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

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
128
122
That may be so, depending on the law under which you are living of course.

Reaping the benefits of public spending while withholding contributions to its funding doesn't sound all that moral either though.
Pickpockets always argue that it’s immoral to stop them.
In the UK you would go to jail. Not that you would have the choice to avoid the retailer has to charge it and submit VAT (value added tax) returns.

If you think the IRS is scary you don’t want to meet the “VAT man”.
I pity you for that.

Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase (as some who don’t live here suggest is essential to be moral) nor has there ever been a case where this absurd law has been enforced.

I’m just reporting the facts and you can make of that what you want and draw your own conclusions.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,628
4,037
Irving, Texas
Not on private sellers.
That is not true. Everything I've sold on Ebay in the last year ran sales tax on my buyers. I am a private seller.

 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,717
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase (as some who don’t live here suggest is essential to be moral) nor has there ever been a case where this absurd law has been enforced.

I’m just reporting the facts and you can make of that what you want and draw your own conclusions.
I suspect your either using the word fact or the word literally wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
128
122
I suspect your either using the word fact or the word literally wrong.
It would be easy to prove me wrong if there were a shred of evidence. I'm unable to prove my allegation because it's impossible for me to prove a negative.

If it ever happened even once, there would be worldwide headlines you could search that said things like "Sales Tax Cheat Sentenced Today".

(Crickets)
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
The R5 is also FF while the 7DmkII is a crop sensor so all his lenses need to be 1.6 times as long (and heavy) - bar that and if you suggest to crop to get the same reach of the 7DmkII: then out of the R5's 45MP, only less than his 7DmkII will remain in play. (~17MP vs. ~20MP).

  • As to MPs: yes they do matter - look back at digital pictures you took 20+ years back: the main thing they lack to be usable now is one thing and one thing only: pixels. All the rest can be fixed in lightroom or similar. I don't take pictures just for now, I take them also to keep for a long time to come.

17 vs 20MP isn't a big difference and it is claimed that the newer AA filters allow for higher detail levels - I saw a claim (I presume from Canon?) that the 45MP R5 gives equivalent detail to the 50MP 5DS(r?) in which case the crop mode would match the 7DII, although I don't know if anyone has tried testing that.

I disagree with the second point. The thing that most commonly makes my oldest photos unusable is poor noise in lower light shots. My 300D was essentially unusable indoors without using the flash (I didn't have very wide aperture lenses back then, or IS), and I can't salvage those files; but upscaling has come a long way (plus most image viewing and sharing is at much reduced res anyway).
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,628
4,037
Irving, Texas
It would be easy to prove me wrong if there were a shred of evidence. I'm unable to prove my allegation because it's impossible for me to prove a negative.

If it ever happened even once, there would be worldwide headlines you could search that said things like "Sales Tax Cheat Sentenced Today".

(Crickets)
Happens all the time: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/news/202...-indicted-on-sales-tax-evasion-and-theft.html

Like the IRS, states enjoy going after the big, low hanging, high profile fruit. Rest assured that if a state wants to get you, it will.

In fact, did you know that sales taxes owed can't be discharged in bankruptcy?

While taxes might have been (one) reason for the revolution, don't act as though that is the case today. People love taxes these days, and politicians (in both major parties) love spending far beyond what is collected. So the USA is no beacon of fiscal responsibility, it's citizens are also apparently, a bunch of tax criminals. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
309
228
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
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....
Photographers from our agency are there and "our" firm has policies. Remember not every event we cover has CPS there. Also, when we travel we must be self sustainable in remote locations. It is 'required" it is not a matter of "want". All the copies are profiled so they are interchangeable. If a body gets, lost, stolen, damaged, they will always have two working copies. The norm could be a 2.8 70-200 on one and a big white on the other. For what we call "Island shoots" the photographer can carry 4 of the same bodies with one "having" to be with them as a carry on vs in the travel/stage/Pelican being shipped. The carry on kit contains a 70-200, 300mm, body, battery,chargers, cards, cat5/6 cable,laptop. Should the cargo hold have issues, the photographer is at least functional until the next flight.

As a large agency that shoot all over the world we have a commitment to excellence and reliability. We don't give clients excuses we give results and part of that is assuring that even in remote locations when others fail... media outlets wish they had hired us.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,717
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
It would be easy to prove me wrong if there were a shred of evidence. I'm unable to prove my allegation because it's impossible for me to prove a negative.

If it ever happened even once, there would be worldwide headlines you could search that said things like "Sales Tax Cheat Sentenced Today".

(Crickets)
So you're not able to prove what you said, and yet call it a fact. I don't see where I'm wrong when doubting if you use the word correctly. Perhaps fact is used differently than I believe (I'm no native speaker), or you mean the alternative kind.

I see no need to get silly. Obviously intertwining laws and morality is bound to fail, so we have folks that speak judgment regarding the law. What needs to be done to live moral is in the eye of the beholder.

It does look weird when people proudly claim to evade a tax in my eyes though.

And I do wonder, if nobody in the US follows some given sales tax law, what's the point of keeping up the facade?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,628
4,037
Irving, Texas
So you're not able to prove what you said, and yet call it a fact. I don't see where I'm wrong when doubting if you use the word correctly. Perhaps fact is used differently than I believe (I'm no native speaker), or you mean the alternative kind.

I see no need to get silly. Obviously intertwining laws and morality is bound to fail, so we have folks that speak judgment regarding the law. What needs to be done to live moral is in the eye of the beholder.

It does look weird when people proudly claim to evade a tax in my eyes though.

And I do wonder, if nobody in the US follows some given sales tax law, what's the point of keeping up the facade?
They pay the tax the vast majority of the time. It just gives them the feeling of being "gangsta" to find a way to not pay now and then. That's considered exciting and living on the edge in boring white suburbia. They get to feel like little rebels for a moment. :ROFLMAO::rolleyes: Well, that and burning their pandemic masks. Real hardcore folks. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,626
585
Even Google Play has foto EXIF metadata editors. People have been changing and editing EXIF metadata for years. Fuji camera owners have a lot of practice. Renaming, changing and deleting metadata to fool C1, LR and other software into accepting images. Often as simple as changing the camera name. Comon practice among knowledgeable photographers. EXIF data doesn't confirm nada. I can edit my R5 file to display the name R3 or any camera name I want.

I use this one all the time...simple, small, open source and command line:

EXIFTOOL

Works like a charm.
 

tapanit

.
CR Pro
Jul 17, 2012
117
55
If this is actually from the olympics and that lens was from Canon's event stock, then the lens serial number being present in the disclosed EXIF will tell Canon exactly who has shared this image by virtue of them keeping track of who they've loaned which lenses from - if not which camera bodies too. Then there's the whole "register your equipment" that has been discussed elsewhere. Summary, with the serial number present, I can't believe that this would be a mistake.

What isn't clear to me is if the selection of JPEG image size would show up on those EXIF screens and if, for example, the person taking the photograph has selected M, S1, S2, etc, and not L.
Exif data has a field called "Canon Image Size", with values like "Large", "Medium" &c.

There's also "Raw Jpg Size" with similar values.

Then there's "Sensor Width" (8352 in R5) and "Sensor Right Border" (8335) and similarly "Sensor Height" (5586) and "Sensor Bottom Border" (5575).

Other than those, I can't see anything that would confirm that the actual maximum resolution is something else than the image size shown.

If Canon is serious about keeping the resolution secret, it would have been easy to make a prerelease firmware which simply doesn't report those (or reports wrong values for them).

And not all software will report all exif data. Exiftool does, although of course it doesn't know them all but it has an option for showing unknown tags as "Canon 0x402c" &c.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
128
122
So you're not able to prove what you said, and yet call it a fact. I don't see where I'm wrong when doubting if you use the word correctly. Perhaps fact is used differently than I believe (I'm no native speaker), or you mean the alternative kind.

I see no need to get silly. Obviously intertwining laws and morality is bound to fail, so we have folks that speak judgment regarding the law. What needs to be done to live moral is in the eye of the beholder.

It does look weird when people proudly claim to evade a tax in my eyes though.

And I do wonder, if nobody in the US follows some given sales tax law, what's the point of keeping up the facade?
I invite you to reread above where I wrote about the impossibility of proving a negative. No one pays state sales tax when the merchant doesn't collect. Morally, we're all equal, and no one is taken advantage of.

To answer your question, merchants invariably follow sales tax laws when they have to, and that's 99% of the sales tax due. No one cares about the trivial small percentage of unpaid uncollected tax, yet buyers of high ticket items like cameras can seek out merchants who discount to pay for the sales tax.

The rarest of enforcement situations involve situations like Portland Oregon's neighboring suburbs in Washington state, where the state tax authorities will sometimes go after wholesale tax avoiders who shop across the river in sale-tax free Oregon with carloads of building materials, liquor, etc. Not to mention registering a vehicle in Oregon to avoid paying 8% sales tax on that purchase price.

California is ferocious on certain state taxes (I had a client fly to visit me in Nevada to support his case that the plane was not in California to avoid sales tax on that).

When Ebay started collecting sales taxes they effectively raised commissions by about 70%, presumably killing some markets - I'm a fan of Fred Miranda for used buys with ethical members and no sales tax.

