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

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,743
1,307
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

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,743
1,307
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.
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,743
1,307
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.
Feathers of a duck are 3D objects projected onto a 2D space in a camera. How well they can be resolved relates to how many data points are captured in two dimensions. It's easier to use just one dimension when computing focal lengths and print sizes. But it's not more valid to do so. In fact, it would be less valid under certain circumstances. This would be unavoidably apparent if any cameras had a pixel shape or CFA arrangement which resulted in more detail along one dimension than along the other.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,347
Antiques are second hand, and in the UK antiques' dealers have a special scheme of adding VAT to the difference between their buying and selling price. On buying from antiques auctions, you pay VAT on the commission you pay to the auction house, but not the item. If you have a personal item that you sell later at a profit, then you should pay capital gains tax on the profit if you exceed your tax limit. Doesn't affect me as everything I buy plummets in price. What a thread this is: free advice on your tax affairs as well as how to assess resolution. I think there is some mention of an R3.
That's why it's called a "value added tax" rather than a "sales tax", no? It's actually a very different concept.

As I understand it, if I am a widget manufacturer, I buy raw materials (the prices of which will include VAT), work on them and perhaps sell for double the price of the raw materials. I must add in tax on my increase in the value of the materials in turning them into widgets. Or alternatively, I include and charge VAT on the full price but get to deduct the VAT I paid for the raw materials. Either way, it must be a bookkeeping nightmare, but at least in principle it's impossible to evade the tax by pretending to be "wholesale." A US sales tax doesn't get applied until a retail sale.
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,654
596
No it costs £4300. We don’t use us$. You can’t just convert our prices to $ either. Ours includes sales tax at 20%, theirs don’t. That’s £3583 without tax. At today’s rate that’s $4970.
20%...OUCH!!

And I've been compiling about 10% sales tax down here in the New Orleans area.

Ok, I"m still complaining about it, but am glad I don't have 20%!!!
:O

C
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,654
596
Ebay charges sales tax these days.
Many smaller, single stores online do not collect sales tax.

Of course, most states ask you at EOY to self report these so you can pay a "use tax".

I'm sure everyone does this. [rolls eyes]
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,654
596
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."
OUCH!!

WTF state is this that assumes you buy things online?

If you didn't buy online from places that didn't collect sales tax, how do you prove a negative?
 

Atlasman

EOS R5
CR Pro
May 14, 2020
86
95
I am a big believer in buying what makes you feel creative. Some folks like film, some like Leicas. If it gets you out to shoot and you enjoy it then it is money well spent. I am working on a documentary of a place I own for my YouTube channel. I have 100 subs and who knows maybe in 10 years I may have 1000. If one of them enjoys the documentary and I enjoy making it then I have succeeded. That being said I have some paid work which is another kettle of fish. I need something there that works and I am familiar with.
Nothing like a new shinny toy for bring in a flood of motivation.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,423
4,075
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
OUCH!!

WTF state is this that assumes you buy things online?

If you didn't buy online from places that didn't collect sales tax, how do you prove a negative?
Super easy.

No one pays cash online. You pay with a card or through a third party like Pay Pal. Therefore, there is a record of all your online purchases and it's easy to see which ones collected sales taxes and which ones didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

MonsMeg

I'm New Here
Jul 30, 2021
22
11
Certainly not fooled that this is supposed to compete with the Sony you think it should, even at 30mp.
Oh dear! One thing at a time CanonFanBoy. Firstly you were going to do something useful and illuminate this group on what the R1 'is', (you seem strangely quiet). Secondly you were no doubt going to debate your earlier 'pretend' vs 'pose' point but I guess you concede that one (good move). Now you seem to be making the same mistake again and when I said 'hoped' have now (incorrectly) used your word 'supposed' (to compete with the Sony camera). We can all 'hope'. Certainly I 'hope' you'll buy a dictionary dear boy.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,593
2,956
Oh dear! One thing at a time CanonFanBoy. Firstly you were going to do something useful and illuminate this group on what the R1 'is', (you seem strangely quiet). Secondly you were no doubt going to debate your earlier 'pretend' vs 'pose' point but I guess you concede that one (good move). Now you seem to be making the same mistake again and when I said 'hoped' have now (incorrectly) used your word 'supposed' (to compete with the Sony camera). We can all 'hope'. Certainly I 'hope' you'll buy a dictionary dear boy.
Wow, simply...wow. You really come off as a pompous twat here Meg. Does it have to be so judgmental and disdainful? I guess the internet allows it so you go whole hog, right? Sure I name called and you could see that as hypocrisy but I had to call out your post as being pretty petty. CFB has a reputation for being civil and fair, you not so much.
 

