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.
"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 EXIF data is still visible using a Chrome plugin. I checked to see if it was subsequently removed (perhaps a clue that this was an involuntary leak) and it has not been. The Chrome plug-in does not have fields for sensor size.I have tried the image from Jeff Cable's Blog and it hardly has any EXIF data. Maybe it was deleted after the "leak", but I did not find the original file from his blog yet. So I could not test it with the EXIF viewer.
Why is that EXIF data only visible with a Crome plugin, if it came from a Canon camera? If I upload any of my old photos to that EXIF viewer I linked, it shows me hundreds of lines of EXIF data. Did Jeff Cable use some Google program to shrink the photo for his blog or does the R3 have a new EXIF format that old EXIF viewers do not understand?The EXIF data is still visible using a Chrome plugin. I checked to see if it was subsequently removed (perhaps a clue that this was an involuntary leak) and it has not been. The Chrome plug-in does not have fields for sensor size.
I could not see EXIF in a downloaded file, but it appears fine within the browser as long as the plugin is used.
I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, unfortunately. I have zero affiliations with EXIF viewers or Jeff Cable. The viewer I used is called EXIF viewer pro and is available as a free download.Why is that EXIF data only visible with a Crome plugin, if it came from a Canon camera? If I upload any of my old photos to that EXIF viewer I linked, it shows me hundreds of lines of EXIF data. Did Jeff Cable use some Google program to shrink the photo for his blog or does the R3 have a new EXIF format that old EXIF viewers do not understand?
I found that Exif Viewer, but it only seems to be a available for Chrome. I would not install Chrome on my computer, because it really is the worst browser ever and a privacy nightmare.I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, unfortunately. I have zero affiliations with EXIF viewers or Jeff Cable. The viewer I used is called EXIF viewer pro and is available as a free download.
I switched to linux. Sadly I can't get any photo processing to work on Linux (other than Gimp), and forget DaVinci resolve!! I have an airgapped Windows 7 box for that kind of thing but unfortunately even that is too old for software nowadays. (Worse: to my surprise it apparently isn't even service pack 1, and I can't upgrade it except with a disc, and the disc requires SP 1 to function.)You should never use Windows 10 Home. Only Windows 10 Pro gives you enough control over the "telemetry".
It has been mentioned in early announcements that the R3 should have ”a resolution trick”... due to that your thinking regarding Jeff Cables photos and the EXIF:s from Tokyo, for sure are worth a penny or two...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 )
We'll call you a troll if you keep spamming the boards with the same boring, repetitive nonsense.You want to know what really happened? This is it:
Canon was producing this camera... named it the R1. When suddenly Sony launched the A1.
50mpix, 30fps. OMG, Canon went crazy.. what to do?? Well.. they decided to call the R1 the R3. Just to keep some photographers happy (mainly sports) and to buy a little time to develop the 'real' R1.
Sometimes things are so simple.
Canon is running behind guys. Sure, their glass is nice, cams are good, color is perfect, but they are not in the lead anymore. They are following instead of leading. They have to come up with a mirrorless pro body with built-in battery grip with 45 mpix asap or there are no customers left. I cannot wait forever.
And: Stop accusing people of beeing a troll when they show some critisism.
Canon is behind, that's a fact. They need to step up their game now and release the R1. Fast.