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

  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
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: 1 users
Upvote 0