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

#### dtaylor

##### Canon 5Ds
If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images.
But to determine how many discrete points of data are visibly separate from their neighbors in an image, you have to apply that measurement from a single dimension to both dimensions. It's really not accurate to say that a 24mp sensor resolves only 9.6% more data than a 20mp sensor when it is capturing 20% more data points. It is a two dimensional sensor after all, and we look at two dimensional images.

Note that this is not a mere play on words or definitions. If you get into signal processing such as with a phased array antenna, or even an imaging sensor treated as a photon detector, the 20% value is closer to telling you what can be done than the 9.6% value.

Of course with photography neither approach translates directly to human impression of detail which varies with subject, view size, contrast, and even emotional impact. At 8x10 I would not say that a 50mp sensor is twice as good or even 44% better than a 24mp one. Might not be visibly better at all. At 90" I might say it's more than twice as good because of how things scale when there's more detail to begin with.

That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2.
We throw around single numbers out of convenience. If you really want to model the performance of an optical system you need to measure lp/mm horizontally or vertically, and then also along the diagonal. You basically need two measurements which betrays the fact that we're dealing with an array of data in two dimensions. So yes, 24mp really is resolving 20% more data than 20mp, assuming of course that every pixel captures a distinct point.

#### Cyborx

##### EOS 90D
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.
Canon doesn’t care... at least that’s something we can both agree on...

#### AEWest

##### EOS RP
That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.
When new cameras are announced, one of the first specs provided is resolution, e.g. 24MP. I have never seen a manufacturer say a camera has 6000 pixels across when refering to resolution. Have you?

sanj

#### CanonFanBoy

##### Purple
CR Pro
I’ve 50 plus items listed and have always got all the money. It’s sold for apart from the 10% eBay fee. Uk VAT is 20% I’d have noticed if a huge chunk was missing. I agree it says it, I’ve just never ever seen it in practice. Granted I’ve never sold more than £10k a year. Pretty sure you been to turn over £85k/year before you have to register for vat.
I'm in the USA. Talking about state sales taxes here.

#### dtaylor

##### Canon 5Ds
That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically.
He already did. Megapixels is one form of measurement that encapsulates both dimensions into a single number. Technically for a sensor this would be a measure of sampling rate which influences, but is not necessarily, final resolution. But you can describe captured images in terms of MP as well. And while I abhor the way DxO abuses the term, you could describe images with the same storage dimensions in terms of "equivalent megapixels" or "resolved megapixels" as compared to a reference, or hypothetically ideal, target.

As for printers, it can be important to know if a printer has discrete resolutions in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and manufacturers state this if it's the case. Which again betrays the fact that we typically throw around a number for a single dimension out of convenience, but we are dealing with a 2D medium. And that 1D value must be applied to both dimensions to understand how much data is captured.

Another example I can think of where one dimensional measurements can be misleading: lp/mm tests can overstate system resolution because a line, being amplified along one direction, is easier to detect than a detail closer in shape to a dot. That's less familiar to photographers than the fact that resolution can vary with line pair orientation to the system which is why lens tests include the diagonal. All of this betrays the fact that yes, we measure along one dimension for convenience, and do so repeatedly at different orientations for more accurate modeling. But at the end of the day the medium is 2D. A 24mp array can provide 20% more data points than a 20mp array, assuming no other limitations on the system.

#### AEWest

##### EOS RP
He already did. Megapixels is one form of measurement that encapsulates both dimensions into a single number. Technically for a sensor this would be a measure of sampling rate which influences, but is not necessarily, final resolution. But you can describe captured images in terms of MP as well. And while I abhor the way DxO abuses the term, you could describe images with the same storage dimensions in terms of "equivalent megapixels" or "resolved megapixels" as compared to a reference, or hypothetically ideal, target.

As for printers, it can be important to know if a printer has discrete resolutions in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and manufacturers state this if it's the case. Which again betrays the fact that we typically throw around a number for a single dimension out of convenience, but we are dealing with a 2D medium. And that 1D value must be applied to both dimensions to understand how much data is captured.

Another example I can think of where one dimensional measurements can be misleading: lp/mm tests can overstate system resolution because a line, being amplified along one direction, is easier to detect than a detail closer in shape to a dot. That's less familiar to photographers than the fact that resolution can vary with line pair orientation to the system which is why lens tests include the diagonal. All of this betrays the fact that yes, we measure along one dimension for convenience, and do so repeatedly at different orientations for more accurate modeling. But at the end of the day the medium is 2D. A 24mp array can provide 20% more data points than a 20mp array, assuming no other limitations on the system.
I think using printer resolution is irrelevant when comparing to cameras because there is no vertical limit to what is being printed, vs the 2x3 fixed ratio of the camera sensor.

#### Czardoom

##### EOS RP
That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.
Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.

I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera. In some rather unscientific testing I have done over the years comparing my R in crop mode (12 MP) to 24 MP crop cameras, one would expect to see a huge difference in detail and resolution with the 24 MP sensor, if using the total MP count as your guide. In fact, the difference was small - not enough to see unless zooming in. So, to me, your method gives a much better impression as to what someone should expect when it comes to resolution.

Of course, on this forum all too often, actual user experience is usually ignored. So let the theories and arguments continue.

RaPhoto

#### rick1

##### EOS M6 Mark II
Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.

I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera. In some rather unscientific testing I have done over the years comparing my R in crop mode (12 MP) to 24 MP crop cameras, one would expect to see a huge difference in detail and resolution with the 24 MP sensor, if using the total MP count as your guide. In fact, the difference was small - not enough to see unless zooming in. So, to me, your method gives a much better impression as to what someone should expect when it comes to resolution.

Of course, on this forum all too often, actual user experience is usually ignored. So let the theories and arguments continue.
The point of increased resolution is not enhanced detail, it is the ability to crop. It's the same thing with recording in 4k or 8k. No one really delivers in that resolution, it is more for the ability to crop. I notice an enormous difference between my cropping ability with my 5dmkiv and the R5. Resolution is 100% relevant.

#### privatebydesign

##### I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Well I am looking forward to 40% more data per image file. You guys can look at it any way you’d like, and for your uses it is probably irrelevant anyway.

For me it is going to make a decent difference, how do I know that? Well I often stitch and I know what 20mp vs 24mp looks like.

I would point out I never said there was a 20% resolution increase, I said there was a 40% increase in data, and as Alan agreed, there is.

#### AlanF

##### Stay at home
CR Pro
When new cameras are announced, one of the first specs provided is resolution, e.g. 24MP. I have never seen a manufacturer say a camera has 6000 pixels across when refering to resolution. Have you?
Those who understand what resolution is, look at the pixel pitch because it is that which determines the resolution of a sensor (as well as some complicating features such as the AA-filter and Bayer). For sensors of the same size, the pixel pitch is inversely proportional to the square root of the pixel count. It's all part of pixel density, and I suggest you read this to get into the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

RaPhoto

#### AlanF

##### Stay at home
CR Pro
The point of increased resolution is not enhanced detail, it is the ability to crop. It's the same thing with recording in 4k or 8k. No one really delivers in that resolution, it is more for the ability to crop. I notice an enormous difference between my cropping ability with my 5dmkiv and the R5. Resolution is 100% relevant.
Enhanced detail and then ability to crop are directly related. The more the linear resolution, the more you can crop.

RaPhoto

#### AEWest

##### EOS RP
Those who understand what resolution is, look at the pixel pitch because it is that which determines the resolution of a sensor (as well as some complicating features such as the AA-filter and Bayer). For sensors of the same size, the pixel pitch is inversely proportional to the square root of the pixel count. It's all part of pixel density, and I suggest you read this to get into the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density
I'm not suggesting that what you are saying is wrong, what I am saying is that the market understands sensor resolution to mean total pixel count. So if someone wants to talk about linear resolution, he or she should preface comments by clearly stating they are referring to linear resolution to help avoid confusion.

tarjei99

#### InchMetric

##### Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
I’ve 50 plus items listed and have always got all the money. It’s sold for apart from the 10% eBay fee. Uk VAT is 20% I’d have noticed if a huge chunk was missing. I agree it says it, I’ve just never ever seen it in practice. Granted I’ve never sold more than £10k a year. Pretty sure you been to turn over £85k/year before you have to register for vat.
In the US, for maybe a year or so, Ebay hits the buyer with the added sales tax. The seller gets everything (our commission is 12+%, plus a couple percent for their Paypal-ish service). That means buyers are willing to pay less (or end up disappointed at the increased cost). So it's about a 20% hit between buyer and seller compared to a commission-free sale at Fred Miranda (My favorite for buying and selling).

#### AlanF

##### Stay at home
CR Pro
I would suggest those querying resolution read an introductory Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
It begins with:
"Resolution depends on the distance between two distinguishable radiating points. The sections below describe the theoretical estimates of resolution, but the real values may differ. The results below are based on mathematical models of Airy discs, which assumes an adequate level of contrast. In low-contrast systems, the resolution may be much lower than predicted by the theory outlined below. Real optical systems are complex and practical difficulties often increase the distance between distinguishable point sources. The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance r at which the points can be distinguished as individuals."
and then gets mathematical.