But normal people buying stuff on the internet NEVER send in the sales tax if the merchant doesn't collect it. NEVER. Which is why this topic arose to explain why comparing retail prices in the US with VAT-added process elsewhere is the apt comparison.

Update: Failure of one who collects sales taxes to transmit them to government is essentially theft, and prosecuted as a felony.
Also: In my state of Texas (~8% sales tax) if I don't pay the $1000 sales tax on a big white lens, and I'm the first ever consumer they go after to collect it, my penalty is... $50. Plus $50 more if more than 30 days. Scary.

I would have hoped no one thinks I'm a bad person simply for reporting this information, but the evidence in some comments above suggests otherwise. It's telling when this kind of thing makes people upset.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,961
1,315
Photographers from our agency are there and "our" firm has policies. Remember not every event we cover has CPS there. Also, when we travel we must be self sustainable in remote locations. It is 'required" it is not a matter of "want". All the copies are profiled so they are interchangeable. If a body gets, lost, stolen, damaged, they will always have two working copies. The norm could be a 2.8 70-200 on one and a big white on the other. For what we call "Island shoots" the photographer can carry 4 of the same bodies with one "having" to be with them as a carry on vs in the travel/stage/Pelican being shipped. The carry on kit contains a 70-200, 300mm, body, battery,chargers, cards, cat5/6 cable,laptop. Should the cargo hold have issues, the photographer is at least functional until the next flight.

As a large agency that shoot all over the world we have a commitment to excellence and reliability. We don't give clients excuses we give results and part of that is assuring that even in remote locations when others fail... media outlets wish they had hired us.
Yes you have a very important company and you have called 5DMkIV a $20 camera.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
24mpix? WHYYYY??
If the price is 3900 maybe I’ll consider, if not, wait for a better camera with at least 45mpix. What a disappointment... it’s 2021 Canon!

WHYYYY?? Because that’s what Canon believes the intended market segment will buy. Apparently you are not the part of intended market segment. Canon doesn’t care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldWing

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,225
3,635
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
But normal people buying stuff on the internet NEVER send in the sales tax if the merchant doesn't collect it. NEVER. Which is why this topic arose to explain why comparing retail prices in the US with VAT-added process elsewhere is the apt comparison.
In my state, you have a choice. You can send the state your unpaid sales taxes on internet purchases when you pay your income taxes, or you can pay an estimate that the state calculates for you based on your income. If you pay the estimate, you do not have to document anything and they guarantee that you will not be audited or prosecuted for underpayment of sales taxes. I always pay the estimate at tax time, so I guess I'm not "normal."
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
550
Sometimes it's hard to know what to believe these days:
1627570290321.png


EXIF data completely fake?
Tired photographer makes mistake?
This definitely confirms something... But what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KF and Jack Douglas

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
No one cares about the trivial small percentage of unpaid uncollected tax, yet buyers of high ticket items like cameras can seek out merchants who discount to pay for the sales tax.
It's a small, trivial percentage now, because online retailers are required to collect tax on behalf of customers purchasing across state lines and remit those funds to the buyers' home state. Prior to the SD v. Wayfair decision by the US Supreme Court, that 'trivial small percentage of unpaid, uncollected tax' was a huge revenue loss for states, which is why South Dakota sued Wayfair in the first place (and why other states had previously sued individual retailers, e.g. MA v Town Fair Tire).

Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase (as some who don’t live here suggest is essential to be moral) nor has there ever been a case where this absurd law has been enforced.

I’m just reporting the facts and you can make of that what you want and draw your own conclusions.
I invite you to reread above where I wrote about the impossibility of proving a negative. No one pays state sales tax when the merchant doesn't collect. Morally, we're all equal, and no one is taken advantage of.

But normal people buying stuff on the internet NEVER send in the sales tax if the merchant doesn't collect it. NEVER. Which is why this topic arose to explain why comparing retail prices in the US with VAT-added process elsewhere is the apt comparison.
"Literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase."
"I’m just reporting the facts..."
"No one pays..."
"NEVER."

Estimates from before SD v. Wayfair put the rate at around 1.6% of people voluntarily paying use tax, according to a 2009 report, higher in states where it is assessed as a line item on tax returns. With approximately 117 million US households in 2009, deducting a small fraction living in the handful of states with no Sales & Use Tax, in 2009 something like 1.8 million tax filers sent in uncollected use tax on out-of-state purchases.

Your opinion: literally no individual anywhere ever.
Fact: In 2009, about 1.8 million state tax return filers.

I draw the conclusions that you don't know what you're talking about and that most of your posts are filled with flagrant bullish!t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark