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

tapanit

.
CR Pro
Jul 17, 2012
118
62
I don't want to pick on you since you are "new here." But, this talk about Canon putting a different sensor in for the Olympics...limiting the resolution available to Olympic photographers...testing the sensor at the Olympics before making a final decision...manipulating the EXIF data...etc. etc., is just fantasy land.

It is far too late to be making any changes in the camera, especially something major like sensor resolution. Canon is not going to do anything funky to the camera before handing it out to Olympic photographers. One of the main purposes of making it available is to compile a nice selection of photos that Canon can use in marketing the camera. That means, what the camera is today is what it will be when it is released. The only thing that's going to change would be if the users found some issue that required a firmware adjustment.
Without any inside information on Canon's logistics, I tend to believe it's already too late to make even firmware changes, if they're going to announce it in September and have it actually available soon after that. An updated firmware could be published and made downloadable at the same time, but by now there must already be cameras in boxes waiting to be shipped and their firmware obviously cannot be changed any more.

I also agree that the camera in the hands of testers now must have essentially final firmware. I can just barely imagine Canon doing a custom tester firmware with no other changes than fake exif data for the resolution, but even that is really stretching it.

So I guess the resolution is indeed 6000x4000 pixels. Which presumably means 4K video will be cropped, 1.04x with oversampling from 5760 pixel width (6K) or 1.56x raw.

I must, however, admit a small voice in my head telling me that those exif reports are apparently only based on a chrome plugin, which may not be reliable...
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
Maybe it is so low because Canon are trying to evade some new tax on megapixels :oops: :p
The EU already had a tax on video cameras that can shoot longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. So a megapixel tax might not be unthinkable, because with a lot of megapixels you can make a high quality copy of documents and prints and of course copy machines are taxed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaihp

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,962
1,316
The EU already had a tax on video cameras that can shoot longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. So a megapixel tax might not be unthinkable, because with a lot of megapixels you can make a high quality copy of documents and prints and of course copy machines are taxed.
You are joking right? Because taxes already apply plus document copies can be made with flatbed scanners much easier and cheaper.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,726
2,135
Hamburg, Germany
The EU already had a tax on video cameras that can shoot longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. So a megapixel tax might not be unthinkable, because with a lot of megapixels you can make a high quality copy of documents and prints and of course copy machines are taxed.
Relax, it was a joke. You seem to think taxes just exist to annoy people.

There will not be a megapixel tax, as there is no need to incentivize people to shoot with lower resolutions. As was already pointed out, multiplying documents can be done a whole lot easier than with cameras.

Just as there is no point anymore in the recording length tax, which is why it also does not exist anymore. As far as I know, it came from the time when camcorders could be used to easily record and copy movies and TV, which certain lobbying groups have an interest in discouraging.

As for the rain water, as far as I'm aware that is a control tax to discourage people from sealing all their property and thereby increase the public cost of canalization.

The market is poor at accounting for public or long term cost, hence taxes exist to at least partially discourage certain behaviors without banning them.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,716
Relax, it was a joke. You seem to think taxes just exist to annoy people.

There will not be a megapixel tax, as there is no need to incentivize people to shoot with lower resolutions. As was already pointed out, multiplying documents can be done a whole lot easier than with cameras.

Just as there is no point anymore in the recording length tax, which is why it also does not exist anymore. As far as I know, it came from the time when camcorders could be used to easily record and copy movies and TV, which certain lobbying groups have an interest in discouraging.

As for the rain water, as far as I'm aware that is a control tax to discourage people from sealing all their property and thereby increase the public cost of canalization.

The market is poor at accounting for public or long term cost, hence taxes exist to at least partially discourage certain behaviors without banning them.
There are those of us who believe that taxes are necessary and worthwhile to provide public services and to support those who are less fortunate than ourselves. And that group tends to support the aims of the EU in levelling up countries and their citizens (or in my case subjects). And, as you imply, taxes on things like carbon dioxide emission are there to promote the common good.
 
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
There are those of us who believe that taxes are necessary and worthwhile to provide public services and to support those who are less fortunate than ourselves. And that group tends to support the aims of the EU in levelling up countries and their citizens (or in my case subjects). And, as you imply, taxation on things like carbon dioxide emission are there to promote the common good.
Those copyright taxes were there to compensate copyright holders for copyright violations. So on every recording, storage or printing device there was a tax, even if you did not use that device for copyright violations. That always made me very angry, because it meant that all law abiding people had to pay a part of the fines for copyright violations. Many years ago drivers in the EU even made flatbed scanners much slower than in the US to make it more difficult to scan a whole book for example. So if you installed a driver from the US for example, your scanner suddenly was much faster. I hate it to be treated as a criminal before I really have committed a crime. Imagine instead of finding out who drives too fast the police would just send very car owner a $10 fine for speeding.

And are there people who are even less fortunate than photographers who have learned that Canon will likely stop producing DSLRs? :)
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,716
Those copyright taxes were there to compensate copyright holders for copyright violations. So on every recording, storage or printing device there was a tax, even if you did not use that device for copyright violations. That always made me very angry, because it meant that all law abiding people had to pay a part of the fines for copyright violations. Many years ago drivers in the EU even made flatbed scanners much slower than in the US to make it more difficult to scan a whole book for example. So if you installed a driver from the US for example, your scanner suddenly was much faster. I hate it to be treated as a criminal before I really have committed a crime. Imagine instead of finding out who drives too fast the police would just send very car owner a $10 fine for speeding.

