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

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
127
111
An R6 with a built-in battery grip.
Well done Canon!

We need a mirrorless pro body with at least 45 mpix and at least 15fps.
How hard is that? Do I speak japanese?
Who wants an R6 in a pro body? Yeah, eye controlled autofocus.. Yeey!

C’mon...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marolou

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
723
482
39
Philadelphia
The R3 very much feels like how the R was to the R5/R6. Is Canon’s opportunity to test some concepts for a pro-body e.g size, button placement, flip screen and eye controlled autofocus. Very much feels that there will be no MKII version of this camera, just like the original EOS3. Having said that I still think that it will be a great camera to use, with some trade offs, just like the R.

Now that we know most of the specifications and assuming that the 24mp sensor is correct, what are people’s feeling on price? My guess that in US market we are going to see annouced at $5499, that will give space for Canon to price an eventual R1 at $6899.
A proto
He is still focusing on stutter speed.
the guy can shoot whataver way he wants as long as he gets the shots and look good. A lot of real world real life photogs arent settings nazis. Get the shot and keep it moving.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,678
11,673
People want 30 fps for stills, but 24 fps for movies, according to threads here. That reminds me a bit of folks who put their thermostats on 68 in the summer and 78 in the winter.
That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,154
855
Davidson, NC
My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,657
4,082
Irving, Texas
My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,805
4,213
That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.
In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that we did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,678
11,673
In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that we did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.
My year was 1968-69 in a crummy building with no dehumidification in the summer and huge heat loss in the winter. Modern labs are superb. My present one is a work of art as well as needing very complex programming to run the heating and airflow.
 

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
356
491
www.instagram.com
I don't think this is firmware related but sensor hardware architecture related.

1) This kind of sensors with multiple raw sizes like for example 7D, 5D mark II, 5D mark III used to have, do not exist anymore. Except the recent cameras like 6D mark II for example, that still use old sensors (single gain), this camera still have multiple raw resolutions, but worse dynamic range.
Since they added dual gain to sensors (since 1D X mark II), multiple resolutions in RAW mode have disappeared.
So until this moment you either have multiple raw resolution or better dynamic range, you cannot have both.

2) Also confirmed by electron microscopy analysis of a single gain sensor (1D X)
"additional transistor connecting FD in three rows is used for binning"

3) The resolution of raw video mode of cameras like R5 is only in the 8K mode not also in 4K mode. The 8K mode is a 1:1 pixel read of the sensor at 16:9 aspect ratio, so there are only some skipped rows at the botton and top of the sensor, there is no binning involved.

--
But is still possible to have good multiple resolutions in JPEG mode, this is good enough for sport photographers. For example Sony A1 (50Mpx) can shot JPEG at 21 and 12 Mpx. Canon R5 (45Mpx) can shot JPEG at 22, 12 and 4 Mpx.

Yes, sensor-based but resolution is selectable in firmware. The Leica M11 is rumored to have a new 60mp BSI sensor that will shoot in three resolution modes. And since Canon is designing their own new BSI sensor, they may have found a way around any downsides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harrylarsen

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,916
822
I know several people, myself included, who decided not to upgrade to the 1DX3 because it didn't offer a resolution bump.

So there's a selection bias in that statement. Customers might have been happy with 20MP but other potential customers were lost.
Yes, true.
 

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
127
111
So you pay 6000 for a R6 + 10fps extra ... Whatever rocks your boat peeps!

If it is definitely 24 mpix, I’ll wait for the R1 ... but my patience is being tested on a scale beyond belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VegasCameraGuy
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
For someone really requiring resolution - and that means an output size large enough to see that increase, sensor size wins every time. As has been mentioned in other treads, virtually no one is outputting at that kind of size, and for those that do it will be the exception not the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,678
11,673
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
It does outresolve the R5 with a 3.76µ pixel pitch compared with 4.39µ.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS R5
Feb 14, 2018
1,241
1,105
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
The lens selection for GFX is quite limited though, and overall cost will still be much higher than an R5 with a EF trinity.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,154
855
Davidson, NC
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
Yes, I could get a lens or two and still be under $10,000. For my purposes it definitely seems a better choice than getting into the RF cameras. But it would be such a splurge for my limited use that I'll really have to be in the right mood to buy (mainly a dreary one: deciding that life is too short to forego having the camera, and why should I care about having an extra $10K in my estate). I would still use my Canon gear as much as ever for most things. The 100S would be for additional landscape shooting mostly. A Zeiss monochrome camera might be a good choice for that instead. Or maybe just get the 24mm TS-E for my inner desire to be Ansel Adams. I realize I'm thinking of compensating myself for not traveling since March 12, 2020, using the money I would have spent. I have used photography as a way to try to stay sane during this time, and have shot locally. I get assignments to shoot for the neighborhood newsletter, and those can be fun, like shooting the doll houses made by a woman down the street. I may be the third best photographer in the neighborhood. My only anticipated big purchase will be when the new larger iMac comes out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy