Boys, you are 19 pages late to the party. I got corrected immediately by AlanFCorrect, the subject should be in the nominative case. This is a common error, presumably people are confusing the abbreviated "... delenda est" with the longer "ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam", where the indirect construction requires accusative. O tempora, o mores!
I believe @AlanF is right. The number of pixels here is just a number of data samples. Its relation to resolution depends on dimensionality d of the data we capture.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.
E-tempora, e-mores!O tempora, o mores!
Well, there is still a hope [for you that] Canon will go the Ford's way: "[...] they could be trying to promise less and deliver more to help boost sales."When Nikon launches a 45mpix cam at the same time you launch a 25mpix cam, you know you are doing something seriously wrong. Let’s hope this is a rumor...
Is the Sony A9 II 45 MP? Last time I checked it was still 24.Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45?
Thanks for putting this into general context. To sum up, if your interest is knowing the number of data points or colloquially how many pixels you have on a duck, then what matters is the number of pixels in your sensor and also the focal length of your lens squared. But, if you are interested in the information content of those data points, or in practical terms whether you can resolve the individual feathers of the duck, then that scales with the square root of the number of pixels or the focal length of the lens.I believe @AlanF is right. The number of pixels here is just a number of data samples. Its relation to resolution depends on dimensionality d of the data we capture.
In general, it's the dth root of the number of samples (and so the square one in our two dimensional case).
Some more affectionate statisticians (but still very serious ones!) call this relation the curse of dimensionality.
Just to bring this back to the thread topic, the EXIF on the images states the resolution as 6000 horizontal by 4000 vertical. It is just that this is usually stated as 6000x4000 so people do the maths and result in 24MP. (Admittedly, it is a useful number to rank cameras/sensor technology.) When thinking about "how many pixels you have on a duck" I also prefer the linear measure, as it is easier to work out the impact on the lens focal length. When comparing 45MP vs 24MP that means ~2:1, so 1.4 linear. Which means I can put the same number of pixels on a duck with 400mm rather than 560mm.Thanks for putting this into general context. To sum up, if your interest is knowing the number of data points or colloquially how many pixels you have on a duck, then what matters is the number of pixels in your sensor and also the focal length of your lens squared. But, if you are interested in the information content of those data points, or in practical terms whether you can resolve the individual feathers of the duck, then that scales with the square root of the number of pixels or the focal length of the lens.
I'm sure they will, but ASAP = As Soon as Possible. For some reason, perhaps there are supply issues or waiting for some R&D breakthrough, but Canon obviously don't think it is possible yet to deliver a camera to that spec that will sell.@ CANON: Please give us a HIGH RES MIRRORLESS PRO BODY! ASAP!
Good information, unfocused. Thanks for reminding me why I mostly use B&H. My state's sales tax is 8%. I have not applied for an Adorama Synchrony bank card, which I may eventually do but I hate having a wallet full of Synchrony CC's. Lowe's (Synchrony), Harbor Freight(Synchrony), B&H(Synchrony). I never carry a balance on my cards, PayBoo or otherwise but rather, pay the card off the day I receive the item, if purchased on line, so I never incur any finance charges, which, as you have pointed out, are excessive. There is no longer any advantage in using the Lowe's card, which offers a 5% discount on purchases, since they started offering a 10% military discount. You get one or the other, not both. Only reason for the HF card is they offered a one time 30% discount on any purchase made in store that day, if you would open a HF (Synchrony) account. Mathematically, it would certainly make sense to obtain an Adorama card as well but for now, I have more than enough cards to keep up with. I should add that my purchasing experience(s) at both B&H as well as Adorama have been pleasant ones. And Samy's and Robert's and Camera Canada and Cameta and Hunt's, etc. Thanks again for your input.For a direct comparison: B&H credits the sales tax back on purchases; Adorama offers a 5% rebate on purchases plus a rewards point system that is an additional 1% credit. At times, on specific items, Adorama ups the reward points.
Both use store cards issued by Synchrony Bank. Both offer an option to make payments interest free for a specified time period, usually six months, instead of the rebates. Both charge the same interest rate if you don't pay it off immediately, which is somewhere north of 20% interest, so you don't want to use the cards unless you can pay it off immediately or unless you need the interest-free period to pay it off (but you lose the savings). If you do need the interest free financing, I recommend Best Buy, which generally offers longer terms -- sometimes up to two years on major purchases.
So, if your state sales tax is less than 6%, you save money with Adorama. Over 6% you save money with B&H. But, to keep it in perspective, you might want to do the math. Say your state charges 7.5% sales tax, a 1.5% difference between B&H and Adorama. If the R3 is $6,000 that 1.5% difference between Adorama and B&H would amount to a grand total of $90. Not a huge difference on a $6,000 purchase.
One note of caution. If you are considering a purchase, it's best to apply for the cards in advance. With Adorama I had no problem getting immediate credit approval and using the card, with B&H I had to wait for the card to come in the mail because I could not check out without having the CVC which they would not provide over the phone.
I am in 100% agreement with you, except that the previous was not off topic as I did post earlier:Just to bring this back to the thread topic, the EXIF on the images states the resolution as 6000 horizontal by 4000 vertical. It is just that this is usually stated as 6000x4000 so people do the maths and result in 24MP. (Admittedly, it is a useful number to rank cameras/sensor technology.) When thinking about "how many pixels you have on a duck" I also prefer the linear measure, as it is easier to work out the impact on the lens focal length. When comparing 45MP vs 24MP that means ~2:1, so 1.4 linear. Which means I can put the same number of pixels on a duck with 400mm rather than 560mm.
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.
In the UK it’s illegal, on a retail site, to show prices that don’t include taxes. Retailers are not allowed to simply add them at the checkout.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).
I sell a self-published book on eBay. They add sales tax on top of my price to sales in the USA. PayPal is no longer involved except that everyone still pays through them and they still get their cut. It's much easier for me selling electronic versions of my books on Amazon.In the UK it’s illegal, on a retail site, to show prices that don’t include taxes. Retailers are not allowed to simply add them at the checkout.
My items on eBay appear at the price I set and people pay that price. I’ve checked using a separate account, all the way to checkout.
eBay say in the UK that VAT is included, just as they do in the US. However, for me, a private seller under the VAT threshold they don’t seem to. Their fee is now 12.5% and PayPal are no longer involved. I get the rest. Perhaps business sellers, or those who go over the VAT threshold are charged more. But me, selling things I no longer want, it doesn’t appear to be the case.
Get a grip.Of course Canon will pay vloggers (in money/goods/trips) to state this camera is epic. But the only right thing to do here is: WAIT. For an R1 to be announced with 45 mpix at least. Again: I just don’t get it. Why 24mpix when everyone else is doing 45? Canon is starting to be the weakest kid in class now ... they are always late and running behind. I don’t care whatever (paid) nonsense will be posted here as a reaction, but the best thing to do for me and a lot of other pro’s is: WAIT. Unfortunately.
A point very well made, Navastronia. A miracle indeed. But now I have to ask myself, an individual who no longer shoots professionally but loves photography and new tech, "Should I spend $5-6k on a miracle R3, an A1, a Z whatever, just so I can take a better photo of my neighbor's cat(s), looking for prey, raiding my back yard bird feeder?" My R6 coupled to my RF 800 F11 and, in fact my 6Dii body or even my 7D + EF 500 F4 are quite capable of capturing that fleeting moment with perfectly acceptable photos. So, again, I will have to ask myself, "what can the R3 add to this experience?" Thirty FPS of the same moment? Eye controlled auto focus of the cat's eye, shining like a diamond in a goats ass? Will this new body provide a noticeably improved photographic experience for me to pull out my credit card? Perhaps! I hope to see the early hands on reports from actual Olympic use, so I might make a more informed pre-order decision. So, Canon, please let them share some of the miracle of the R3, so we can see the magic at work.I came across a quote from Modest Mouse's Isaac Brock today:
"I quit trying to find my favorite guitar. All the precious pairing of instruments and amps is just time spent not writing"This made me think of CR and how we have 25 pages of arguing over R3 minutiae, and how that time would be better spent taking photos. I know full-well that I've contributed to these threads in the past, but spending lockdown last year learning to shoot film with a low-end rangefinder, I just can't see a reason to dip back into that pool. Taking 150 years of photography into account, every digital camera on the market in 2021 is kind of a miracle, including the R3, regardless of whether it has 24 MP or 30 MP.