).

It is because the battery that can provide more energy to the lens.

To me, the biggest surprise would be if the R3 was a crop camera. That would be priceless :).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,577
11,315
It depends on the point you are making.
Some people use the US to UK price difference to 'prove' that Canon are fleecing UK customers (which is the most common use of this argument). In that argument, the advertised price (and the tax inherent to it) is relevant because Canon has no control over the tax applied by the local market.
If you are asking 'I would not pay 6,000USD for the camera' then tax is irrelevant because the price is what it is.
This all arose from a point that I was making that UK customers are already paying $5900 for the R5, which was similar to a complained-about price of $6000 for the R3 in the USA. And my point was then distorted into something else, which was not relevant. As you have raised the matter that I wasn't talking about, I'll answer that. The price differences are there from Canon before taxes are applied. B&H sell the R5 for $3,899, including any state taxes. The UK price is £4,299. Strip out the 20% tax and that translates into $4,900 without tax, $1000 more than the US price. This is not just due to better consumer protection in the UK. I complained to Canon that we are being charged about 10-15% more in the UK than in the rest of Europe, which has the same consumer protection. The Canon customer service apologised that the prices were actually set by Canon Europe. There is definitely differential pricing imposed by Canon since whereas B&H will ship most of their stock to the UK, they state on their site that the R5 is not allowed to be shipped.
 
Last edited:

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
552
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
43
33
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.
I've borrowed the 24-70 RF 2.8, the IS is a huge improvement, and it seemed to have better close focus capability. Also it seemed a bit closer to a true 70 where as the EF seemed a little under 70. But you are right, for day to day I go to my EF F/4 for the IS and the weight.
 

rbielefeld

EOS 90D
Apr 22, 2015
162
363
Yes, and there are several tests on the net comparing CRAW with cr3 that couldn't see any change of IQ etc.
I read somewhere, but cannot find the citation right now, that Canon was able to reduce the size of the CRAW files by compressing the color data/information. Not sure if I am recalling this correctly, but the conclusion was that CRAW and full RAW when converted by the RAW converter were almost indistinguishable with regards to image quality.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,574
3,902
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.
Or to people who want better subject isolation.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,233
3,656
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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.
Maybe they don't care. Maybe only geek forum people are obsessing over the resolution. Maybe Canon figures it's better to let the resolution slip out now so that it doesn't become a focus of the announcement. Maybe they were planning to make the announcement at the end of June, but delayed it and decided that they weren't going to piss off Getty and the Olympic photographers by making them jump through hoops to try to conceal a spec that Canon doesn't consider that important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
130
131
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
Your hallucination that you have any insight into my purchasing process is noted.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
130
131
Are you suggesting you're all criminals?
Just like the colonists who rebelled against a tea tax…

But seriously, there is no crime of a purchaser failing to pay a retail sales tax when the merchant doesn’t. And literally NO ONE* (individual) files these taxes. It’s a joke.

But yes, we Yanks are all criminals. We originated that way. Not all violations of the law are immoral, as it happens.

*Except for those in a few states that force income taxpayers to swear under oath their sales tax matters.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: cayenne

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,233
3,656
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Just like the colonists who rebelled against a tea tax…

But seriously, there is no crime of a purchaser failing to pay a retail sales tax when the merchant doesn’t. And literally NO ONE (individual) files these taxes. It’s a joke.

But yes, we Yanks are all criminals. We originated that way. Not all violations of the law are immoral, as it happens.
There are so many things wrong with these statements I wouldn't know where to start.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Del Paso

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
309
228
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
I'd imagine the transition would be body only for sports photogs at first. It isn't the $50k-$80k cataclysm you suggest. Lenses will be replaced just as they would have if the mount had stayed EF. So, in my opinion, things didn't get exponentially more expensive. EF lenses work on the RF bodies.
Based on how we work you need 3 of the same body in each travel case. As for RF big whites vs. EF functioning exactly the same this is not the case. We don't look at the costs of transitioning cataclysmic, just part of doing business. However a camera like the R3 does not even warrant consideration for the sea change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danglin52

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
Based on how we work you need 3 of the same body in each travel case. As for RF big whites vs. EF functioning exactly the same this is not the case. We don't look at the costs of transitioning cataclysmic, just part of doing business. However a camera like the R3 does not even warrant consideration for the sea change.
Funny how all those photographers actually shooting at the Olympics right now are doing just fine with their R3's, R5's, 1DX II/III's....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
Check again, the 77D and 80D are not 4000x6000, they're 24.2 MP.
Bryan Carnathan has them as 4000x6000. Maybe Canon counts extra pixels on the sensor to help with debayering the edges or something.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Martin K

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
Bryan Carnathan has them as 4000x6000. Maybe Canon counts extra pixels on the sensor to help with debayering the edges or something.

There are always dark/black pixels on the sensor edge that are not exposed with the image that the camera uses to establish a black point.

Interestingly Canon list the 80D as "Approx 24.2mp" and "Total pixel 25.8 mp"

1627526756907.png


And yet a downloaded 80D RAW file opens up at 6,000 x 4,000 exactly.

1627526884478.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RMac and koenkooi