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

[reef58]

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.

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.

 

[canonmike]

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.

No offense taken. Thx for your input. Totally agree.....

 

[unfocused]

...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.

I keep checking my mail box, but the check from Canon never seems to arrive.

 

[Ozarker]

I keep checking my mail box, but the check from Canon never seems to arrive.

I've been hoping to get your forwarding address. Canon keeps sending your commission checks to me.

 

[unfocused]

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.

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.

 

[unfocused]

I've been hoping to get your forwarding address. Canon keeps sending your commission checks to me.

Keep them. You probably need them more than I do.

 

[MonsMeg]

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.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

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.

 

[John Wilde]

I guess I was sort of hoping with the Sony A1 doing 'everything', Canon was going to try and compete.

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.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

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.

 

[Alan B]

Here is what 30fps looks like on the R3. Taken by Atiba Jefferson at the Olympics

 

[AEWest]

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.

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.

 

[MonsMeg]

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.

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?

 

[unfocused]

Here is what 30fps looks like on the R3. Taken by Atiba Jefferson at the Olympics

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.

Of course video files are usually in a different format, but you could easily shoot in raw or jpg and edit in post and then merge frames, which Photoshop is already set up to do. Would be a lot more time consuming I know, but if your primary interest is in the stills and the video is secondary, it seems like an option.

 

[MonsMeg]

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.

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).

 

[AlanF]

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.

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.

 

[Ozarker]

. I'm sure you weren't fooled for a second by talk of a 30MP sensor for the R3......or were you? Mmm?

Certainly not fooled that this is supposed to compete with the Sony you think it should, even at 30mp.

 

[SteveC]

”delenda”

My knowledge of Latin grammar is poor. I know that Cato used to say "delenda" but he was saying "Carthage must be destroyed."

kaihp is not trying to say "Canon must be destroyed" as an demand/call to action, but rather "Canon will be destroyed" (or more loosely...Canon is d**med) and for all I know that might actually call for the "-am" ending.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

You could express that same relationship in terms of area where the numerical differences would be 2x but the lens/teleconverter choices would be the same. We use the linear form because it is convenient for mental computation, and because it bypasses the human tendency to hear "twice as much resolution" and subsequently multiply a linear value by 2x instead of the area. But the linear form is not resolution. It is a way of modeling resolution and predicting certain things related to resolution. It's no more or less valid than area in your use case.

I would say that if you're talking about data captured then it's more useful to treat the sensor as the 2D object which it is. Absent the linear qualification, if you ask me the resolution difference between 24mp and 20mp as a percentage the answer is going to be 20%.

Let's get down to it: this debate exists in general in the photographic community because someone with a shiny new camera with more pixels wants to hear the bigger number (area), while someone who has an older model with fewer pixels wants to hear the smaller number (linear). Which is why I explicitly pointed out that none of this directly relates to human impressions of a photograph. Resolution is relevant and can be important in some circumstances. But there are so many factors at play that you can literally have a situation where a casual observer thinks a 16x20 8mp print is sharper and more detailed than a 16x20 24mp print.

tl;dr - The extra 4mp in the R3 will give a bit more room to crop or enlarge. It's not a dramatic improvement but it is an improvement while still keeping a sports camera fast and file sizes relatively small.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

The dimensionality is literally, physically 2. The traditional test is 1 for convenience, not because the sensor is a single line like in a flatbed scanner. Note that the traditional lp/mm test is performed twice in two different orientations any time anyone really wants to be accurate about the resolving power of an optical system. Which gets to the heart of what I'm trying to communicate.