And are there people who are even less fortunate than photographers who have learned that Canon will likely stop producing DSLRs? :)
The taxes are imposed by individual countries and not the EU. Germany, your country, was the first to apply them in 1965. After a consultation began in 2008, Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive allowed EU member states to introduce private copying exemptions to copyright infringement in their respective countries. However, the implementation of this provision across Europe is quite different. Some countries like the UK (during and after membership of the EU) and Ireland do not have copyright levy schemes at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OskarB

Stig Nygaard

EOS 7D II, Powershot G5 X II & Olympus TG-5
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
131
229
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:

Anyway, as we have learned, the photographer Jeff Cable - who is testing the camera and whose photos have served to know the supposed resolution - ensures that the R3 has more than 24 megapixels. If it is true or just a piece of information to mislead, we will surely know it in a short time.

Though, it it is unclear for me where this information/claim comes from.

I think already I have mentioned that if the camera is higher resolution, but offers option to shot in 20-24mp, Jeff Cable would probably choose the lower resolution mode. From an old "wishlist" on Jeff Cable's blog:

* User selectable image resolution

Many of the newer DSLR and mirrorless cameras are offering really high resolutions, in the 40MP to 70MP range. For most of my photography, I don't need or even want that type of resolution. But I would love to have the choice to shoot at various resolutions, depending on what I am capturing. I would love to have a camera that would let me shoot anywhere from 20MP to 50MP, and make it use selectable.
( http://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/01/my-wish-list-for-next-canon.html )
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,739
Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:



Though, it it is unclear for me where this information/claim comes from.

I think already I have mentioned that if the camera is higher resolution, but offers option to shot in 20-24mp, Jeff Cable would probably choose the lower resolution mode. From an old "wishlist" on Jeff Cable's blog:


( http://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/01/my-wish-list-for-next-canon.html )
Great link Stig!
 

reef58

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 16, 2016
423
409
North Carolina
youtu.be
Sorry, I don't know if this already have been posted (Haven't read all 34 pages of comments), but a Google translation of last paragraph on https://www.photolari.com/la-canon-eos-r3-se-deja-ver-y-mucho-en-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-tokio/ says:



Though, it it is unclear for me where this information/claim comes from.

I think already I have mentioned that if the camera is higher resolution, but offers option to shot in 20-24mp, Jeff Cable would probably choose the lower resolution mode. From an old "wishlist" on Jeff Cable's blog:


( http://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/01/my-wish-list-for-next-canon.html )
Wholly mackerel if that is true.

Maybe the resolution "trick" Cable has referenced is shooting at a lower mp in this case 24?
 
Last edited:

lethiferous

EOS M50
Nov 3, 2020
30
15
Finally those not willing to accept the truth can stop their wishful thinking. The resolution trick is simple, its called pixel shift. Everyone has it just except Canon and Nikon. Even the 10 Pentax users have pixel shift.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,726
2,135
Hamburg, Germany
Just the one from DPR itself:
"DPReview can confirm the maximum resolution of files coming straight out of Canon EOS R3 cameras being used at the Olympics is 6000 x 4000 pixels, meaning the sensor inside is 24MP. File sizes come in between 14MB and 16MB."

So not really confirmation of the sensor resolution at all. Clearly those are JPEGs that are being talked about, as the file size of 24 MP RAWs from my 80D sits between 20 and 35 MB. Or are they shooting some super lossy variant of CRAW? Edit: I checked and underestimated the potential of CRAW. Apparently those file size reductions sound about right. Now, I don't know if CRAW might come with downsizing options like the old mRAW and sRAW options now. If it doesn't, like on the current bodies, that does indeed sound like confirmation after all...

While 24 most likely is the the right MP count, the JPEGs coming out of the camera are rather poor proof of it. As was mentioned multiple times, Canon can easily limit those in firmware.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kaihp and FrenchFry

Marximusprime

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 18, 2018
60
61
"DPReview can confirm the maximum resolution of files coming straight out of Canon EOS R3 cameras being used at the Olympics is 6000 x 4000 pixels, meaning the sensor inside is 24MP. File sizes come in between 14MB and 16MB."

So not really confirmation of the sensor resolution at all. Clearly those are JPEGs that are being talked about, as the file size of 24 MP RAWs from my 80D sits between 20 and 35 MB. Or are they shooting some super lossy variant of CRAW? Edit: I checked and underestimated the potential of CRAW. Apparently those file size reductions sound about right. Now, I don't know if CRAW might come with downsizing options like the old mRAW and sRAW options now. If it doesn't, like on the current bodies, that does indeed sound like confirmation after all...

While 24 most likely is the the right MP count, the JPEGs coming out of the camera are rather poor proof of it. As was mentioned multiple times, Canon can easily limit those in firmware.
The resolution doesn't change if you're shooting JPEGs. Source: I've shot JPEGs all my life. The R5's JPEGs still show up as 45 MP, and the R6's still show up as 20 MP.
 
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
The resolution doesn't change, just the file size.
I just tested it with the 1D X. If I look at the EXIF of the small JPEG, it shows half the height and half the width. So these parameters really shrink with the JPEG size. However the EXIF data you get through http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi also shows lines called "Sensor Height" and "Sensor Width". Those lines should give you the real values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tapanit