Ian K

EOS 90D
Jul 20, 2016
102
69
Surely secondhand goods are exempt from VAT?

PS some types of retailer list goods without VAT, it's pretty common for wine merchants as VAT may not be applied if you're buying for storage rather than delivery.
Company to company sales are vat exempt if they’re both vat registered. Sort of. As someone said in different way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kaihp

MonsMeg

I'm New Here
Jul 30, 2021
22
11
Wow, simply...wow. You really come off as a pompous twat here Meg. Does it have to be so judgmental and disdainful? I guess the internet allows it so you go whole hog, right? Sure I name called and you could see that as hypocrisy but I had to call out your post as being pretty petty. CFB has a reputation for being civil and fair, you not so much.
Civil and fair, are you sure? I'm not the one using (any) rude words like "fool" and "pompous twat".
 
  • Like
Reactions: digigal

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,909
12,237
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.
I have already posted that resolution is measured twice in different orientations, which can show astigmatism.
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.
 

Ian K

EOS 90D
Jul 20, 2016
102
69
20%...OUCH!!

And I've been compiling about 10% sales tax down here in the New Orleans area.

Ok, I"m still complaining about it, but am glad I don't have 20%!!!
:O

C
Yup. Country wide. We do get free health care too. It kind of valences out. The least I remember it being is 15%, mostly 17.5%. Currently 20% since the financial crisis.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,909
12,237
Feathers of a duck are 3D objects projected onto a 2D space in a camera. How well they can be resolved relates to how many data points are captured in two dimensions. It's easier to use just one dimension when computing focal lengths and print sizes. But it's not more valid to do so. In fact, it would be less valid under certain circumstances. This would be unavoidably apparent if any cameras had a pixel shape or CFA arrangement which resulted in more detail along one dimension than along the other.
The resolution of 3-dimensional objects is central to my field of work, the structure of proteins determined by X-ray crystallography and cryoem. It is a linear 1-D measurement; nanometres, nm (or Å) - see https://proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Resolution

As I referred you to earlier, "(optical) Resolution depends on the distance between two distinguishable radiating points." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution For X-ray crystallography of 3D objects, resolution is the smallest distance between crystal lattice planes that is resolved. In cryo-electron microscopy, the data are collected on a sensor just like in photography. The attainable resolution similarly depends on the pixel size. Just as in photography, the Nyquist theorem specifies that the theoretically attainable resolution is limited to twice the pixel size. What determines the size of a pixel is the square root of the number of pixels - double the number of pixels and the attainable resolution from the Nyquist theorem increases by 1.4x, not 2x.

PS, when it comes to the effect of number of data points on increased precision, that also scales as the square root of the number of points: double the number of points, precision is improved by 1.4x, not 2x.
 
Last edited:

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
749
511
39
Philadelphia
You do know Sony release a 12mp camera just last year and it is the interest darling. There is a reason for 20mp class cameras. They fill a need. The R5 at 45mp also exists.
yeah they made a 12mp camera that most if not all consumers bought mostly for video. If that is the case the c70 is an 8MP camera.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,685
4,118
Irving, Texas
Oh dear! One thing at a time CanonFanBoy. Firstly you were going to do something useful and illuminate this group on what the R1 'is', (you seem strangely quiet). Secondly you were no doubt going to debate your earlier 'pretend' vs 'pose' point but I guess you concede that one (good move). Now you seem to be making the same mistake again and when I said 'hoped' have now (incorrectly) used your word 'supposed' (to compete with the Sony camera). We can all 'hope'. Certainly I 'hope' you'll buy a dictionary dear boy.
Actually, you wanted me to illuminate. As dominant as you may be, I don't obey your riding crop.

There was no debate regarding pose vs pretend. Same thing.

Yup, you hoped the R3 would compete with the Sony. Really, you didn't. That's just your troll talking point.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
159
187
OUCH!!

WTF state is this that assumes you buy things online?

If you didn't buy online from places that didn't collect sales tax, how do you prove a negative?
The key is that these few tax-hungry states require you to file an annual report and sign under oath and with criminal penalties for lying, swaeaiung as to your actual unpaid sales taxes, or paying them their required minimum. Most states with a few notable exceptions don't do anything, including go after individuals (or it would be big news).
 
  • Like
Reactions: VegasCameraGuy