The R5 offers JPEG outputs of varying sizes. Is the pro market shooting JPEG? Is there a reason why an M size image could not be used when speed is required and an L size image used when higher resolution is required? When presented with these options it does not seem like in practice high MP would slow anything down with correct settings. Can you please explain the issue?I can definitely understand why the R3 is 24 MP, the time it takes to process images on my 18MP vs 32MP cameras is a very big difference. The R3 market needs to process and send the photos to their company as quickly as possible.
There is no such thing as common wisdom on this forum. Of the 1D cameras, only the X and X III have had a pair of identical card slots.It seemed that common wisdom on this forum was that pros “need” two identical cards. If Canon designed the R3 for pros, they either didn’t know about this preference or didn’t think it was worth following.
*rummages through desk looking for can of troll spray*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.
Hopefully you didn't take what I said the wrong way. I was merely stating if it makes you happy and you can afford it, go for it.I am a firm believer in buying what you want, not necessarily what you need, budget constraints, if any, being the limiting factor.....good luck with your YT channel.
This little side discussion reminds me that sometimes its worth just the joy of owning a well-made object. I think we Americans find it particularly difficult to just appreciate something for what it is without rationalizing our need for it. Sometimes just owning a beautifully made camera or lens, whether or not we actually need all its features, is money well spent.Hopefully you didn't take what I said the wrong way. I was merely stating if it makes you happy and you can afford it, go for it.
That's the coming R1. R3 is not meant to be a direct competitor. You know that, so it is strange that you pretend not to know it. Is a pretender the same as a poser? Yup. Any fool knows this.As a wildlife photographer who's been using 1 Series for several years, and just getting the R5 and discovering what 45mp can do, I really don't see a wildlife need for effectively an R6 in a pro body. Canon used to do 2 flavours of 1 series, low res for sports and hi-res for fashion / wildlife etc. I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.
I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.
I know, but my intention was a bit different. I should have been more explicit...Knowing that for a given size sensor the resolution is proportion
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.
Although for many the R3 surpasses the 1DX3 - likely higher mp, higher framerate, better sensor, better autofocus, and access to RF as well as EF lenses.In their April press release Canon wrote that the R3 is "positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III cameras." That's why it's called an R3, not an R1.
Ah! Deep joy, the gentleman with 5,000+ posts on this site wades in. Pretenders pretend, posers pose. The two are fundamentally different. QED. On a more useful note, you seem very sure of what the R1 'is'. Could you enlighten us on your ability to see the future even beyond the R3. I'm sure you weren't fooled for a second by talk of a 30MP sensor for the R3......or were you? Mmm?That's the coming R1. R3 is not meant to be a direct competitor. You know that, so it is strange that you pretend not to know it. Is a pretender the same as a poser? Yup. Any fool knows this.
This raises a question for me. If you can shoot stills at 30fps and most video is shot at 24-30fps, I wonder what the practical difference is. Now, from the video I see some stuttering, which I assume is because he was not shooting at the customary 2x the frame rate, but rather at a much faster shutter speed in order to capture sharp stills. Still, it's not that noticeable and could certainly be used as a short clip without most people noticing.Here is what 30fps looks like on the R3. Taken by Atiba Jefferson at the Olympics
Hi John. Yes, I agree with you "positioned squarely between" and while it's not ALL about megapixels: R5 (45MP) and 1Dxiii (20MP), somehow 24MP doesn't feel quite so "squarely between", sure there are other features but likely of less use to wildlife photographers than the MP's (purely a personal view).In their April press release Canon wrote that the R3 is "positioned squarely between the EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III cameras." That's why it's called an R3, not an R1.
Fair enough. The difference between 24 and 30 MPx is only 12%, and given that the new AA-filters from Canon are not as harsh as the old, a new 24mm would be similar enough to the old 5DIV. The resolutions of the 5DIV and R sensors have been measured by optyczne.pl https://www.optyczne.pl/413.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/351.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV_Rozdzielczość.html and appear to be very similar.I know, but my intention was a bit different. I should have been more explicit...
What I meant, was that "only" 24 MP for the R3 are no reason to expect "low" definition. A better or a lack of AA filter, a new and improved sensor could lead to higher quality pictures, better than 24 MP imply.
By the way, according to TDP, the R's sensor seems to be a bit less "sharp" than the 5DIV's.