RaPhoto

#### dtaylor

##### Canon 5Ds
Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.

I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera.
Neither method of modeling and measuring resolution is strongly related to human impressions of photographs, nor are human impressions a valid way to judge one superior to the other. Given the right subject there's practically no difference between even 50mp FF and 18mp APS-C at 24x36. Given a different subject the difference is subtle. Given a third subject the difference can be quite large and immediately obvious to a casual observer.

I would agree from a photographic perspective that there will only be a subtle difference between 24mp FF and 20mp FF, in general, and all other factors being equal. I would also say that the 24mp sensor is collecting 20% more data and is therefore able to resolve a 2D subject 20% "better" in a strictly technical sense.

Insisting that the 24mp sensor only resolves 9.6% more because we traditionally measure linearly for convenience is missing the forest for the trees. It's also a predictive failure in other applications where an array of sensors is deployed.

Michael Clark

#### Del Paso

##### M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Thanks Alan. Glad someone who actually knows, is supplying us with info.

I am no mathematician, but from a practical point of view, saying that 24 MP is 20% more resolution than 20 MP would lead someone to believe that they will see a big difference. In my experience, you won't. Nor will you see a big difference (if any) between a 24 MP camera compared to a 30 MP camera. In some rather unscientific testing I have done over the years comparing my R in crop mode (12 MP) to 24 MP crop cameras, one would expect to see a huge difference in detail and resolution with the 24 MP sensor, if using the total MP count as your guide. In fact, the difference was small - not enough to see unless zooming in. So, to me, your method gives a much better impression as to what someone should expect when it comes to resolution.

Of course, on this forum all too often, actual user experience is usually ignored. So let the theories and arguments continue.
I'm presently using: 5DIV (30 MP), EOS R (30 MP) and Leica M 240 (24 MP).
Tested all 3 with the same adapted lens, Leica R 180mm Apo Telyt, same heavy tripod, day, hour, motive etc...
Apart from colors, I didn't see any relevant difference in definition or sharpness.

Sporgon

#### AlanF

##### Stay at home
CR Pro
Knowing that for a given size sensor the resolution is proportion
I'm presently using: 5DIV (30 MP), EOS R (30 MP) and Leica M 240 (24 MP).
Tested all 3 with the same adapted lens, Leica R 180mm Apo Telyt, same heavy tripod, day, hour, motive etc...
Apart from colors, I didn't see any relevant difference in definition or sharpness.
The 5DIV and EOS R have basically the same sensor, so you would not expect any difference. They both have AA-filters. The Leica M 240 sensor does not have an AA-filter and so should be inherently sharper and compensate for the lower pixel count.

#### rick1

##### EOS M6 Mark II
Enhanced detail and then ability to crop are directly related. The more the linear resolution, the more you can crop.
If what you are saying is applicable, then your statement before makes no sense. You said that there is negligible difference in sharpness between cameras of different resolutions. Combine that statement with the one quoted in this post, then you are saying there is negligible cropping ability difference between cameras of different resolutions. This is 100% false

#### AlanF

##### Stay at home
CR Pro
Neither method of modeling and measuring resolution is strongly related to human impressions of photographs, nor are human impressions a valid way to judge one superior to the other. Given the right subject there's practically no difference between even 50mp FF and 18mp APS-C at 24x36. Given a different subject the difference is subtle. Given a third subject the difference can be quite large and immediately obvious to a casual observer.

I would agree from a photographic perspective that there will only be a subtle difference between 24mp FF and 20mp FF, in general, and all other factors being equal. I would also say that the 24mp sensor is collecting 20% more data and is therefore able to resolve a 2D subject 20% "better" in a strictly technical sense.

Insisting that the 24mp sensor only resolves 9.6% more because we traditionally measure linearly for convenience is missing the forest for the trees. It's also a predictive failure in other applications where an array of sensors is deployed.
Knowing that resolution varies as the square root of the number of pixels for a given size is very useful practically. Suppose for example that you have a 48 Mpx and a 24 Mpx FF camera. The 48 MPx has sqrt(2) times the resolution, ie 1.4x. This means in practice and all other things being equal, a 500mm lens on the 48 has the same resolution as a 1.4x500mm, ie 700mm, on the 24 Mpx and puts as many pixels on the duck. You know that you have to put a 1.4xTC on the 24 Mpx to give it the reach of a 48 Mpx.

#### AlanF

##### Stay at home
CR Pro
If what you are saying is applicable, then your statement before makes no sense. You said that there is negligible difference in sharpness between cameras of different resolutions. Combine that statement with the one quoted in this post, then you are saying there is negligible cropping ability difference between cameras of different resolutions. This is 100% false
Not at all, I was pointing out in the particular comparison made, you would not expect any difference between the first 2 sensors as they are the same, and the comparison of their resolution with the third was complicated because it doesn't have an AA-filter, which gives it a sharpness boost. What is false about that?